Present doctrine of atonement fallacies

[Gerr]

Quote:

John,

Adam and Eve were not looking forward to death of the Messiah. To say that God thought them OT sacrificial system would be an assumption.

If God had not taught them the sacrificial system and the principle of substitution, why would He kill some animal to clothe them? And why would righteous Abel chose to offer an animal for sacrifice? So assumption is not something based on a wild hunch!

Quote:

The truth is that Bible does not give sufficient information for us to make these conclusions.

The common though is that God rejected Cain's offering because it was grain, but God did accept grain offering in Bible, so I don't believe that was the case. The matter of the attitude was the case IMO. Either way we would be speculating, and I don't want to base my faith on speculation.

Please show that grain or any non-blood sacrifice was ever used to atone for sins.

Quote:

I don't believe that He revealed to them detailed plan of salvation,

Well, since the Bible does not spell it out, it can be argued one way or the other.

Quote:

To say that people were looking forward to death specifically as means of saving them would be an imposition. In that case we should thank Israel and Romans for doing us such a huge favor. Instead God refers to it as rejection and act of violence.

The very fact that the OT prophecies got twisted should tell us something about another power at work. Look how the visible, glorious appearing of Christ has been twisted in our present day to something as a secret appearing!!!

Quote:

So, there's more to the idea than OT style sacrificial offering.

You are right. That's why the Bible uses other salvation illustrations to teach us what it means.

[Gerr]

Originally Posted By: Gerry

Sounds like the moral influence theory that I've heard before. It has some merits, but so does the atonement by sacrifice model, the redemption model, the court model, the covenant model and the others I previously mentioned.

What do you understand these to be?

The atonement by sacrifice as I understand, uses the principle of substitution. Someone else pays the penalty for my transgressions. Sin is an affront, a rebellion, a spitting in the face of the holiest, purest, being in the universe. Sin is a debt incurred that the creature could ever pay except with his life.

The redemption model shows how someone once free is sold or conquered into slavery. He cannot pay for his own liberty. Someone else has to buy him back, the nearest of kin.

We have guests, so I'll continue this later.

[fccool]

Quote:

Please show that grain or any non-blood sacrifice was ever used to atone for sins.

You are assuming that Cain and Able were making a sin offering. It could have just as easily be a tithe type of offering.

Again, the fact that God took animal skins and clothed them does not necesserily mean that He was teaching that sacrificial system at that time. Sacrificial system did not deal with skins. He could be showing them how to make clothes.

We don't have to derive a spiritual lesson from everything that God does. Sometimes God does purely practical things with no underlying lesson.

I've heard sermons on what 5 stones that David picked up represented:

The first one was stone of righteousness

The second one was stone of faith

.... ....

Sure, assumptions are ok, but we should not build doctrines around something we can't clearly demonstrate.

[fccool]

The redemption model shows how someone once free is sold or conquered into slavery. He cannot pay for his own liberty. Someone else has to buy him back, the nearest of kin.

If we are slaves to sin, the who was the payment made out to based on that view? Sin?

[Nic Samojluk]

For one thing God didn't-- couldn't-- die.

Yes, which means that the legal theory of the atonement is inadequate to describe what took place. It required the death of one equal to God, but if Jesus’ divinity did not die, then the price for our redemption was never paid.

[John317]

Quote:

John: For one thing God didn't-- couldn't-- die.

Quote:

Nic Samojluk: Yes, which means that the legal theory of the atonement is inadequate to describe what took place. It required the death of one equal to God, but if Jesus’ divinity did not die, then the price for our redemption was never paid.

Jesus Christ was equal with the Father, and Jesus Christ died. It didn't require that deity die.

Where is your Bible evidence that deity had to die?

[Nic Samojluk]

So how do you explain Paul's assertion: Without the shedding of blood there is NO forgiveness of sins? [/quoe]

That was the easiest way to explain the plan of salvation to the Jews, since according to their covenant forgiveness was offered on condition of the sacrifice of animals. We are not under the old covenant. Under the new covenant, the blood of Jesus satisfies this requirement. Nevertheless, Jesus did explain that the blood we need to drink is not the literal blood he shed on Calvary, but rather his words of life:

Quote:

So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves. [John 6:53]

Jesus utilized his creative words to bring the universe and everything in it into existence and he uses the same powerful words to recreate a perfect character in us which reflects God's image, thus fitting us for life in heaven.

[teresaq]

There is a sense that the substitution idea is valid. That sense is that if Jesus Christ had not died, we would have.

For example, suppose there's a fire in a building, and a firefighter give his life to save some residents. Did the firefighter sacrifice his life for the residents saved? Was he their substitute? Yes on both accounts.

The concept of substitution is not objectionable. It's the concept of penal substitution that's problematic.

ive probably read it a million times, but it came to me today that the purpose of Christs death was to be resurrected, to resurrect Himself....His perfect life wasnt enough, He had to conquer death, death could not hold Him, therefore death cannot "hold" us either tho we are/have been far from faultless...

our pioneers believed adam/eve were neither mortal nor immortal, could they have died if they had not sinned?

if satan had been allowed to kill, could death have held them if satan had killed them-or one of them killed the other?

or am i completely out of the ball field? lol

[teresaq]

1.I don't think there was any other way. Only the cross could reveal the height and length and depth and breath of God's love.

2.I don't think the cross was a way which God "found" to reconcile man. I think the cross was inevitable, given the nature of man and of sin. Given God's character, and the character of the world and evil beings, it was inevitable that the cross should happen.

3.I don't think it can be argued that Christ gave Himself up for the terrible death that He experienced. Christ did so for our justification, according to Romans 4:15 IIRC. There are other verses which indicate that Christ died for our salvation. (Even John 3:16 brings out this idea). Given this is the case, there is an element of substitution involved, as in the firefighter illustration.

the point being that Jesus allowed man, instigated by satan, to kill Him to show how much He loved us--not that it was a show--it just happened to be on a cross which was the worst punishment man could inflict at the time...

during the middle ages would it have been burned at the stake?

[Nic Samojluk]

The question is--- if God is forgiving, why did Jesus have to die?

[John317]

Quote:

fccool:

To discount my point you would have to show me that

3. in the place of, instead of, (which is more precisely expressed by anti; hence the two prepositions are interchanged by Irenaeus....).... Since anything whether of an active or passive character which is undertaken on behalf of a person or thing is undertaken 'on account of' that person or thing, huper is used.

Is the prevalent and intended use for this preposition. And that it's used in terms of "substitution"... I.E. "Instead of".

There's a clear difference between doing something on behalf of someone, and doing something instead of somebody.

I'm not discounting the point that "anti" typically means "in the place of" or "instead of," or "against," whereas "huper" most often means "in behalf of," "for," "for the sake of."

My purpose is merely to show that the distinction between the words is sometimes complex and not always clear-cut. The two words are sometimes very close in meaning.

When first-year students of Greek learn the prepositions, they memorize "'anti' plus the genetive = against, instead of," and "'huper' plus the ablative= in behalf of, instead of."

Philemon 13 is translated both ways, and clearly means that Paul would like Onesimus to be able to stay there with him in Philemon's stead.

Here's Charles B. Williams' translation: "I would have liked to keep him with me, to wait on me in your stead while I wear these chains for the good news." (New Testament in the Language of the People; see also Cassirer's translation.)

I don't think we should ignore the fact that in the verses dealing with Christ's purpose in dying, Jesus tells us that he gave his life a rasom for [huper] for many. Matt. 20: 28; Mark 10: 45.

There is no doubt that these verses signify that Jesus came to give His life "a ransom [lutron] in exchange for and instead of many." (See Kenneth Wuest's translation.)

The Bible uses many metaphors and illustrations to help us understand the salvific work of Christ, and this is only one of them. It's important to consider all of them and let each one inform us of the signifance of what Christ did and continues to do.

[Nic Samojluk]

Isaiah 53 is probably as clear as any Scripture in regards to why Christ had to die. Regarding this text, Peter comments:

[Gerr]

Quote:

Please show that grain or any non-blood sacrifice was ever used to atone for sins.

You are assuming that Cain and Able were making a sin offering. It could have just as easily be a tithe type of offering.

You are assuming that it was not! Where did the very IDEA of offering come from? And if the offering was not for sin, why was Cain's fruit offering rejected? Cain's subsequent conversation with God provides the reason for the offering & the rejection - "sin lies at the door."

Quote:

Again, the fact that God took animal skins and clothed them does not necesserily mean that He was teaching that sacrificial system at that time. Sacrificial system did not deal with skins. He could be showing them how to make clothes.

Why would a merciful, loving God kill an animal to provide them with clothing if clothing was the ONLY issue? No cotton? No bark? No wool? I looked at 16 commentaries, most of them make reference to animal sacrifice in providing the skin clothing. And some specifically refer to it being symbolic of their need for a robe of righteousness.

Quote:

We don't have to derive a spiritual lesson from everything that God does. Sometimes God does purely practical things with no underlying lesson.

Perhaps, but how many instances can you cite where God or Christ did something that did not have some deeper significance?

Quote:

Sure, assumptions are ok, but we should not build doctrines around something we can't clearly demonstrate.

That goes both ways! But assumptions regarding animal sacrifices and substitution are based on some very sound clues in Scripture, whereas your assumptions are based on negative evidence as I see it.

[Gerr]

Quote:

Gerry,

What is missing here is an understanding of the meaning of blood. Blood in the Bible is a symbol of life. This is why Jesus stated the following to his followers:

Nick, go back to the beginning of the thread & see my posts #2-4.

[Nic Samojluk]

A similar question is, what was the reason Joseph was sent as a slave to Egypt?

Yes, but are we also to assume that God incited Joseph's brothers to sell him as a slave? Joseph did tell his brothers many years later that his coming to Egypt was providential in order to save his father’s family from famine.

I ask, was this the only way God could save Jacob’s family from famine? Was this the only way for God to eventually lead Joseph to the position of second in command in Egypt?

I prefer to think that God works in a providential manner in spite of our mistakes instead of thanks to them. I do not believe that God incited Joseph's brothers to treat him with such cruelty and to sell him as a slave. This incident shows that God can bring something good in spite of our mistakes and errors.

[Nic Samojluk]

Suppose that the Jewish leaders had repented and asked for forgiveness instead of crucifying the Lord. Would then God have said:

“Whoops! What do we do now? The plan of salvation is in trouble! Shall we kill Jesus in order that pardon might be available for sinners?”

This is preposterous! God did not want the Jews to kill his Only Son. The evidence is contrary to this notion that Jesus had to die.

This is why Jesus piled miracle on top of miracle in order to convince them that he was in fact the promised Messiah. And this is precisely the reason Jesus was so disappointed when his own people decided to reject him. He wept over the city of Jerusalem for a reason. He knew that Jerusalem could have been saved from a sure destruction when he lamented:

Quote:

"If you had only known today what could have brought you peace! But now it is hidden from your sight, [Luke 19:42]

[John317]

Quote:

pnattmbtc: Isaiah 53 is probably as clear as any Scripture in regards to why Christ had to die. Regarding this text, Peter comments:

Quote:

Nic Samojluk: We need to remember that some Bible translators render Is. 53:10 with the conditional term IF inserted in it, thus indicating that the death of the Messiah was not set in concrete, but was rather subject to human response.

"But the LORD was pleased To crush Him, putting Him to grief; If He would render Himself as a guilt offering, He will see His offspring, He will prolong His days, And the good pleasure of the LORD will prosper in His hand."

But there's no conditional clause at all in the rest of the chapter. For instance, look at verses 5-9, which clearly mention his suffering and death:

Isaiah 53:5-9

But he was wounded for our transgressions;

he was crushed for our iniquities;

upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace,

and with his stripes we are healed.

[6] All we like sheep have gone astray;

we have turned every one to his own way;

and the Lord has laid on him

the iniquity of us all.

[7] He was oppressed, and he was afflicted,

yet he opened not his mouth;

like a lamb that is led to the slaughter,

and like a sheep that before its shearers is silent,

so he opened not his mouth.

[8] By oppression and judgment he was taken away;

and as for his generation, who considered

that he was cut off out of the land of the living,

stricken for the transgression of my people?

[9] And they made his grave with the wicked

and with a rich man in his death,

although he had done no violence,

and there was no deceit in his mouth.

When you add this to what Peter said in Acts 2: 23 and 4, it's clear that Jesus had to die a violent death.

Acts 2:23

this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men.

There are many indications in the Bible that Jesus "had to" die:

The entire sacrificial system pointed forward to the time when Christ would die as the fulfilment of the passover lamb.

In Luke 2: 35, Mary was told, "a sword will pierce through your own soul also."

Daniel 9: 24-27 prophesied the time would come when the Messiah would be cut off in the middle of the week. Even if the Jewish people had accepted Him, Christ would have been killed.

[Nic Samojluk]

The substitutional atonement proponents have to concentrate on suffering because it has to be as horrific as possible to pay for sins of the billions of people. I don't think this is a correct way of looking at it.

The suffering was not in the mode of execution. The real suffering was rejection by the people who you love. If you ever been dumped, then you'd know what I'm talking about only times million.

[Gerr]

Originally Posted By: Gerry

Sounds like the moral influence theory that I've heard before. It has some merits, but so does the atonement by sacrifice model, the redemption model, the court model, the covenant model and the others I previously mentioned.

What do you understand these to be? How about Christus Victor?

Here is what the Wikipedia says about Christus Victor:

The term Christus Victor comes from the title of Gustaf Aulén's groundbreaking book first published in 1931 where he drew attention back to this classic early Church understanding of the Atonement.[1] In it Aulén identifies three main types of Atonement Theories:

The earliest was what Aulén called the "classic" view of the Atonement, more commonly known as Ransom Theory or since Aulén's work known sometimes as the "Christus Victor" theory: this is the theory that Adam and Eve made humanity subject to the Devil during the Fall, and that God, in order to redeem humanity, sent Christ as a "ransom" or "bait" so that the Devil, not knowing Christ couldn't die permanently, would kill him, and thus lose all right to humanity following the Resurrection.

A second theory is the "Latin" or "objective" view, more commonly known as Satisfaction Theory, beginning with Anselmian Satisfaction (that Christ suffered as a substitute on behalf of humankind satisfying the demands of God's honor) and later developed by Protestants as penal substitution (that Christ is punished instead of humanity, thus satisfying the demands of justice so that God can justly forgive). Some have argued that the penal substitution theory of the atonement was expressed by the early church fathers, such as Justin Martyr c.100-165, Eusebius of Caesarea c.275-339 , and Augustine of Hippo 354 430.[2]

A third is the "subjective" theory, commonly known as the Moral Influence view, that Christ's passion was an act of exemplary obedience which affects the intentions of those who come to know about it: it dates back to Anselm of Laon's protegé, Abelard, who was its originator.

As I understand the OT sacrificial system, it looks to me, IMHO, that Aulen made a mistake in identifying the classic view of the atonement with the Ransom theory, and the Satisfaction view with the substitution theory. To me it's the other way around. The lamb or goat was a substitute for the sinner. In the Ransom/Redemption theory, someone pays the price (ransom) or redemption price for the debt incurred.

Quote:

In particular, do you understand "atonement by sacrifice" model to be "penal substitution"?

That's what it the OT sacrifice seems to indicate to me.

Quote:

Also, do you understand the court model to be along the lines of Western justice? (i.e., like a Western court, based on retributive justice)

The Biblical view of a priest/king/judge/intercessor/defense atty has no parallel in any modern court system. But the similarity that I see is in the trial process - a suit, an investifation, trial, and a verdict.

[teresaq]

Please show that grain or any non-blood sacrifice was ever used to atone for sins.

Lev 5:11 But if he be not able to bring two turtledoves, or two young pigeons, then he that sinned shall bring for his offering the tenth part of an ephah of fine flour for a sin offering; he shall put no oil upon it, neither shall he put any frankincense thereon: for it is a sin offering.

Lev 5:12 Then shall he bring it to the priest, and the priest shall take his handful of it, even a memorial thereof, and burn it on the altar, according to the offerings made by fire unto the LORD: it is a sin offering.

Lev 5:13 And the priest shall make an atonement for him as touching his sin that he hath sinned in one of these, and it shall be forgiven him: and the remnant shall be the priest's, as a meat offering.

[Gerr]

Thank you. But as you can see, it is in the poorest cases that the rule did not apply.

[teresaq]

Originally Posted By: Gerry Cabalo

Please show that grain or any non-blood sacrifice was ever used to atone for sins.

Lev 5:11 But if he be not able to bring two turtledoves, or two young pigeons, then he that sinned shall bring for his offering the tenth part of an ephah of fine flour for a sin offering; he shall put no oil upon it, neither shall he put any frankincense thereon: for it is a sin offering.

Lev 5:12 Then shall he bring it to the priest, and the priest shall take his handful of it, even a memorial thereof, and burn it on the altar, according to the offerings made by fire unto the LORD: it is a sin offering.

Lev 5:13 And the priest shall make an atonement for him as touching his sin that he hath sinned in one of these, and it shall be forgiven him: and the remnant shall be the priest's, as a meat offering.

[fccool]

You are assuming that it was not! Where did the very IDEA of offering come from? And if the offering was not for sin, why was Cain's fruit offering rejected? Cain's subsequent conversation with God provides the reason for the offering & the rejection - "sin lies at the door."

"Sin lies at the door" was not a reason for rejection, but a warning and a prophecy in a way of what will happen next. Hebrews author noted that Abel had faith in God, and Cain did not. This was not something that happened only once. That's the reason why Abel's offering was accepted, and Cain's was not. It may or may not had to do with blood, but I doubt it. God provided for all kinds of offering for thanksgiving, and there's not indication that this was in fact a sin offering. There's not indication that it was not, but let's not build doctrine around this.

]

Why would a merciful, loving God kill an animal to provide them with clothing if clothing was the ONLY issue? No cotton? No bark? No wool? I looked at 16 commentaries, most of them make reference to animal sacrifice in providing the skin clothing. And some specifically refer to it being symbolic of their need for a robe of righteousness.

Why would merciful God curse the earth animals to hunt down and eat each other ... even to the point of killing people? God's priority has always been man's well-being. My point is that it does not state so directly. If so, then great... or shall we make doctrines based on assumptions? I don't build doctrines based on these verses, and I don't think anyone should. God did not include certain clarifications, because perhaps we should not dwell on these.

Perhaps, but how many instances can you cite where God or Christ did something that did not have some deeper significance?

Quote:

and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters

God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so.

God called the expanse "sky."

And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so. God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas."

But God remembered Noah and all the wild animals and the livestock that were with him in the ark, and he sent a wind over the earth, and the waters receded.

Sometimes God does what's needed, because it's needed... without any underlying spiritual lesson.

Quote:

That goes both ways! But assumptions regarding animal sacrifices and substitution are based on some very sound clues in Scripture, whereas your assumptions are based on negative evidence as I see it.

Sure, you may say that, but I prefer to believe that the lack of information in the Bible serves a purpose... and that purpose does not revolve around us guessing what might have happened there.

[pnattmbtc]

G:Sounds like the moral influence theory that I've heard before. It has some merits, but so does the atonement by sacrifice model, the redemption model, the court model, the covenant model and the others I previously mentioned.

p:What do you understand these to be?

G:The atonement by sacrifice as I understand, uses the principle of substitution. Someone else pays the penalty for my transgressions.

Sin is an affront, a rebellion, a spitting in the face of the holiest, purest, being in the universe. Sin is a debt incurred that the creature could ever pay except with his life.

The redemption model shows how someone once free is sold or conquered into slavery. He cannot pay for his own liberty. Someone else has to buy him back, the nearest of kin.

We have guests, so I'll continue this later.

Ok. Thanks for the response.

A couple of quick comments. One is that the idea of sacrifice that you are suggesting I think was first articulated by Calvin. It's not the idea that the Hebrews or any contemporary culture of Christ had in regards to sacrifice. The idea of redemption was one that existed, but not in the context of the payment of a penalty.

Regarding the moral influence theory and Christus Victor, people tend to call anything that is not penal substitution "the Moral Influence Theory," but the moral influence theory is of rather recent origin, about the same time as penal substitution. However, the Christus Victor theme was articulated from the time of Christ on.

[pnattmbtc]

If God had not taught them the sacrificial system and the principle of substitution, why would He kill some animal to clothe them?

Why do you think God killed an animal?