ransom or substitutionary atonement?

[SinnerInTheHands]

Atonement does not equal substitutionary atonement. In the Hebraic Covenant, Atonement sacrifices were not substitutionary: the bull or dove or whatever did not substitute for the sinner; they were simply offered up in love.

There is no Biblical proof for this position whatsoever.

 

[Open Heart]

1. Death is the result of sin.
2. The animal was dying for the sins of Israel.

Using that logic, when an animal starves to death in winter, it's substitutionary atonement. sheesh.

 

[Open Heart]

There is no Biblical proof for this position whatsoever.

All the Biblical commandments are obeyed out of love. They are divided into "Love God" and "Love your neighbor." The sacrificial commandments are in the "Love God" category. No where in the Torah does it offer heaven or riches etc for obeying the commandments and offering the sacrifices. You simply did it because God asked it.

 

[SinnerInTheHands]

The sacrificial commandments are in the "Love God" category. No where in the Torah does it offer heaven or riches etc for obeying the commandments and offering the sacrifices.

It offered forgiveness of sins, and was done out of penance, not "love" and "because God asked for it."

 

[Open Heart]

It offered forgiveness of sins, and was done out of penance, not "love" and "because God asked for it."

Of course. But why should we want forgiveness? Because we love God and want to be reconciled with him.

 

[Poor Beggar]

Using that logic, when an animal starves to death in winter, it's substitutionary atonement. sheesh.

Not really. Nobody's presenting the animal as a sacrifice on an altar in a temple. You sound like this conversation is frustrating you and I'm not trying to do that so I'm going to bow out.

 

[Dialogist]

The understanding of what Christ did for us on the Cross has changed over time

Strictly speaking, I don't think this is true. I don't think there has been any change in what the Eastern Orthodox Church has believed from the time of the Church's founding at Pentecost.

What you say about the early Church having no concept of substitutionary atonement is true. I believe that that particular doctrine can be traced to the medieval Roman Catholic Church in the teachings of Anselm of Canterbury in the 11th century - a time by which the Roman Church had split from the Eastern Church. The doctrine of substitutionary atonement - or, more precisely, penal substitutional atonement - is, as far as I know, considered to be heresy by the Eastern Orthodox Church, as well as, I believe, by the non-Chalcedonian Orthodox Churches.

 

[Hank77]

The doctrine of substitutionary atonement - or, more precisely, penal substitutional atonement - is, as far as I know, considered to be heresy by the Eastern Orthodox Church, as well as, I believe, by the non-Chalcedonian Orthodox Churches.

I don't know if your church teaches that is heresy are not, but I think my view is close to your churches view.

Penal substitutional atonement, as in the sacrificial animal of the OT sin-offering, by many is seen as a innocent victim who dies in the place of the sinner. http://www.jewfaq.org/qorbanot.htm

Jesus was innocent but not a victim. He laid down His life willingly, He paid the ransom price so that we could be free to serve God and have the hope of the resurrection, an end to death.

I don't see that the Father was getting revenge or restitution for our sin by the death of His Son.

 

[BobRyan]

The early church in the NT saw it as substitutionary atonement.
1 Cor 5 "Christ our Passover has been slain".
John 1 "the Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world"
1 John 2:2 "he is the Atoning Sacrifice for Our sin and not for OUR sins only but for the sins of the whole World"

The Passover lamb is slain instead of the first born -- it is substitutionary atonement.

1Cor 5 is not saying that Christ was sacrificed "For the joy of it" or that men did that to Christ out of worship to God or Joy. The 1Cor 5 statement is about substitutionary atonement. I think we can all agree on this irrefutable point.

1. Passover sacrifice is NOT atonement sacrifice.

I think it is fair to say that " we differ" on that point.

Is 53 "he took the stroke for us - to whom the stroke was due"
which is why in Lev 16 God gives us the Atonement model for forgiveness.

That atonement model in the Bible is always substitutionary atonement - a blood sacrifice to set someone free- as did the Passover Lamb in the case of the firstborn in Egypt.

1. Atonement does not equal substitutionary atonement. In the Hebraic Covenant, Atonement sacrifices were not substitutionary: the bull or dove or whatever did not substitute for the sinner;

They were sin offerings as Lev 16 points out with the Atonement. "The blood of the sin offering".

"11 “And Aaron shall bring the bull of the sin offering, which is for himself,"
"15 “Then he shall kill the goat of the sin offering, which is for the people

1. [*]Isaiah 53 is not about an atonement sacrifice.

Until you read Is 53 and see the substitionary atonement.

Is 53:
10 Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise Him;
He has put Him to grief.
When You make His soul an offering for sin,
He shall see His seed, He shall prolong His days,
And the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in His hand.
11 He shall see the labor of His soul, and be satisfied.
By His knowledge My righteous Servant shall justify many,
For He shall bear their iniquities.

12
Because He poured out His soul unto death,
And He was numbered with the transgressors,
And He bore the sin of many,
And made intercession for the transgressors.

 

[Open Heart]

I think it is fair to say that " we differ" on that point.

We differ on a lot of points. You do a lot of eisegesis, my friend.

 

[BobRyan]

It is called exegesis - done without complaining about other posters.

In the case of Isaiah 53 - the text speaks for itself which is why we find so often that the mere quote of it is sufficient to give rise to complaints.

 

[Berean777]

You switched from ownership to accusation. They are two different things.

Satan does not get paid at the cross. He gets exposed and thereby defeated.

It is a contravesy and contraversies tend to be personally involved and complicated. You haven't yet got the grasp of the idea but you will in time after I have highlighted it to you.

There is no substitution. Satan could claim ownership of mans fall if God stood back and did nothing about it. So it was God's very character and image on the line. God makes the stand at the Garden to meet Satan at his challenge by saying I will crush your head for this. This to me is quite personal don't you think. After all God could have physically crushed his head right there and then, but it wasn't a physical blow against God but an argument against his character. So God couldn't just wack him otherwise it would further strengthen Satan's argument.

So it was a matter of who owned man. God on the one hand saying I created man in my own image by vesting so much into him and on the other hand Satan saying see how easily I have owned man. Consider the story of Job how God says consider Job, whilst Satan says I can own him easily if you dare to allow me to show you.
The contraversy continues from the Garden to the cross until God silences Satan's argument once and for all times.

 

[Berean777]

God points to his high priest servant the branch whom God will use to end the contraversy once and for all times. The phrase I will remove the sins of the land in one day, pointing to the cross.
This phrase is personal to God as he is saying that he has cleared his name in one day as promised in the Garden when he said he will do it.

You have pre law promise at the Garden
You have post law promise post Sinai
You have the branch promise post cross

It is finished, the contraversy ended at the cross.

Zechariah 3
1Then he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the Lord, and Satana standing at his right side to accuse him. 2The Lord said to Satan, “The Lord rebuke you, Satan! The Lord, who has chosen Jerusalem, rebuke you! Is not this man a burning stick snatched from the fire?”

3Now Joshua was dressed in filthy clothes as he stood before the angel.4The angel said to those who were standing before him, “Take off his filthy clothes.”

Then he said to Joshua, “See, I have taken away your sin, and I will put fine garments on you.”

5Then I said, “Put a clean turban on his head.” So they put a clean turban on his head and clothed him, while the angel of the Lord stood by.

6The angel of the Lord gave this charge to Joshua: 7“This is what theLord Almighty says: ‘If you will walk in obedience to me and keep my requirements, then you will govern my house and have charge of my courts, and I will give you a place among these standing here.

8“ ‘Listen, High Priest Joshua, you and your associates seated before you, who are men symbolic of things to come: I am going to bring my servant, the Branch. 9See, the stone I have set in front of Joshua! There are seven eyesbon that one stone, and I will engrave an inscription on it,’ says the Lord Almighty, ‘and I will remove the sin of this land in a single day.

 

[Berean777]

Where is the substitution. Who is God substituting himself for.

 

[BobRyan]

QUOTE="BobRyan, post: 68549267, member: 235244"]The Passover lamb is slain instead of the first born -- it is substitutionary atonement.

1Cor 5 is not saying that Christ was sacrificed "For the joy of it" or that men did that to Christ out of worship to God or Joy. The 1Cor 5 statement is about substitutionary atonement. I think we can all agree on this irrefutable point.


I think it is fair to say that " we differ" on that point.



That atonement model in the Bible is always substitutionary atonement - a blood sacrifice to set someone free- as did the Passover Lamb in the case of the firstborn in Egypt.



They were sin offerings as Lev 16 points out with the Atonement. "The blood of the sin offering".

"11 “And Aaron shall bring the bull of the sin offering, which is for himself,"
"15 “Then he shall kill the goat of the sin offering, which is for the people

Until you read Is 53 and see the substitionary atonement.

Is 53:
10 Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise Him;
He has put Him to grief.
When You make His soul an offering for sin,
He shall see His seed, He shall prolong His days,
And the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in His hand.
11 He shall see the labor of His soul, and be satisfied.
By His knowledge My righteous Servant shall justify many,
For He shall bear their iniquities.

12
Because He poured out His soul unto death,
And He was numbered with the transgressors,
And He bore the sin of many,
And made intercession for the transgressors.[/QUOTE]

Where is the substitution. Who is God substituting himself for.

Are you asking that about Isaiah 53??

Or 1 John 2:2? "he is the Atoning Sacrifice for OUR sins and not for our sins only but for the sins of the whole world"

 

[Berean777]

The Garden Story is the beginning of the story narrative where a contravesy resulted between God and Satan. Man became the central conflicting point of interest and contention that Satan used to get back at God for creating him. So the story brought this epic conflict to an end at the cross, in one day as God had promised he would do, traced back all the way to the garden.
Offcourse what God said in the Garden would take time to accomplish through many generations until he brought out the branch.
Man was never intended to be substitutrd for, rather God squarely placed himself in the story as the central character Jesus of Nazareth who would bring resolution to the epic conflict.
Satan must have beenshocked when he realised that God came in person to deal with Satan by putting himself on harmsway for mankind and uphold his image to this very day. God's image was at stake. He couldn't rely on man to clear his name, God needed to clear his name by coming down himself and pouring his blood on all of creation to stop Satan arguments. Since God became man Satan couldn't make an avcussation against man because that would be asinine at best because he knows God is Holy, Holy, Holy.

 

[Berean777]

All this language is saying that man was the cause of all of God's grief. So to clear his name God delt with Satan's accussations himself by taking man out of the equation. You see the conflict was never about man and God to begin with. It was between God and Satan and that is why God would many times say God rebuke you Satan as a remark drats your at it again.
Man was just an inocent victine between the opponents of tgis epic conflict that surpasses any conscious beings lifetime. God covered for us when we failed him miserably doesn't mean substitution. In fact if you use the word substitution were being substituted out of the conflict so that man is no longer in the equation and now with man out of the equation it reverts back to conflict between God and Satan which still continues by the way. Now man isn't the scape goat for Satan and any accussation that Satan makes has to be directed at God. Satan is too smart to have a direct tiff with God so he will want to make people on their own to remove this daily sacrifice on the cross for atonement of sins, so that man is once again broight bacj into the conflict.
Can this happen one would say?
Well yes, look at the interfaith ecumenical movement alongside religious tolerance and the heretical teachings going around that people who don't have Christ csn also be saved by their works that atones or substitutes for their sins, like the jewish mitzvahs.
Now many church elders are teaching this and it is the work of the devil in a last ditch effort to once again bring man into the conflict, hence deceive the nations yet again.

 

[Open Heart]

It is called exegesis - done without complaining about other posters.

No, I was quite clear. I meant you do eisegesis.

 

[BobRyan]

false accusation - not as compelling as attention to detail

 

[BobRyan]

Here is the detail some may wish to avoid - but it remains ... the Word of God.

QUOTE="BobRyan, post: 68549267, member: 235244"]The Passover lamb is slain instead of the first born -- it is substitutionary atonement.

1Cor 5 is not saying that Christ was sacrificed "For the joy of it" or that men did that to Christ out of worship to God or Joy. The 1Cor 5 statement is about substitutionary atonement. I think we can all agree on this irrefutable point.

That atonement model in the Bible is always substitutionary atonement - a blood sacrifice to set someone free- as did the Passover Lamb in the case of the firstborn in Egypt.

They were sin offerings as Lev 16 points out with the Atonement. "The blood of the sin offering".

"11 “And Aaron shall bring the bull of the sin offering, which is for himself,"
"15 “Then he shall kill the goat of the sin offering, which is for the people


Until you read Is 53 and see the substitionary atonement.

Is 53:
10 Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise Him;
He has put Him to grief.
When You make His soul an offering for sin,
He shall see His seed, He shall prolong His days,
And the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in His hand.
11 He shall see the labor of His soul, and be satisfied.
By His knowledge My righteous Servant shall justify many,
For He shall bear their iniquities.

12
Because He poured out His soul unto death,
And He was numbered with the transgressors,
And He bore the sin of many,
And made intercession for the transgressors.[/QUOTE]