What is Atonement

[dms1972]

What's interesting about both the Words of Institution and Heb 9 is that they connect Jesus' blood with a covenant sacrifice.

This I beleive is correct, the Atonement needs to be understood within the Covenant of Grace. This is explained at more length by Hugh Martin in his work on the Atonement, which covers the original debate between Amyraldism and Calvinism.

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.

It seems you are drawing a difference between a covenant sacrifice and a sacrifice for sin? That a covenant sacrifice is that which establishes a covenant, I agree, but can the death of Christ not also be a sacrifice for sin, one that really does put away sin and cleanse the conscience?


It seems to me when scripture says that God's doesn't want such sacrifices it means the old testament sacrifices of goats and calves are not an alternative to a contrite heart, and true worship. Those cannot cleanse the conscience. But the sacrifice of Christ is a sacrifice, a better sacrifice, which purifies the heavenly tabernacle (the one the earthly tabernacle was a pattern of)

We don't present that sacrifice, Jesus as High Priest presents himself as spotless Lamb of God, to God. But by his Word and Spirit he works in us true repentance, a contrite heart the sacrifice God wants from us. That God in is infinite wisdom allowed the Atonement happen in the manner that it did - upon a Cross was according to John - that even as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up. That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. (John 3:14-15)

The Israelites who where bitten by snakes in the wilderness looked up at the bronze serpent Moses put on a pole and they lived. In the same way God wants us to be able to look up at Christ on the Cross, when we do we see our sins, and also Christ's bearing sin's curse for us. God wants us to put our trust in Jesus the Messiah, His Person and Work.

 

[holyrokker]

Ransom is always about freedom from either captivity, or slavery. Slavery could be the result of conquest, or of personal obligation (usually financial).

In either case, a "kinsman" could ransom a person by providing a negotiated ransom price. If a person was a slave because of financial obligation, the full debt would likely not be paid. The ransom would substitute for the "payoff" price.

To say that we are ransomed by Christ would me that He ransomed us from our captivity. That captivity was sin. We were enslaved to sin, but of our own doing.

What was the ransom price, and to whom was it paid?

 

[hedrick]

It seems you are drawing a difference between a covenant sacrifice and a sacrifice for sin? That a covenant sacrifice is that which establishes a covenant. I agree, but can the death of Christ not also be a sacrifice for sin, one that really does put away sin and cleanse the conscience?

It seems to me when scripture says that God's doesn't want such sacrifices it means the old testament sacrifices of goats and calves are not an alternative to a contrite heart, and true worship. Those cannot cleanse the conscience. But the sacrifice of Christ is a sacrifice, a better sacrifice, which purifies the heavenly tabernacle (the one the earthly tabernacle was a pattern of)

The problem is that the prophets and Psalms say that God wants repentance, not sacrifice. The idea that OT sacrifices aren't enough, and need Christ's, is excellent Reformation theology, but bad exegesis. Jesus' own teachings don't suggest that anything beyond repentance is needed either.

I understand why this is a problem: What then is the purpose of Christ’s death? The Words of Institution refer to the new covenant of Jer 31:31. The problem it describes isn’t that God is unable to save repentant sinners without a sacrifice, but that Israel isn’t repenting. The new covenant changes hearts, which is what Israel needed. In a Christian context, in union with Christ we are able to do what we are unable to do on our own. Rom 6 says basically the same thing.

This is a variant of the moral influence theory, which of course has been one of the major understandings of the atonement. However I think “moral” is too weak. We don’t just need better morals. We need a change of heart (which is what repentance means).

Note that in Hebrews it speaks of blood purifying. Not that it’s needed for God to forgive us, but that it cleanses us, giving us new hearts, which brings faith and repentance.

My basic understanding of the atonement is that the problem that the problem that needs to be solved is us, not God. The atonement needs to change us, not pacify God.

 

[hedrick]

What was the ransom price, and to whom was it paid?

Ransom is a great image, but like most images if you push it too far you get into trouble. Asking to whom it's paid is pushing it too far. God isn't a kidnapper, and I don't agree with those in the early Church that thought Satan had a right to us until a ransom was paid.

 

[dms1972]

------

 

[dms1972]

The problem is that the prophets and Psalms say that God wants repentance, not sacrifice. The idea that OT sacrifices aren't enough, and need Christ's, is excellent Reformation theology, but bad exegesis. Jesus' own teachings don't suggest that anything beyond repentance is needed either.

I understand why this is a problem: What then is the purpose of Christ’s death? The Words of Institution refer to the new covenant of Jer 31:31. The problem it describes isn’t that God is unable to save repentant sinners without a sacrifice, but that Israel isn’t repenting. The new covenant changes hearts, which is what Israel needed. In a Christian context, in union with Christ we are able to do what we are unable to do on our own. Rom 6 says basically the same thing.

This is a variant of the moral influence theory, which of course has been one of the major understandings of the atonement. However I think “moral” is too weak. We don’t just need better morals. We need a change of heart (which is what repentance means).

Note that in Hebrews it speaks of blood purifying. Not that it’s needed for God to forgive us, but that it cleanses us, giving us new hearts, which brings faith and repentance.

My basic understanding of the atonement is that the problem that the problem that needs to be solved is us, not God. The atonement needs to change us, not pacify God.

Hebrews says Jesus' blood purifies the Tabernacle not made by man, not part of this creation, and that it cleanses our conscience. I think that is two different things. But that is going quite deeply into things I can only say what Hebrews says, not explain it as I am not a theologian.

But I agree the Atonement doesn't pacify God, and God doesn't need pacifying, when the Bible speak of wrath its something that means letting someone have their own rebellious way (within God's limits of course - he can say enough is enough any time), and only after death and judgement does it become separation from God's presence.


There are three main views of the Atonement, the Latin (Tertullian, Cyprian, Anselm), the Classical (Ireneaus and Luther) and Moral Example (Abelard) - there are of course other theologians expressing these views, but those are the names most often connected with the theories.

The problem is not in scripture, for it harmonises, the problem is in theologies and theories. A theory tends to be exclusive of other theories. But elements from all these theories are found in scripture. They would hardly have arisen otherwise. But the problem is one theory eclipses another, when we reduce the Atonement to a theory. Hence the Classic view was eclipsed somewhat by the Latin, until Luther revived it.

But each can claim some scriptural warrant and the letter to the Hebrews is very much speaking of Jesus in his high priestly role.

And the Atonement is a sacrifice, Hebrews says it unmistakably - a better sacrifice.

The way to resolve this is to begin with God's holiness which means he cannot look upon sin or merely let it go as if it were trivial, didn't have any consequences. The result of human disobedience and the fall in Eden, that we have recorded in Genesis are several curses, these have to be removed. Jesus Christ at Calvary and in His Resurrection has born the curse of death and overcome the grave. And all who repent and trust in His victory are thereby promised life after death, and even something of that new life now.

That his death is a sacrifice is also accepted by theological liberals for instance Horace Bushnell, who might be called one of the fathers of american liberalism said there is something in the sacrificial view of Christ's death which speaks to needs deep within the human heart as nothing else does.

The reformers never denied at all that repentance was what the Atonement wrought in the soul when believed. Its not completely objective (Latin view) or completely subjective (Moral example view) Its from objective to subjective. They simply said it has to be something before it can work repentance and faith. Jesus had to defeat death and the devil. He did this in His death and resurrection, then he sent the Holy Spirit, after his Ascension. Repentance and Faith are brought about by the Word and the Spirit.

The problem to repeat is not in scripture, its with the nature of theory for it cannot encompass everything.

CS Lewis recognised both the need for, and the inadequacy of theories of the Atonement. He didn't say wait till all the theologians agree however, he said faith can receive before understanding.

 

[hedrick]

That his death is a sacrifice is also accepted by theological liberals for instance Horace Bushnell, who might be called one of the fathers of american liberalism said there is something in the sacrificial view of Christ's death which speaks to needs deep within the human heart as nothing else does.

Of course it's sacrificial. My only problem is with the idea that God needs a sacrifice for forgiveness.

 

[bling]

Ransom is always about freedom from either captivity, or slavery. Slavery could be the result of conquest, or of personal obligation (usually financial).

In either case, a "kinsman" could ransom a person by providing a negotiated ransom price. If a person was a slave because of financial obligation, the full debt would likely not be paid. The ransom would substitute for the "payoff" price.

To say that we are ransomed by Christ would me that He ransomed us from our captivity. That captivity was sin. We were enslaved to sin, but of our own doing.

What was the ransom price, and to whom was it paid?

If like you say “We were enslaved to sin, but of our own doing” is the nonbeliever himself not the one holding himself back from the Father (it is our own doing)?

The “ransom price” by most interpretations was: the cruel torture, humiliation and murder of Christ, represented by the life giving blood.

“Whom was paid” is the big issue all popular atonement theories poorly address. Some will say satan, God, death, sin itself, or will say “no one”.

The person holding the nonbeliever back from allowing the child within to go to the Father is the nonbeliever him/ herself. People hold on to a false pride and just do not like to humble them selves to the point of accepting charity.

This means every nonbeliever is the kidnapper of the child he/she could be that can go to the father (we can only come as children).

 

[bling]

Of course it's sacrificial. My only problem is with the idea that God needs a sacrifice for forgiveness.

He does not and did not in the OT.

 

[bling]

Ransom is a great image, but like most images if you push it too far you get into trouble. Asking to whom it's paid is pushing it too far. God isn't a kidnapper, and I don't agree with those in the early Church that thought Satan had a right to us until a ransom was paid.

Christ, Paul, Peter, John and the Hebrew writer all use the imagery of a ransom, so should that not be pretty close to what it is?
Are you making the assumption: the ransom would have to be paid to God?
I know satan would be a worse assumption.

 

[bling]

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.


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 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.

Think about this: In scripture when someone is trying to persuade/teach a nonbeliever to accept God’s Love (in the form of forgiveness): Do they pray to God to release him from God’s slavery? Do they ask satan to accept the ransom payment for this nonbeliever? Or do they try to persuade the nonbeliever to take the huge gift/God’s Love/ransom payment that can free him/her?

Does an exorcist have to be done on every nonbeliever, or would just persuading the nonbeliever to accept be good enough for most.

 

[dms1972]

Yes every non-believer who is becoming a christian, at some point in their conversion renounce the devil and all his works, in the Mighty Name of Jesus


You need to ask yourself what forgiveness means in the light of what the bible says about God's Holiness and how God could forgive. Of course the Atonement at Calvary is from the Holy Love of God in the first place, its by His initiative, it justifies God in being gracious and forgiving ungodliness. Don't try to make it fit the neat little modern mind that thinks its can figure it all out on its own.

I recommend James Denney - the Atonement and the modern Mind, in his book the death of Christ. These forums will resolve very little, you got to drink deep into the best Bible teaching.

I prayed years ago and asked over and over again, why did Jesus have to die - the verse, I believe I was led to over again was without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness. (Hebrews)

Jesus death is a Covenant sacrifice and a sacrifice of Atonement.

1 John 2:2 He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.

2:1,2 We have an Advocate with the Father; one who has undertaken, and is fully able, to plead in behalf of every one who applies for pardon and salvation in his name, depending on his pleading for them. He is Jesus, the Saviour, and Christ, the Messiah, the Anointed. He alone is the Righteous One, who received his nature pure from sin, and as our Surety perfectly obeyed the law of God, and so fulfilled all righteousness. All men, in every land, and through successive generations, are invited to come to God through this all-sufficient atonement, and by this new and living way. The gospel, when rightly understood and received, sets the heart against all sin, and stops the allowed practice of it; at the same time it gives blessed relief to the wounded consciences of those who have sinned.

Matthew Henry commentary



​

Thats good enough for me, and that is were I leave it. Thanks

 

[bling]

Yes every non-believer who is becoming a christian, at some point in their conversion renounce the devil and all his works, in the Mighty Name of Jesus

Do they have to do that before becoming a Christian, because the ransom is being paid and accepted prior to becoming a free child able to return to the father?

You need to ask yourself what forgiveness means in the light of what the bible says about God's Holiness and how God could forgive. Of course the Atonement at Calvary is from the Holy Love of God in the first place, its by His initiative, it justifies God in forgiving ungodliness. Don't try to make it fit the neat little modern mind that thinks its can figure it all out on its own.

What force is out there that requires God to justify any of His actions, like His ability to forgive?

Did Christ go to the cross than to help God out: so God could “justify” His this unbelievable huge Love that enables God to forgive?

Does God need to be “justified” or is it man that needs to be made justified/righteous before God?

I recommend James Denney - the Atonement and the modern Mind, in his book the death of Christ. These forums will resolve very little, you got to drink deep into the best Bible teaching.

When the Pharisees came to Jesus wanting to argue different schools of thought (the commentary writer’s ideas) Jesus avoid those fruitless discussions and said: “What do the scriptures say?"

I study scripture and not the ideas men have about scripture. The indwelling Holy Spirit helps when I allow Him to help me.

I prayed years ago and asked over and over again, why did Jesus have to die - the verse, I believe I was led to over again was without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness. (Hebrews)

Are you saying God is blood thirsty and needs to see blood to forgive sin?

In Lev. 5 we have a bag of flour used as the sacrifice for unintentional sins which God will afterwards forgive, so where is the blood in that?

Is “blood” need to cleanse the person, equipment, and altar for our sake and not for God’s sake to forgive?

Who really needs Christ’s blood to leave his body and thus be able to flow over not only the outside of our bodies, but feel it actual covering our hearts as we drink the wine at communion?

From what Christ said in the garden it sounded like He would have personally preferred his blood to remain flowing through His veins and if we say God was in full empathy with Christ, God would personally prefer Christ’s blood to remain flowing in Christ.

 

[dms1972]

Do they have to do that before becoming a Christian, because the ransom is being paid and accepted prior to becoming a free child able to return to the father?

For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil. 1 John 3:8

Usually when being received into a christian fellowship I'd say.

The theories are not what we need to believe: Please read CS Lewis Mere Christianity and what he says about what it means to believe the Atonement.

I study scripture and not the ideas men have about scripture. The indwelling Holy Spirit helps when I allow Him to help me.

But have you not given us your ideas about scripture? So you want others to accept your thinking?

You want to remain in control is basically your difficulty, but if we are following Jesus Christ will we not be led into all truth, by His Spirit?

"When you allow him..." = private interpretation, what suits you, not the Holy Spirit - Go to a church that worships God and hear the gospel preached.

Are you saying God is blood thirsty and needs to see blood to forgive sin?

No that is what you seem to be asking. I am just saying what the Bible writters say, which you say is what you go by.


Thanks I am taking a long break from these forums.

 

[bling]

For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil. 1 John 3:8

Usually when being received into a christian fellowship I'd say.

The theories are not what we need to believe: Please read CS Lewis Mere Christianity and what he says about what it means to believe the Atonement.

I like CS Lewis, but do not always agree with him. I did go back and read what he had to say on atonement, but feel he fell short.

His other workers seem to suggest a more moral influence theory of atonement.

CS Lewis doe disagree with the Penal Substitution idea which is good.

But have you not given us your ideas about scripture? So you want others to accept your thinking?

I do not want people to just “accept” my ideas at face value, but consider them in their study. For the most part I just ask questions.

You want to remain in control is basically your difficulty, but if we are following Jesus Christ will we not be led into all truth, by His Spirit?

"When you allow him..." = private interpretation, what suits you, not the Holy Spirit - Go to a church that worships God and hear the gospel preached

.
Each of us are held personally accountable for our free will choices, so we are in control of our own destiny, so we do need to take this responsibility seriously and not just allow other to control us.

We have the choice of surrendering to God or humans working for satan.

No that is what you are saying. I am just saying what the Bible writters say, which you say is what you go by.

They are talking about our being cleansed and not God needing something.

 

[dms1972]

Thanks for keeping it civil I don't want to keep debating endlessly. I apologise if at any point I have not been as civil. I don't want people to hang on my explanation as though I understood it all, but I do believe that the moral influence theory is very lacking and can easily be misunderstood as if God is only saying "clean up your act". By itself it offers no power to change, just an 'influence' - nothing like enough in the battle with sin. And it says the Atonement is not a propitiation - whereas Paul and the letter to Hebrews clearly say it is.

Thankyou for taking the time to read the CS Lewis chapter. He disagrees with a simplistic view of penal substitution, that he thought was what christians believed before he became a christian himself, but he said he didn't completely disagree after becoming a christian. His point is that a theory is not the Atonement.

"We believe that the death of Christ is just that point in history at which something absolutely unimaginable from outside shows through into our world... Indeed, if we found we could fully understand it, that very fact would show it was not what it professes to be - the inconceivable, the uncreated, the thing from beyond nature, striking down into nature like lightning. You may ask what good it will be to us if we do not understand it. But that is easily answered. A man can eat his dinner without understanding exactly how food nourishes him. A man can accept what Christ has done without knowing how it works: indeed he certainly would not know how it works until he has accepted it.

We are told that Christ was killed for us, that His death has washed out our sins, and that by dying He disabled death itself. That is the formula. That is Christianity. That is what has to be believed. Any theories we build up as to how Christ's death did all this are, in my view, quite secondary: mere plans or diagrams to be left alone if they do not help us, and even if they do help us, not to be confused with the thing itself." CS Lewis - Mere Christianity
​

I think the New Testament letters to Romans and Hebrews supply the inspired interpretation, not just another theory.

Lewis in his books is not really doing theology, or exegesis, he trying to come alongside non-christians and help them, by sharing how christianity looked to him from the outside. Just as swimming instructor might talk to a child afraid to get into the swimming pool to reassure him.

Christianity is different from the inside. Lewis is only giving an introduction.


To me Lewis's understanding resembles one aspect Luther's. Its not a moral influence theory. He connects the Atonement and repentance.

We have the choice of surrendering to God or humans working for satan.

I don't believe that to be true of all or even most non-christians. People without Jesus are lost, yes - and will be easily lead astray.

But I really have got to leave it there. I edited my earlier comments a little.

 

[bling]

Thanks for keeping it civil I don't want to keep debating endlessly. I apologise if at any point I have not been as civil. I don't want people to hang on my explanation as though I understood it all, but I do believe that the moral influence theory is very lacking and can easily be misunderstood as if God is only saying "clean up your act". By itself it offers no power to change, just an 'influence' - nothing like enough in the battle with sin. And it says the Atonement is not a propitiation - whereas Paul and the letter to Hebrews clearly say it is.

Thankyou for taking the time to read the CS Lewis chapter. He disagrees with a simplistic view of penal substitution, that he thought was what christians believed before he became a christian himself, but he said he didn't completely disagree after becoming a christian. His point is that a theory is not the Atonement.

"We believe that the death of Christ is just that point in history at which something absolutely unimaginable from outside shows through into our world... Indeed, if we found we could fully understand it, that very fact would show it was not what it professes to be - the inconceivable, the uncreated, the thing from beyond nature, striking down into nature like lightning. You may ask what good it will be to us if we do not understand it. But that is easily answered. A man can eat his dinner without understanding exactly how food nourishes him. A man can accept what Christ has done without knowing how it works: indeed he certainly would not know how it works until he has accepted it.

We are told that Christ was killed for us, that His death has washed out our sins, and that by dying He disabled death itself. That is the formula. That is Christianity. That is what has to be believed. Any theories we build up as to how Christ's death did all this are, in my view, quite secondary: mere plans or diagrams to be left alone if they do not help us, and even if they do help us, not to be confused with the thing itself." CS Lewis - Mere Christianity
​

I think the New Testament letters to Romans and Hebrews supply the inspired interpretation, not just another theory.

Lewis in his books is not really doing theology, or exegesis, he trying to come alongside non-christians and help them, by sharing how christianity looked to him from the outside. Just as swimming instructor might talk to a child afraid to get into the swimming pool to reassure him.

Christianity is different from the inside. Lewis is only giving an introduction.


To me Lewis's understanding resembles one aspect Luther's. Its not a moral influence theory. He connects the Atonement and repentance.



I don't believe that to be true of all or even most non-christians. People without Jesus are lost, yes - and will be easily lead astray.

But I really have got to leave it there. I edited my earlier comments a little.

I have said before “experiencing atonement” is easier than explaining atonement. The cross is foolishness to the nonbeliever, making it very hard to explain intellectually.

Those 3000 on Pentecost in Acts 2 experienced atonement to a great extent, since they experienced firsthand the atoning sacrifice. They would still have even more to learn about atonement over the months they spent with the Disciples. These 3000 Jews also had the experience of participating in the atonement process for unintentional sins prior to Christ going to the cross, so would have a practical definition of atonement from experience.

Lewis uses the analogy of eating food, which might work well. Just as eating nourishing food provides us with strength without us really understanding how, the atonement process provided us with a deeper appreciation for the debt our sins create, the sacrificial Love God and Christ have for us and that we are truly children of God, since He has seen to our discipline.

 

[Captive]

At-one-ment.

 

[Open Heart]

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.

Interesting Thought.

Did you know that in the early Church the metaphor used was not substitutionary atonement but redemption?

 

[Job8]

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.

We cannot understand the atoning work of Christ unless we first understand the character of God. Because He is absolutely holy, He is wrathful againt sin. Because He is absolutely righteous and just, He must execute the penalty for sin. Because He is gracious and merciful, He has provided a Propitiation for sin -- the Lamb of God. Because He desires fellowship with sinners, they must first confess their sins and repent of their sins. Because He loves His creatures, He sent His only begotten Son to die in our stead, and to suffer the wrath of God on our behalf.

God "overlooked" sin as long as Christ had not been crucified. The animal sacrifices of the OT "covered" sin, and were types and shadows of the true finished work of redemption. But the Lamb of God "took away the sin of the world". It is only because there was a Substitute that God could reconcile the world unto Himself. Unless sin has been fully dealt with there can be no covenant relationship or fellowship with God. And God does nor need to "persuade Himself" about anything. He is not like human beings.