What is Atonement

[holyrokker]

I would like to participate is a civil, respectful discussion about atonement.

Here is my initial offering:

Imagine a young couple in a heated argument: angry voices, hurtful words, doors being slammed, followed by tense silence.

They still love each other, but they can’t undo what has been done.

The young husband, regretting his words, buys some flowers the next day and brings them to his wife as a token of his remorse. She accepts the flowers and throws her arms around him, forgiving him completely.

In a sense, the flowers represent an atonement. The young bride does not forgive her husband because of the flowers. She forgives him because of her love for him. The flowers symbolize the young man’s contrite heart.

Similarly, the motivation for God’s forgiveness of our sins is not the death of Christ, but rather His love toward us.

 

[Brother Chris]

I would like to participate is a civil, respectful discussion about atonement.

Here is my initial offering:

Imagine a young couple in a heated argument: angry voices, hurtful words, doors being slammed, followed by tense silence.

They still love each other, but they can’t undo what has been done.

The young husband, regretting his words, buys some flowers the next day and brings them to his wife as a token of his remorse. She accepts the flowers and throws her arms around him, forgiving him completely.

In a sense, the flowers represent an atonement. The young bride does not forgive her husband because of the flowers. She forgives him because of her love for him. The flowers symbolize the young man’s contrite heart.

Similarly, the motivation for God’s forgiveness of our sins is not the death of Christ, but rather His love toward us.

No, the death of Christ, his blood being shed on the cross is the source of our forgiveness. Please read,

This is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. - Matthew 26:28

In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness. - Hebrews 9:22

The only way God can forgive sinners, is through Christ and Him being the propitiation for our sins. Yes, God provided such a sacrifice out of His love for His people.

 

[hedrick]

What's interesting about both the Words of Institution and Heb 9 is that they connect Jesus' blood with a covenant sacrifice. You need to look at all of Heb 9 and 10. The implication of both is that Jesus' death establishes the new covenant under which God no longer counts sins against us (Heb 10:16-17). Hence Heb doesn't interpret his death as a sacrifice for sin. 3-7 actually says that God doesn't want such sacrifices, paralleling Ps 4:6-8.

So Jesus death changes our relationship with God, establishing a new covenant. I don't think we can find in Jesus' own words an explanation for how it does that. Heb takes for granted the OT sacrificial tradition, without explaining it. My understanding of sacrifices is that they are in fact, much as the OP suggests, ways of making our commitment visible. They are used for covenants as well as to show repentance after sin. God, of course, doesn’t need the offering. The prophets and Psalms are clear that God wants repentance, not sacrifice. But the sacrifice acts as a kind of sacrament, to make visible the commitment. In this case, of course, the sacrifice comes from God’s side, as the new covenant is a unilateral one which he is establishing.

Paul, in Rom 6, given the most explicit answer I know in the NT. he says that through our union with Christ we die to sin and come into new life. This makes the Resurrection more important than the crucifixion in some sense, because it’s coming into new life that is the key for him, though of course we can’t come into new life without dying to the old.

 

[Epiphoskei]

Similarly, the motivation for God’s forgiveness of our sins is not the death of Christ, but rather His love toward us.

The death of Christ is itself the forgiveness of our sins. So technically, yes, the motivation for God's forgiveness of our sins (i.e., the death of Christ) is not the death of Christ. In that case the death of Christ would be motivated by the logically death atonement of Christ.

 

[holyrokker]

Atonement is not strictly a theological concept. Atonement is a relationship tool. It is an act that facilitates the ability to restore a fractured relationship.

In most cases, the offender is the party that brings an atonement. However, there are times when the offended is the one who initiates the process of reconciliation. In such a situation, the atonement is not intended to appease the offended. Afterall, this person is already predisposed to restore the relationship. Instead, the purpose of the atonement is to persuade the offender.

Using my previous analogy. Instead of the husband buying flowers as a way of demonstrating his remorse, perhaps the wife prepares her husband's favorite meal as a sign that she has already overlooked his offense and wants to move forward in the relationship.

This is the case with God. We are the offenders, yet God Himself initiated the process of reconciliation. The purpose was not to persuade Himself to forgive us, nor to appease His own wrath. Rather, the purpose of His atonement was to convince His own people that He has already overlooked our sin, and wants us to move forward with Him in covenantal relationship.

 

[holyrokker]

In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness. - Hebrews 9:22

This sentence is part of the author's thesis that Christ instituted a better covenant than the Levitical covenant. Under the levitical law, blood was required before sin could be forgiven.

But Christ sets aside the law, instituting a new covenant. That new covenant puts an end to the requirement of blood sacrifices. Forgiveness is part of the covenant relationship. The blood of Jesus is the basis of that covenant.

 

[bling]

I would like to participate is a civil, respectful discussion about atonement.

Here is my initial offering:

Imagine a young couple in a heated argument: angry voices, hurtful words, doors being slammed, followed by tense silence.

They still love each other, but they can’t undo what has been done.

The young husband, regretting his words, buys some flowers the next day and brings them to his wife as a token of his remorse. She accepts the flowers and throws her arms around him, forgiving him completely.

In a sense, the flowers represent an atonement. The young bride does not forgive her husband because of the flowers. She forgives him because of her love for him. The flowers symbolize the young man’s contrite heart.

Similarly, the motivation for God’s forgiveness of our sins is not the death of Christ, but rather His love toward us.

First off: you do great to realize: “God does not personally need Christ to go to the cross in order for God to forgive”!

I also like the idea of the offender bringing something to the offended.

The thing is we are not talking about an argument among people or bring a token gift.

The subject you are addressing is huge since books have been written on it with lots of different conclusions; mostly due to the preconceived ideas of the authors.

We can work on this together and draw our own most likely alternative interpretation that will be very biblical, consistent and logical.
To begin with:

During the time of Christ, the Jewish people in and around Jerusalem would have had a much better understanding of atonement since atonement sacrifices were going on every hour at the temple, maybe thousands each day. All mature adults would have most likely participated in the individual process of atonement, but this was only for unintentional sins (really minor sins) since intentional sins had no Old Testament system for atonement.

Those only able to afford a bag of flour (Lev. 5) certainly would not have considered that bag of flour to be a “substitute” for them. There is nothing to suggest the Jewish people ever thought of any sacrifices to be substitutes for them. So what did they experience in this atonement process for unintentional sins? If we could relate to their atonement experience for “minor” sins we might be able to extrapolate to what the atonement process would be like for intentional sins? (Read Lev. 5)

Forgiveness for unintentional sins came after the completion of the atonement process (Lev. 5), but did God need a bag of flour to forgive the person’s sins?

Would God need anything to forgive a person’s sins or is it the person needing something to accept that forgiveness as pure charity?

Is Christ Crucified described by Paul, Peter, Jesus, John and the Hebrew writer as a ransom type payment?

I find the ransom analogy to be an excellent fit and I am not talking about the “Ransom Theory of Atonement”

Ransom analogy having:

1. Someone other than the captive paying the ransom.

2. The payment is a huge sacrificial payment for the payer who would personally prefer not to pay.

3. Since those that come to God must come as children, it is the children of God that go to the Father.

4. The payer cannot safely get his children any other way than making the payment.

5. The kidnapper is totally undeserving.

6. The kidnap can accept or reject the payment.


Go to Luke 15: 11-32 the prodigal son story to illustrate:

Who in the middle of the night snuck in and dragged off the young son, force the son to do evil stuff and finally chained him to a pigsty starving to death?

Who returned to the father, was it the son that rebelliously wished his father’s death so he could get his inheritance or was it the child of the father?

We can only come to our Father as children, so who is keeping the nonbeliever in the unbelieving state (the kidnapper)?

There is the one ransom, but could there be many kidnappers and many children?

Who are the kidnappers?

Looking at verses in particular:

(NIV) Ro. 3:25 God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished—

“God presented” this might be better expressed as “God is offering” since it will later be received, not received or rejected on the contingency of some kind of “faith”. Instead of received it might better be translated as accepted (with the option of being rejected or not accepted).

“Sacrifice of atonement” is described by Jesus, Paul, Peter, John and the Hebrew writer as the “ransom payment” or just “ransom”. So God is offering a ransom payment to be accepted by those with faith or rejected by those refusing or just not accepted by those lacking faith.

A huge part of that ransom payment that especially applies to those that are already Christians is the life giving cleansing blood of Christ. Christ and God would have personally preferred that blood remained in Christ’s veins, but I needed it given up by Christ to flow over both my outside and my heart to know, experience, “trust” and feel I am cleansed and made alive. So Christ willingly gave up His blood for me and because of me. This is an overwhelming tragedy I insisted on to believe: I was made holy, righteous and stand justified. Without knowing and feeling this blood flowing over my heart, I might question my cleansing?

“Demonstrate his righteousness” God did not become righteous, but just showed the righteousness He has always had. (God’s justice/ holiness/being right) comes with the atoning sacrifice that includes the life giving cleansing blood showing God’s righteousness/justice in a very particular way; by resolving the huge problem that existed under the Old Covenant. That huge problem in the Old Covenant was with the handling of intentional sins that where committed, repented of, and which the individual sought forgiveness from God for doing (and God forgave without justly disciplining the sinner [thus not showing His righteousness through His disciplining]). These sins could be forgiven by God, but there was no way to fairly/justly discipline (punish) the sinner and still have the sinner live in the Promised Land. God did have fair/just punishments (discipline) for these sins, but the Jews could not follow through with them, since all Jews deserved to be treated similarly (there would be no one left in the Promised Land).

“in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished” Instead of “unpunished” I would translate that Greek word to be “undisciplined”.

“because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished”, shows the contrast between before and after the cross. This is not saying: before the cross sins are now being punished by Christ going to the cross, but that they were left unpunished. If they are being handled the “same way” as sins after the cross there would be no contrast? (And there are lots of other problems with this reasoning.) There is no “punishment” (disciplining for intentional sins) before the cross and there is “punishment” (disciplining of God’s children) with the cross.

Any good parent realizes the need for not just forgiving their rebellious disobedient child, but to also see to the child’s fair/just/loving discipline if at all possible, but under the Old Covenant there was no “fair/just/loving discipline” so God could not show His justice/righteousness except to point out in the Law what really should happen, but that is not “good” disciplining, the child can almost feel they got away with something.

By my coming to the realization of my forcing Christ to be tortured, humiliated and murdered, because of my personal sins I experience a death blow to my heart (Acts 2: 37) the worst possible experience I can have and still live (That is also the most sever disciplining I can experience and still live). Thus I know God is my loving concerned Parent (since He at great cost has seen to my disciplining). I know how significant my sins really are; I can put those sins behind me after being disciplined. Since God and Jesus shared in my disciplining “I am crucified with Christ” (a teaching moment) our relationship is even greater than before my transgressing.

What is the benefit/value for us that we would want to accept the ransom payment of Christ’s torture, humiliation and murder?

What value benefit did it have for those 3000 on the day of Pentecost?

Would those 3000 have become baptized believers on the day of Pentecost if Peter had not been able to say: Acts 2:36 “…this Jesus whom you crucified”?

So for those 3000, their crucifying Christ (ransom payment/atoning sacrifice) resulted in them becoming baptized believers on the day of Pentecost! Did it have value for them?

This will get us started if you really want to know.

 

[dms1972]

This will get us started if you really want to know.

"Let God be true and every man a liar." Romans 3:4

"I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ." Galatians 1:11

"Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified." Gal. 3:1

"You see just at the right time, when we where still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous man, though for a good man someone might possibly dare to die. But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were sinners Christ died for us. Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God's wrath through him! For if, when we were God's enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of His Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life!" Romans 5:6 - 10

"How much more then will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit, offered Himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God. For this reason Christ is a mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance - now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins commited under the first covenant....Just as man is destined to die once and after that the judgement...so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people..." Hebrews

I try to be civil and may in fact be more civil for taking the doctrine seriously even if I strongly disagree with some of what has been said. None of us is infalliable, so I try not to be dogmatic where I am unsure. But its also wrong to not be clear where scripture is clear.

I have one of the best modern theological treatises on the Atonement, by Hugh Martin. Another more contemporary book by Thomas Smail called The Forgotten Father both to me are excellent books on the subject.




I need to ask if I am misunderstanding or is there a wind of teaching here that Christ death was not a sacrifice? Or that God could forgive without it? To be sure the sacrifices God requires are not the blood of goats, or burnt offerings, even though God commanded those before He sent His Son. But rather a broken spirit and contrite heart as the Psalmist says.

But returning to God is not like making up with your wife! A better analogy that is still very far from capturing the situation might be that it is more like a man approaching the father of his bride to be, who has already paid for the wedding, to tell him the reason his daughter is upset is that he was cheating and sleeping with someone else!

"Beware of the pleasant view of the Fatherhood of God - God is so loving and kind that of course he will forgive us. That sentiment has no place whatever in the New Testament. The only ground on which God can forgive us is the tremendous tragedy of the Cross of Christ; to put forgiveness on any other ground is unconscious blasphemy." Oswald Chambers


Chambers comments seem hard, and it took me awhile to come round to see what he was saying. On the one hand God is not an angry Father. He is the Father of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, and He could not be more pleased with his precious Son, and this was revealed at Jesus' Baptism. So any notion that God was punishing his Son in some temper tantrum I can't find in the Bible at all. In fact its sometimes only put that way to ridicule one theory of the atonement. Its seems to me the Atonement can't be looked at in any one dimensional way - whether a moral influence, or ransom payment or some other theory. But its still a sacrifice and a bearing of the curse brought on by original sin.

Jesus Christ was crucified under Pontius Pilate (article of the Nicene creed)


Friend, its not love and discipline that Bible tells us we are saved from - it is from God's holy wrath against ungodliness. Hence every evangelist during the great awakenings with a love for the lost asked his listeners: "How shall we escape if we neglect so great salvation?" http://biblehub.com/hebrews/2-3.htm And told his listeners to "Flee to Jesus Christ"

This if presented wrongly may leave the impression that Jesus is loving and God is not. But in the bible God is holy and His holiness is what gives meaning to every other attribute of his character - love, grace, justice.... and so on.

Man is not God. One person may forgive another, but the forgiveness is something Christ brought from Heaven whether we realise that or not is my view

I'll add that God is also patient and long-suffering. His holiness and patience are not in opposition to each other. Divine Wrath isn't like a greek god throwing bolts of lightning.

This may not be popular teaching but if one ignores this, the sense of God's Presence is lost. Wrath is not the essence of Holiness either. In my view it is penultimate. It is the response based on perfect wisdom of God's Holiness to that which is in opposition to it.

In the letter to the Hebrews the author says that a better sacrifice was needed to purify the heavenly sanctuary, or "the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not man made, that is to say not a part of this creation". Hebrews 9:11

Then He (Jesus in his office of High Priest) said "Here I am, I have come to do your will. " He sets aside the first to establish the second. Any by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. Hebrews 10:10


As a human being, a creature, I cannot atone for myself or anyone else, no other mere human being can atone for me. God must atone because man cannot. To atone in the human situation created by the fall and sin, God became a particular man, Jesus of Nazareth (this is called the Incarnation) and he became Incarnate to Atone.

God in the Bible provides the sacrifice. Jesus is the High Priest and also the sacrifice. The sacrifice is from God and by God's initiative, and with God.


Anselm in the eleventh century was the first to write a full theological treatise on the Atonement as a sacrifice to satisfy God's holiness and justice.

 

[bling]

"Let God be true and every man a liar." Romans 3:4

"I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ." Galatians 1:11

"Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified." Gal. 3:1

"You see just at the right time, when we where still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous man, though for a good man someone might possibly dare to die. But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were sinners Christ died for us. Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God's wrath through him! For if, when we were God's enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of His Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life!" Romans 5:6 - 10

"How much more then will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit, offered Himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God. For this reason Christ is a mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance - now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins commited under the first covenant....Just as man is destined to die once and after that the judgement...so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people..." Hebrews

I'll try to be civil and may in fact be more civil for taking the doctrine seriously even if I strongly disagree with most of whats been said. None of us is infalliable, so I try not to be dogmatic where I am unsure. But its also wrong to not be clear where scripture is clear.

I have one of the best modern theological treatises on the Atonement, by Hugh Martin. Another more contemporary book by Thomas Smail called The Forgotten Father both to me are excellent books on the subject.

I need to ask if I am misunderstanding or is there a wind of teaching here that Christ death was not a sacrifice? To be sure the sacrifices God requires are not the blood of goats, or burnt offerings, even though God commanded those. But rather a broken spirit and contrite heart as the Psalmist says.

But returning to God through Jesus Christ is not making up with your girlfriend. A better analogy that is still very far off might be that it is more like approaching the father of your bride to be, who has already paid for the wedding, and telling him the reason his daughter is upset is that you were cheating and sleeping with someone else.

"Beware of the pleasant view of the Fatherhood of God - God is so loving and kind that of course he will forgive us. That sentiment has no place whatever in the New Testament. The only ground on which God can forgive us is the tremendous tragedy of the Cross of Christ; to put forgiveness on any other ground is unconscious blasphemy." Oswald Chambers

Jesus Christ was crucified under Pontius Pilate (article of the Nicene creed)


Friend, its not love and discipline that Bible tells us we are saved from - it is from God's holy wrath against ungodliness. Hence every evangelist during the great awakenings with a love for the lost asked his listeners: "How shall we escape if we neglect so great salvation?" Hebrews 2:3 how shall we escape if we ignore so great a salvation? This salvation, which was first announced by the Lord, was confirmed to us by those who heard him. And told his listeners to "Flee to Jesus Christ"

This if presented wrongly may leave the impression that Jesus is loving and God is not. But in the bible God is Holy and His Holiness is what gives meaning to every other attribute of his character - love, grace, justice.... and so on.

In the letter to the Hebrews the author says that a better sacrifice was needed to purify the heavenly sanctuary, or "the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not man made, that is to say not a part of this creation". Hebrews 9:11

Then He (Jesus in his office of High Priest) said "Here I am, I have come to do your will. " He sets aside the first to establish the second. Any by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. Hebrews 10:10

God in the Bible provides the sacrifice, Jesus is the High Priest and also the sacrifice, the sacrifice is from God and by God's initiative, and with God.

As a human being, a creature, I cannot atone for myself or anyone else, no other mere human being can atone for me. God must atone because man cannot. To atone in the human situation created by the fall and sin, God became a particular man, Jesus of Nazareth (this is called the Incarnation) and he became Incarnate to Atone.

Thank you for your concern, but you did not address any of my questions or comments specifically, so where do you see me going astray?

I like your comment here: “…its not love and discipline that Bible tells us we are saved from - it is from God's holy wrath against ungodliness”, so tell me this how have you been disciplined for your sins since we cannot escape this?

 

[dms1972]

Thank you for your concern, but you did not address any of my questions or comments specifically, so where do you see me going astray?

Thanks I had edited my post. Your questions were not directed to me. Nevertheless several of scriptures I provided answered some of the questions you posed.

I like your comment here: “…its not love and discipline that Bible tells us we are saved from - it is from God's holy wrath against ungodliness”, so tell me this how have you been disciplined for your sins since we cannot escape this?

I haven't asked you personal questions in my post, as a courtesy to your own privacy - that doesn't mean that I have to agree with what you have written.

But simply read the bible and tell me why the bible speaks of both discipline or more properly chastening - and judgement for those who spurn His Grace, call Him a liar and die in rebellion? Romans 1:18-32, 2:1-4

It's holy wrath not discipline from which we are saved, because wrath is both abandonment to continue in sin which will in the end lead to death. Paul says before coming to Jesus we were in the dominion of darkness, that's not a place of discipline, its a state of rebellion. When God by His Grace intervenes, those who repent and trust in Christ Alone are rescued from the dominion of darkness and brought into the Kingdom of His dear Son. http://biblehub.com/colossians/1-13.htm

The Inspired Scriptures that states those who neglect the great salvation, those who do not flee to Jesus Christ, receive him, or trust Him, shall not escape from God's wrath to come against those who continue unrepentant, rebellious while in view of God's Grace in Jesus Christ thus showing ingratitude for God's indescribable gift of salvation.

His gift of His Son, I believe and am most grateful for and continue to trust in, perhaps He will give me better understanding as I live by faith as Augustine said. In any case I am not going to be unmindful that there will be Day of Judgement for that I find keeps me chaste in my fear and love of God.

Jesus life and death were of perfect obedience to God the Father, that no doubt is part of what makes His a better sacrifice. If that is what you mean then I wholly agree. He also offered Himself as the spotless Lamb of God. That he was at the same time High Priest making a better and once for all sacrifice is not something to "get my head round", but something to believe and be thankful for.

Disciples of Jesus can't escape discipline (through the church). Chastening is often through loss of assurance, other loss. Those who do not receive God's Grace and Truth and remain unrepentant and unbelieving till the end of life can expect only Judgement. All believers will have their works and words judged (tried by fire) after they die at Christ's Judgement Seat.

 

[bling]

Thanks I have edited my post. Your questions were not directed to me. Nevertheless several of scriptures I provided answered some of the questions you posed.

I haven't asked you personal questions in my post, as a courtesy to your own privacy - that doesn't mean that I have to agree with what you have written.

But simply read the bible and tell me what why the bible speaks of both discipine or more properly chastening - and judgement wrath for those who spurn His Grace, call Him a liar and die in rebellion?

It's wrath not discipline from which we are saved from and if you read my post again you will see that, because wrath is both abandonment to continue in sin which will in the end lead to death. Unbelievers are by nature children of wrath, in the dominion of darkness. Converts who trust in Christ have been rescued from the dominion of darkness, that's not a place of discipline, its a state of rebellion.

The Inspired Scriptures that states those who neglect the great salvation, those who do not flee to Jesus Christ, shall not escape from God's wrath to come against those who continue unrepentant, rebellious while in view of God's Grace in Jesus Christ thus showing ingratitude for God's indescribable gift of salvation.

Disciples of Jesus can't escape discipline. Those who do not receive God's Grace and Truth and remain unrepentant and unbelieving till the end of life can expect only Judgement. All believers will have their works and words judged at Christ's Judgement seat.

I am not going to be continuing to discuss till you do a proper study of the scriptures.

You can think very logically about this:

A wonderful parent see to the disciplining of their children, which has lots of benefits:

Deterrent for the person being disciplined and others aware of the discipline to keep from repeating the action.

It places the value on the transgression (the greater the “punishment” (disciplining) the bigger the transgression), sometimes we do not know how much pain it has caused until we know the “punishment” for the transgression.

It shows fairness and justice, the parent needs to be consistent and we want to know we have a fair and just parent.

It is a way to put the transgression behind us, since we have done the time for the crime.

It also should strength and improves the relationship between the parent and the child.

We know wonderful parent see to the discipline of the children they Love, so if our parents do not discipline (punish) us, we should rightfully question their love/concern for us.

It is truly a learning experience that forms an even closer relationship between the child and the parent if done correctly.

If the child does not accept the discipline provided by the parent especially when the parent went through great pains to provide that loving discipline, the child should be severely “punished” (this is God’s wrath), for the sake of fairness and as an example to the other children.

The child receiving “God’s wrath” has done the much greater offence of not humbly accepting God discipline provided at an unbelievable huge personal cost to God.

 

[Look Up]

... The young bride does not forgive her husband because of the flowers. She forgives him because of her love for him. ... the motivation for God’s forgiveness of our sins is not the death of Christ, but rather His love toward us.

A beautiful metaphor/analogy. Granted as an interpreter, I understand not every aspect of the story is intended to point to a particular Scripture passage or doctrine; I may also not read all your intentions correctly though I am at times helped by your pauses for explanation (e.g., "In a sense, the flowers represent an atonement").

But as far as I can gather and react, first, you claim for example, "The motivation for God’s forgiveness of our sins is ... His love toward us." That much seems more or less translated for example in, "For God [the Father] so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son [followed in effect by the forgiveness of sins upon belief in the Son] ..." from John 3:16 and thematically in canonical Johannine literature.

What is less clear to me is whether God had other motives not mutually incompatible with His love--perhaps such as the Father being motivated to forgive our sins because of "the death of Christ."

And here we run into questions about what kind of cause is behind "because" (e.g., as in the clause, "The young bride does not forgive her husband because of the flowers")--e.g., contributive or necessary or sufficient--and of course how Biblical theology of the atonement and salvation otherwise relates to your analogy and conclusions.

I can't press your analogy too far at least in some places, but I can at least footnote a conclusion of mine from the book of Romans (e.g.) to the effect that God cannot forgive by fiat (as for example Allah apparently does in Islam) without violating His justice. In the book of Romans, God presented the propitiation by Jesus' blood "so that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus" (Rom. 3:26, cf. vv. 23ff).

God (1) loved sinners so that He gave Jesus AND (2) He propitiated His own righteous wrath in Jesus, so making possible a justification of the ungodly (Rom. 4:5), a forgiveness that does not compromise His justice.

Again "while we were enemies [of God] we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son" (Rom. 5:10); we were NOT reconciled by fiat forgiveness devoid of making "propitiation for the sins of the people" (Heb. 2:17).

And as you might then conclude, "God shows His love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us" (Rom. 5:8).

P.S. Recall that Jesus acts both as High Priest mediating before God and as sacrifice (and as Way to God under a new and better covenant); the Father too appears to play more than one role in the act of salvation, e.g., as Recipient of Propitiation and as Lover. And these roles are not mutually incompatible, though they may be hard to represent together in an allegory or extended metaphor.

 

[dms1972]

It shows fairness and justice, the parent needs to be consistent and we want to know we have a fair and just parent.

God's Word and Spirit are what bring us to see the Cross for what it truly means.

The inability to trust comes from trying to view the Crucifixion of Jesus as somehow a manifestation of love only. Its both love and justice for Christ the Son bore our sins. We are not supposed to do that or copy that, or atone ourselves. That was something as it were discussed and agreed on between God the Father and God the Son before time began.

It doesn't improve ones ability to trust by saying that discipline and wrath are the same.

The Psalmist prayed: "O Lord, rebuke me, not in your wrath, neither chasten me in your hot displeasure." Psalm 38:1 Showing that he knew there was a difference.

No one can make atonement for their own sin, and sinful humans cannot atone at all for themselves or each other. That was why the old testament priest had to enter every year to make sacrifices but these never were adequate.

God the Father loves His Son first and foremost. The Father never abandoned His Son, though he turned His face away, three days later He raised Jesus from the dead. Jesus was able to endure the Cross by the Holy Spirit. He was bearing the sins of the world, and sin's curse on the Cross. He died, but death could not hold Him for he himself had never sinned.

I hope I'm explaining it right. Or that someone will fill in anything I am missing.

 

[bling]

I haven't asked you personal questions in my post, as a courtesy to your own privacy - that doesn't mean that I have to agree with what you have written.

I really was not talking about your “personal disciplining” since all Christians are disciplined the same way (the discipline would be equal since sin is equal). So how are Christians justly/fairly discipline for their former nonbeliever sins?

I would also say the nonbeliever that never believes misses out on being discipline in this life, so goes on to experiencing God’s wrath in the next life.

But simply read the bible and tell me why the bible speaks of both discipline or more properly chastening - and judgement for those who spurn His Grace, call Him a liar and die in rebellion? Romans 1:18-32, 2:1-4

It's holy wrath not discipline from which we are saved from and if you read my post again you will see that, because wrath is both abandonment to continue in sin which will in the end lead to death. Unbelievers are by nature children of wrath, in the dominion of darkness, that's not a place of discipline, its a state of rebellion. When God by His Grace intervenes, converts who repent and trust in Christ Alone are rescued from the dominion of darkness and brought into the Kingdom of His dear Son.

I fully agree with the statement: “It's holy wrath not discipline from which we are saved from…” but what severe disciplining does the Christian experience for their rebellious disobedience while a nonbeliever?

The Inspired Scriptures that states those who neglect the great salvation, those who do not flee to Jesus Christ, receive him, or trust Him, shall not escape from God's wrath to come against those who continue unrepentant, rebellious while in view of God's Grace in Jesus Christ thus showing ingratitude for God's indescribable gift of salvation.

His gift of His Son, I beleive and am most grateful for and continue to trust in, perhaps He will give me better understanding as I live by faith as Augustine said. In any case I am not going to be unmindful that there will be Day of Judgement for that I find keeps me chaste in my fear and love of God.

Jesus life and death were of perfect obedience to God the Father, that no doubt is part of what makes His a better sacrifice. If that is what you mean then I wholly agree. He also offered Himself as the spotless Lamb of God. That he was at the same time High Priest making a better and once for all sacrifice is not something to "get my head round", but something to believe and be thankful for.

Is it worth the time to try and get our arms around this idea?

Disciples of Jesus can't escape discipline (through the church). Chastening is often through loss of assurance, other loss. Those who do not receive God's Grace and Truth and remain unrepentant and unbelieving till the end of life can expect only Judgement. All believers will have their works and words judged (tried by fire) after they die at Christ's Judgement Seat.

I am not talking about Christians being disciplined for sins done after they become believers, but like Paul was severely disciplined for his prior sins as an unbeliever, after Paul became a believer, we also are disciplined the same way so what do you see as that way? (the most severe discipline we could receive and yet still live?)

I am not going to be continuing to discuss till you do a proper study of the scriptures, nor replying to discourteous personal questions. Thankyou.

What makes you think I have not studied scripture?

 

[dms1972]

Originally Posted by dms1972

I haven't asked you personal questions in my post, as a courtesy to your own privacy - that doesn't mean that I have to agree with what you have written.
​

I really was not talking about your “personal disciplining” since all Christians are disciplined the same way (the discipline would be equal since sin is equal). So how are Christians justly/fairly discipline for their former nonbeliever sins?

reply:
I prefer the term chastening, to discipline, if you are talking about sin in a christian. Discipline is as much a part of living as a christian and taking time to read the Bible and pray, which one doesn't always feel like - so it becomes a matter of discipline or training - regardless of ones feelings = Discipleship.

I would also say the nonbeliever that never believes misses out on being discipline in this life, so goes on to experiencing God’s wrath in the next life.

reply:

Well you are using the terms discipline and wrath again to mean much the same thing and I have to disagree. The christian born of the Spirit and Word of God doesn't experience wrath, only chastisement which might even be severe but its not the same thing, and of course positively training in righteousness.

The issue is whether wrath is first abandonment to the power of sin in this life, bringing spiritual blindess. And this is my view - there is an progression in Romans chapter one. I am not saying that God's Grace cannot intervene during that or that everyone will travel to the end of that road.

Before one has heard the Gospel evangelical faith cannot come into a persons experience, but that is not the case after hearing the Gospel. Repentance and trust are then called for. You can't simply tell someone this is all done and dusted - off you go have a good time. Someone might need to hear the Gospel several times before it hits home. And people need to go on hearing it even after repenting and trusting Christ - evangelism is an ongoing thing towards believers too is my view. PT Forsyth who converted from theological liberalism concluded earlier in the twentieth century the churches need re-evangelised.

I fully agree with the statement: “It's holy wrath not discipline from which we are saved from…” but what severe disciplining does the Christian experience for their rebellious disobedience while a nonbeliever?

They will have repented, and trusted in Christ if they are a believer - therefore the penalty for their former sins is paid at Calvary. Everyone's conversion is different to some extent. They will begin with a godly sorrow leading to repentance. I don't know in individual cases. Why do you ask? God will know how to work sorrow and repentance in connection with proclamation of the Gospel, we don't need to do that for Him.

I haven't been asked to explain it all before, so I am very much doing my best within the limits of my understanding. What I am sure of is that there is a very definite disjunction between wrath and chastisement in Scripture. In any case its not our job so we leave that up to the One who sees the heart and judges based on truth.

Another thing I am very sure of based on the book of Hebrews is that Atonement is not something we can make for ourselves or each other, and that it did require the death of Jesus Christ. The wages of sin is death. Jesus was innocent, He bore our sins. Without Christ's death and resurrection there is no forgiveness or new life.

Is it worth the time to try and get our arms around this idea?

Getting ones heart round it is what matters - repentance - belief - trust.

I am not talking about Christians being disciplined for sins done after they become believers, but like Paul was severely disciplined for his prior sins as an unbeliever, after Paul became a believer, we also are disciplined the same way so what do you see as that way? (the most severe discipline we could receive and yet still live?)

Just to be clear what you are talking about how was Paul disciplined for his prior sins as an unbeliever?


The main point I am making is that Christ's death on Calvary was the Atonement, not something we do.

But by all means read the Bible and see what it says.

 

[dms1972]

Who in the middle of the night snuck in and dragged off the young son, force the son to do evil stuff and finally chained him to a pigsty starving to death?

This is why I think you haven't studied much scripture. The prodigal son left home with his inheritance early. He then we could say "had a fun time of it" till the money ran out. The main thing is to note that in that culture sons didn't leave home, their father was protector and disposer (alloted them their life work). But most of us live in a totally different culture today - leaving home and getting your own place is growing up. So we can't say people are wrong to do so nowadays but in that day leaving home was declaring an independence that was disobedient and unheard of. The emphasis on his "partying" is less important than his leaving his father's home. He wasn't kidnapped - are you serious?


It seems you are making an attempt to explain the Ransom view or Classic view of the Atonement? Which was prominent in the patristic age and recovered again by Luther. Or is it the governmental view? In any case I never heard any of them talk of the prodigal being kidnapped! And it wouldn't matter if they did, because I don't find even a hint of it in Jesus' parable.


I don't think the different views need to be at odds with each other - The Latin view (expressed by Anselm) and the Classic view both have Biblical grounds.

But given the kind of mangled theology in some of these threads....talk about a mess - just read your Bible - cause I see people who think they know what they are talking about but haven't a clue! And honestly it needs said.

I hope this will help:

http://www.letgodbetrue.com/bible/scripture/knowing-the-scriptures.php

 

[dms1972]

If the child does not accept the discipline provided by the parent especially when the parent went through great pains to provide that loving discipline, the child should be severely “punished” (this is God’s wrath), for the sake of fairness and as an example to the other children.

No you're magnifying human discipline into a concept of God's discipline.

There is no example making with God in terms of his wrath. Its something that unbelievers, unrepentant experience after they die, in the next world so to speak. That doesn't mean that it isn't at work now, it is but so is His Grace. People become 'examples' by their own rebellion is what I think.


God is Holy and that means every thing he is and does is conditioned by His holiness. This because of our sinfulness may make us reluctant and we don't really understand holiness. But it is also what draws us. To be sure we cannot approach God directly that is why we must come through His Son Jesus Christ.

The Atonement is not just to provide forgiveness, it also must provide a way to deal with the power of sin, and the curse that sin had brought - In the Book of Genesis the consequence of the curse are thorns, sweat, pain and death. Christ experienced all these.

"Christ effectively removed the curse that sinful man had brought on himself by absorbing in his person on the cross the dreadful force of that curse. The marks of the curse were displayed in the thorns with which he was crowned, in the sweat of his ordeal, in the pain and agony of his affliction, and in the last weakness of his dying. Indeed the very manner of his dying showed that he had made himself accursed for us. "Christ redeemed us from the curse, having become a curse for us." Gal 3:13

quoted from Philip Edgecumbe Hughes : the True Image page 338

 

[bling]

This is why I think you haven't studied much scripture. The prodigal son left home with his inheritance early. He then we could say "had a fun time of it" till the money ran out. The main thing is to note that in that culture sons didn't leave home, their father was protector and disposer (alloted them their life work). But most of us live in a totally different culture today - leaving home and getting your own place is growing up. So we can't say people are wrong to do so nowadays but in that day leaving home was declaring an independence that was disobedient and unheard of. The emphasis on his "partying" is less important than his leaving his father's home. He wasn't kidnapped - are you serious?

Of course I was obviously not serious, you are the first person I ever used this story on that thought a even might be serious.

I’m sorry I have used this thought provoking description in adult Bible study classes many times. The idea is to get them to realize “we” are the kidnappers of God’s child that dwells within us.

The idea is for them to instantly say: No one! took him, but he left himself (he is his own kidnapper). Within each of us is the potential to be evil (a kidnapper) and able to humbly turn to (be a child of God). If we are being bad we are actually keeping the good child of God away from God.

The father represents God the Father while the sons represent people at different times in their life. The young son leaving home is not the problem, but his say: “I want my inheritance now” is equivalent to saying to his father “I wish you were dead”. Most people today do not leave home with that attitude.

The Father will let the son leave and not send servants after the son, so the son can reach bottom, come to his senses and remember/trust the Father’s love.

It seems you are making an attempt to explain the Ransom view or Classic view of the Atonement? Which was prominent in the patristic age and recovered again by Luther. Or is it the governmental view? In any case I never heard any of them talk of the prodigal being kidnapped! And it wouldn't matter if they did, because I don't find even a hint of it in Jesus' parable.

Not at all!!! Satan is not the kidnap (as the parable shows: evil people did not come in and take the son away).

Kidnapping is taking a child away from his/her parents, holding the child away from his/her parents, having a ransom paid, and freeing the child to go to his/her parents. That is what happens with everyone that comes to God.

I don't think the different views need to be at odds with each other - The Latin view (expressed by Anselm) and the Classic view both have Biblical grounds.

But given the kind of mangled theology in some of these threads....talk about a mess - just read your Bible - cause I see people who think they know what they are talking about but haven't a clue! And honestly it needs said.

I hope this will help:

Knowing the Scriptures: How to Read and Understand the Bible

I see lots of problems and false concepts with all the popular theories of atonement. The ransom analogy was used by: Christ, Paul, Peter, John and the Hebrew writer, so it should be a good fit. The problem is God could not be the kidnapper and satan is even a worse choice, so who does that leave?

 

[bling]

If one wants to see the Cross of Christ as an exhibition of God's Love only - I suggest you will be wrongly fearful of that love as long as you view the Cross as only God's love in action. God's Word and Spirit are what bring us to see the Cross for what it truly means.

The inability to trust comes from trying to view the Crucifixion of Jesus as somehow a manifestation of only love. Its both love and justice.

One does no more to improve ones ability to trust by saying that discipline and wrath are the same.

The Psalmist prayed: "O Lord, rebuke me, not in your wrath, neither chasten me in your hot displeasure." Psalm 38:1 Showing that he knew there was a difference.

No one can make atonement for their own sin, and sinful humans cannot atone at all for themselves or each other. That was why the old testament priest had to enter every year to make sacrifices but these never were adequate.


God the Father loves His Son first and foremost. Jesus identified with the God-forsakeness of fallen humanity who were in the process of watching him die by crucifixion. The Father never abandoned His Son, though he turned His face away, three days later He raised Jesus from the dead. Jesus was able to endure the Cross by the Holy Spirit. He was bearing the sins of the world, and sin's curse on the Cross. He died, but death could not hold Him for he himself had never sinned.

I hope I'm explaining it right. Or that someone will fill in anything I am missing.

Never suggest the cross is only about "Love".

The OT atonements were only for unintentional sins.

 

[dms1972]

Of course I was obviously not serious, you are the first person I ever used this story on that thought a even might be serious.

I hadn't replied to the thread at that point.

Your explanation is something that makes no sense at all to me - "Kidnappers of God's child that lives within us."??? You seem to be going to great lengths to link one parable with the Ransom theory maybe you could just quote some of the teachers historically who hold it and leave it at that. I can get nowhere with your interpretation. Why not just take the plain meaning of the parable without trying to make it fit a Ransom theory of the Atonement? Or go to the part of scripture that is most clearly a source for ransom theory.

The idea is for them to instantly say: No one! took him, but he left himself (he is his own kidnapper).

As I did, but its an odd teaching method to suggest the parable says something it doesn't in the hopes that people who may have never heard the Bible, will immediately jump in and say "no, not at all." You might leave them merely bewildered.

I see lots of problems and false concepts with all the popular theories of atonement.

I see you adding to those with your innovation - as the prodigal son was a young man not a child. If you have problems with theories of the Atonement just go back to the letter to the Hebrews.

There may be problems with some of theories as they are popularly understood. Unfortunately thats always going to be a problem if people don't actually read whats been said by Anselm or Luther, or others. But the theories are not what we are asked to accept in any case.