Consistency Between Atonement Theory and Biblical Narrative

WrongClub_Lucius said:

My list of explicitly stated facts:

Click to expand...

Based on this, I'm going to have a hard to participating, since I don't think these are actually facts. Not all are false, but a lot of them have no Biblical basis.

WrongClub_Lucius said:

I don't think I can do justice to everyone's comment, so I thought I would list out the explicitly stated "facts" that I am building off of. I said I object to presuppositions, yet it is typically assumed that these are the best we can do. But I think we can assemble a convincing backstory, without relying on presuppositions, that sets the stage for a different story than the one we are used to hearing.


My list of explicitly stated facts:

-God created the earth (obviously...)
-God is king of heaven
-There is a rebellion in heaven, challenging God's claim to the throne
-Satan told a lie that sparked this rebellion (i.e. Satan is called "The Father of Lies")
-Approximately 1/3 of the angels embraced the lie and were cast down to earth (Revelation: 1/3 of the stars fall from heaven)
-Satan already has or easily obtains permission to do whatever he wants on earth (story of Job, also Jesus' warning to Peter)
-Demon makes the claim to Jesus that he has a right to be here ("have you come to torment me before the time?)
-Satan tempted Jesus by offering the world, in exchange for Jesus bowing to him. (Somehow this would achieve Satan's goal, alleviating his need to influence the world)

-Two trees in the garden representing a choice, one is God's, one is Satan's.
-Satan had free access to Adam and Eve before "the fall"
-God also had access to Adam and Eve in the garden.
-Eating the fruit is equivalent to signing a contract, demonstrating the choice
-Adam and Eve kicked out of garden after choosing

-God "...declares the end from the beginning, and from ancient times things that are not yet done, saying my council shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure."
-God repeatedly proclaims he is the only true God (others are claiming to be gods)
-God claims to profess perfect wisdom, rather than to be the author of wisdom
-God claims unlimited power, but he is very limited in expressing his power in this world.
-God has some surprising conversations with sinners, not condemning them, like with Cain, Abimelech

-Revelation reveals the angels watching in amazement (something that happens is not obvious to them)
-The angels and the saints applaud God's judgement, which is ultimately condemning satan and the fallen angels, and everything evil in the world
-Paul says every knee bows to Jesus--implies a choice is made. (If it is reflex, then it doesn't mean anything)
-Paul writes that we will judge angels
-Paul writes that we are free from the law if we agree with the law, that the law is good


Important questions:

-Why did God create the world?
-We believe God must have knwon of Satan's rebellion before it happened, and he has the power to intervene, so why didn't God intervene?
-Why doesn't the Bible describe the assumed dramatic alteration to the fabric of the earth caused by "the fall"?
-Why is all this evil and disruption caused by the unremarkable action of eating a piece of fruit?
-The Bible says that the truth of God is made evident through creation, but what is this truth? What is it that God professes to be a fundamental truth, that is evident through creation, that is undeniable to everyone. (If they all deny it, then it is deniable...)
-What is the nature of the conflict between God and Satan?
-How would Jesus bowing to Satan end the conflict between God and Satan?


I see these references like puzzle pieces. I'm going off the top of my head, but I think I'm remembering everything right. But please point out any objections you might have. It's easier to do it now than after I put the puzzle together.

Also, does anybody have any additional factual/ explicit claims they think are relevant to be included? Any additional questions that need explaining?

Click to expand...

I agree with Hedrick on what you consider facts.

Everything would be driven by the object, just as we are to be driven by our objective.


I will try to explain briefly part of the objective:

Starting with God, God is Love (the epitome of Love), which means God is totally unselfish and is not doing stuff for His own sake, but is doing everything for the sake of man which is also God’s desire and might be referred to as His sake.

God would be doing or allowing everything to help humans who are just willing to fulfill their earthly objective.

Man’s objective is found in the God given Mission statement of: Loving God (and secondly Loving others) with all your heart, soul, mind and energy. In order to fulfill that mission man must first obtain Godly type Love which will make man like God Himself in that man will Love like God Loves.

What we can thank Adam and Eve for is showing us that what we might consider the ideal situation is a lousy situation for man to fulfill his earthly objective. Adam and Eve as our very best all human representatives did not fulfill the objective while sinless in the Garden and really could not. The situation after sinning outside the Garden did provide a way to fulfill the objective.

Again the objective is not to never ever sin, but to obtain Godly type Love is the first of man’s objective.

There are just something even an all-powerful Creator cannot do (there are things impossible to do), the big inability for us is create humans with instinctive Godly type Love, since Godly type Love is not instinctive. Godly type love has to be the result of a free will decision by the being, to make it the person’s Love apart from God. In other words: If the Love was in a human from the human’s creation it would be a robotic type love and not a Godly type Love. Also if God “forces” this Love on a person (Kind a like a shotgun wedding) it would not be “loving” on God’s part and the love forced on the person would not be Godly type love. This Love has to be the result of a free will moral choice with real alternatives (for humans those alternatives include the perceived pleasures of sin for a season.)


This Love is way beyond anything humans could develop, obtain, learn, earn, pay back or even deserve, so it must be the result of a gift that is accepted or rejected (a free will choice).

This “Love” is much more than just an emotional feeling; it is God Himself (God is Love). If you see this Love you see God.

All mature adults do stuff that hurts others (this is called sin) these transgressions weigh on them burden them to the point the individual seeks relief (at least early on before they allow their hearts to be hardened). Lots of “alternatives” can be tried for relief, but the only true relief comes from God with forgiveness (this forgiveness is pure charity [grace/mercy/Love]). The correct humble acceptance of this Forgiveness (Charity) automatically will result in Love (we are taught by Jesus and our own experience “…he that is forgiven much will Love much…”). Sin is thus made hugely significant, so there will be an unbelievable huge debt to be forgiven of and thus result in an unbelievable huge “Love” (Godly type Love).

Quit blaming Adam and Eve you are accountable.

God is doing all He can to help willing individuals fulfill their earthly objective and that “all” includes: Christ going to the cross, satan roaming the earth, tragedies of all kinds, hell and even sin is allowed yet not wanted.

That is an introduction

WrongClub_Lucius said:

I think this post will land me squarely in the the "controversial" camp.

I'll start out slow, just asking if anybody has noticed that the Biblical narrative is not always consistent with the Penal Substitution atonement theory?

Penal Substitution says that God is [righteously] angry with us for sinning, thus we [justly] deserve eternal death. But God also loves us, so he came up with a clever plan to save us [from himself]! So God send Jesus, who is a part of God, to die in our place, creating a loophole that allows God to loves us in spite of our sin.

I must point out that this theory states that God constructs an elaborate plan to injure himself (i.e. Jesus), and that injury then inhibits his ability to notice that we are still sinful...and we presume this self-deception will last for eternity. God doesn't notice we are still sinful, yet he is still omnipotent?

I assume everyone knows this theory, and most agree with it. It's an idea that's been around for 1,000 years, after all.

This idea was designed to push back against the previously held Ransom Theory of Atonement, which says that the Bible tells a story about God maneuvering around/ negotiating a conflict with Satan. They thought that Satan was given too much power, so they created a new narrative where Satan plays no significant role. They decided that the Bible is actually a story about God maneuvering around his own characteristics/ qualities in his pursuit of allowing himself the ability to escape from the necessity of his own judgement against us.


The above is a summary of established theology...but what if we read the Bible as a story? I think it is a story. And what should happen in a story is that all the events in the story have significant meaning and their meanings are all connected. But if this is true, how is Revelation connected to Genesis, aside from one being the beginning, and the other being the end?

But even putting Revelation aside, what about Genesis? Why is Satan in the Garden in the first place? I noticed that someone started a thread claiming that Adam = Satan, but....don't be ridiculous. When I was a kid, like in 4th grade, I asked my teachers at a Lutheran school why God didn't just get rid of Satan before he could mess up life on earth? I only mention that I thought it as a child, because it is such an obvious question! God is all powerful and all the rest, so he knew all along....and God allowed it. Why?

So....anybody ever noticed how inadequate Penal Substitution is in answering why God allowed sin into the world? God knew, and he must have known...and God allowed it to happen, since it happened; it was only possible with God's permission, since Penal Substitution says that Satan has no power over God, added to the fact that most believe God created Satan in the first place!

So the point. Yes, I'm proposing that the narrative that emerges from the Bible, if it can be read without tradition being imposed on it, presents a pattern of events that is quite inconsistent with Penal Substitution.

Have you noticed this?

Click to expand...

The Bible is a cohesive narrative of our soul's journey/process taking place within. We are God's garden, a tree, mountain, city, a river...a son. From the very first word God spoke, calling light out of the darkness, is a picture of that process of coming to know as we have always been known (by God The Father)...

The Day of the LORD goes from darkness to light as it relates to our soul and God consciousness within our very being. Truth cast to the ground becomes a bottomless pit with a serpent that bites. The flip side of the same coin, truth high and lifted up becomes and open door to heaven that no man can shut. As Moses' serpent on pole was to Israel in the wilderness, so is Jesus on the cross to us...the antidote to the bite of a serpent.

In the beginning, Adam was one. God put him in a deep slumber and wounded his side to take out woman (one became two) who prepared the feast that he ate...something outside of 'self'...the woman being a picture of our soul...Her desire was to be for her husband (God is our husband...) alone. She desired something else and they were not one flesh...(a picture we see throughout scripture as a harlot or a virgin)...the first command was "Thou shalt not eat..." and the woman added to the words, a law of her own mind...which is pictured in the form of a mountain where the law comes forth from. Our soul journey has us wandering between two mountains (Israel as a son is a picture of this) until the truth is narrowed down to the ONE that we are, a son (no gender implied) from the beginning.

This all is inner truth being revealed (brought to light)...being awakened from deep slumber in the dust (realm of perceiving with the five senses) as it relates to the questions asked after the eyesight change/perception change in the garden, "Where art thou?" And, "Who told you thou was naked?" It is our perception of lack that causes us to measure and divide that which is immeasurable and infinite...the spirit of God.

Doctrine and perception are inseparable. It is a narrative we drink of...a well we draw from...when we have not dug deep enough to find the waters given freely, more often than not we drink from another's well and not our own. It is a process we go through, just like a seed...

The perception of who we are as a son is exclusively a truth only the father as God can reveal in us, no less than it was this for Jesus...being The Way...for we are all "considered sheep to be slaughtered"...and to 'see'/perceive, we must be made blind...


Then Jesus declared, “For judgment I have come into this world, so that the blind may see and those who see may become blind...
Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth.

When it is a truth that is less than us (perceived lack) or something that doesn't flow out of us, God causes us to wander in the wilderness or fall into a deep sleep...When we awaken, we can 'see' that God fills all in all...Or that His glory fills the temple (we being the temple not made with human hands)...God's glory is our garment (wedding) that covers our nakedness. In the garden, God made coverings of skin for Adam and his wife...and they were destined to labour in the field for their bread. As Paul said, "Christ in you, the hope of glory" is what the narrative in the Bible be about...knowing about God is totally different than knowing intimately...

WrongClub_Lucius said:

I think this post will land me squarely in the the "controversial" camp.

I'll start out slow, just asking if anybody has noticed that the Biblical narrative is not always consistent with the Penal Substitution atonement theory?

Penal Substitution says that God is [righteously] angry with us for sinning, thus we [justly] deserve eternal death. But God also loves us, so he came up with a clever plan to save us [from himself]! So God send Jesus, who is a part of God, to die in our place, creating a loophole that allows God to loves us in spite of our sin.

I must point out that this theory states that God constructs an elaborate plan to injure himself (i.e. Jesus), and that injury then inhibits his ability to notice that we are still sinful...and we presume this self-deception will last for eternity. God doesn't notice we are still sinful, yet he is still omnipotent?

I assume everyone knows this theory, and most agree with it. It's an idea that's been around for 1,000 years, after all.

This idea was designed to push back against the previously held Ransom Theory of Atonement, which says that the Bible tells a story about God maneuvering around/ negotiating a conflict with Satan. They thought that Satan was given too much power, so they created a new narrative where Satan plays no significant role. They decided that the Bible is actually a story about God maneuvering around his own characteristics/ qualities in his pursuit of allowing himself the ability to escape from the necessity of his own judgement against us.


The above is a summary of established theology...but what if we read the Bible as a story? I think it is a story. And what should happen in a story is that all the events in the story have significant meaning and their meanings are all connected. But if this is true, how is Revelation connected to Genesis, aside from one being the beginning, and the other being the end?

But even putting Revelation aside, what about Genesis? Why is Satan in the Garden in the first place? I noticed that someone started a thread claiming that Adam = Satan, but....don't be ridiculous. When I was a kid, like in 4th grade, I asked my teachers at a Lutheran school why God didn't just get rid of Satan before he could mess up life on earth? I only mention that I thought it as a child, because it is such an obvious question! God is all powerful and all the rest, so he knew all along....and God allowed it. Why?

So....anybody ever noticed how inadequate Penal Substitution is in answering why God allowed sin into the world? God knew, and he must have known...and God allowed it to happen, since it happened; it was only possible with God's permission, since Penal Substitution says that Satan has no power over God, added to the fact that most believe God created Satan in the first place!

So the point. Yes, I'm proposing that the narrative that emerges from the Bible, if it can be read without tradition being imposed on it, presents a pattern of events that is quite inconsistent with Penal Substitution.

Have you noticed this?

Click to expand...

I have read criticisms against the penal substitution theory. To me it makes no sense but I really haven't heard any different theories that make more sense. I will have to think about the Ransom theory more..... When I was reading Milton, I was exposed to the concept of the Fortunate Fall. This gives the. Power back to God. I don't have a big problem with not understanding God's every motive; He is God, after all. But I am open to a different theological interpretation.

WrongClub_Lucius said:

Yeah, the Bible does talk about acknowledging God, so I'm good with that.

I like to talk of allegiance to God, because it seems a bit more descriptive? I see the conflict between God and Satan, and by default our allegiance is to Satan. I am convinced that is what happened in the Garden! And I would say our salvation comes through giving our allegiance to God. Specifically, allegiance comes by agreeing that God's law is good...the Apostle Paul tells us this is the key to our salvation!

Click to expand...

. So.... How does Jesus' death and resurrection relate to the "allegiance to God" theory?

WrongClub_Lucius said:

The Garden is about choosing allegiance. There were two trees--one for God and one for Satan. And both God and Satan talked to Adam and Eve about which tree they should or should not eat from. The inclusion of two things in a story always represents a choice, and the conversation about choosing and not choosing a particular tree confirm there is a choice to be made.

The nature of the choice is about who to join, God or Satan. And eating the fruit is like signing a contract--it confirms and demonstrates the choice. Adam and Eve chose to be on Satan's team, hence we became enemies of God.

Adam and Eve chose to join Satan, and the rest of us are automatically slaves, since the children of slaves are automatically slaves.

And naturally, slaves remain slaves forever, unless their master gives them their freedom.


Jesus' death is still the means by which we are freed from death/ Satan. But instead of Jesus' death having an objective monetary value that equals the sum total of all sins ever committed, Jesus's humiliation and death is the thing that Satan wanted so much that he was willing to let us all go in exchange of it.

A major takeaway from this is that Jesus' death is not a reasonable or logical/ mathematical price or valuation of human worth. Instead, it seems it is the highest price that Satan could imagine, and I think he asked for it believing that God/ Jesus could not go through with it.

Jesus' death gives us the freedom to leave Satan if we so choose. But many people do not choose to leave.



Calling this "Ransom Theory" isn't entirely appropriate, because a ransom demand is accompanied by the act of kidnapping. But Satan did not kidnap us; we chose Satan! But God wanted to get us back, and had to negotiate with Satan to get us back.

Why is God negotiating with Satan? Because God put this whole thing in motion. God created everything, God put Satan here, and God has given Satan freedom to do what he wants. So if God were to snatch us away from Satan, he would be revoking the freedom he originally gave to Satan. And this would be a problem, because it would make God appear to be unjust/ unfair/ breaking his own rule...which is lying. This would undermine all of God's claims, and validate Satan's accusations!


And resurrection? It means that after this world's purpose is served, we have the opportunity to experience the peace and goodness that God claims to represent, but which we are unlikely to experience in this life...because of Satan's constant efforts to disprove God's wisdom.

Click to expand...

Thank you. I am almost afraid to say "that makes sense," but this is the biggest question we can ask I think, and your explanation seems to fit the pieces better than the others.

WrongClub_Lucius said:

The Garden is about choosing allegiance.

Click to expand...

Hi there bro! I really like what you're digging into here, exposing the absurdities of false doctrines, and indeed, if anyone represents an idea that God could not forgive unless some innocent, righteous blood was spilled, then they've mischaracterised God altogether (1 Corinthians 13:4-7). I would like to explain how the wrath of God is atoned for by the cross, it will take a few paragraphs to build up the view if you can follow me there

Just first off though, even at the risk of dividing us, there is this part that I quoted here and twice in this thread where you have expressed an idea that one of the tree was for God while the other for Satan.. it shows that a deeper investigation into the story of the Garden of Eden is still available to you.

A tree is a thing that grows and it produces fruit. The fruit is a thing that we consume because we enjoy it and it is good for us. Our life is sustained by eating the fruit of a tree, and so God made a garden and said to the human that he was free to eat fruit from any tree in the garden.

The tree was of the knowledge of good and evil, so it describes that there was a knowledge of good and evil in the garden that was growing and was producing fruit. They weren't warned to not look at that tree, only to not touch it. So it is not explicitly stated in the story that Adam and Eve did not have any knowledge of good and evil, but rather that they were not relying upon it's fruit for their sustenance or pleasure.

The story explains that one day Eve was tempted to take and eat the fruit of it, "desiring to be wise", "seeing that it was good for food and attractive", "desiring to be like God", and once they had eaten, they began to "discern" good and evil.

When we observe the way the world operates today, we see that the discernment of good and evil is relied upon for sustenance and pleasure - often immorally, even as society has made normal (eg: to buy 10 litres of paint, say $100, but a 500ml pot is $20. That is effectively to use dishonest scales).

So that is the tree, and we see immediately they were overcome by shame, that they had to conceal some of themselves and they had to hide from God - why exactly they believed that God would be mad with them for having disobeyed Him, well it shows that they had been immediately cut off from the knowledge of God's nature (eg: 1 John 4:8, 1 John 4:18) - they had been cut off from Christ (John 1:4, 1 John 1:5-6, Romans 8:1, John 3:19-21) - in the very day they had eaten of it, they had become dead. This is a spiritual death, the same language that is used to describe the coming to life again when we are reborn (John 5:24, John 3:7-8, John 5:39-40).

So this spiritual life and spiritual death are matters of spirit wherever condemnation is permitted to reign over us so that our guilt causes us to hide from the light. Light is defined by Ephesians 5:13 as "a thing that makes manifest" - ie: bringing to light, making the truth known. Obviously, because some people do not wish for their deeds to come to light, they are condemned and they do not come toward the light. If the light comes toward them, their fear of being exposed is great enough that they will often act violently to extinguish the light - and even if they do not know that they have this tendency within them, their heart betrays that very motive when the light looks toward it.

There is so much speech in the Psalms about this tendency of the wicked to pursue righteous blood, and Proverbs 29:27 says a lot. Whenever the wicked pursue righteous blood in order to end the righteous indignation, it is a sin of wrath in them. This is what Jesus is describing when He is saying John 3:36 that whoever does not believe the son does not see life - the wrath of God abides on him. This is because they have been lured into sin by following their desires where their conscience had once warned them to not go .. and when that sin became mature, it resulted in death (James 1:14-15). I should tell you that there is a lot of Christians upon whom the wrath of God abides, despite what they have believed and whatever claims they make as to their state of salvation. These are referred to by Jesus as wolves in sheep's clothing, as those who in Matthew 7:21 will be condemned because although they did good things in His name, ultimately they chose to not do the will of His Father who is in heaven. They are on a broad road leading to destruction.

With this understanding of the wrath of God, we can see how Jesus came to meet this 2,000 years ago, and it was the wrath of God that placed Him on the cross - but it was not as we might have formerly pictured!

This expression of God's love shows us that in reality God does not desire that we should be driven to murder, but instead that if we can come to know that this is what our sin does, then maybe we will be genuinely remorseful, knowing that we don't need to hide from Him for having [taken that fruit], rather, if we will confess our sin then He is faithful and just to forgive us and to cleanse us from unrighteousness.

.. So, let me know your thoughts about this, otherwise I'd only be guessing my next words

Again, it is nice to meet you and to discuss an awesome topic so thoughtfully

WrongClub_Lucius said:

The inclusion of two things in a story always represents a choice, and the conversation about choosing and not choosing a particular tree confirm there is a choice to be made.

Click to expand...

There are two tellings of the creation week, two tellings of the Israel's wanderings in the wilderness, a pattern throughout scripture as it relates to the process taking place within/our soul journey...two sons, two trees, two cities, two mountains...until the truth narrows down to the ONE that we have always been from the beginning...

Adam was one until God placed him into a deep slumber, wounded his side to take out a woman/helper (a picture of our soul as something separate from self) who prepared the feast that he ate. Her desire was to be for her husband (God is our husband, spiritually speaking) but she desired something else...which we see depicted in scripture by two women, the harlot and the virgin...So as one became two, our soul journey is finding our way back, the two become one (again)...

"He who has the bride is the bridegroom"...In John 17 Jesus said "
21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. 22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one.

To be double-minded or not single of eye is all about perception (five senses observation or by inner Spirit of Christ) as in the question asked in the garden, "Where art thou?" To eat from the tree is to take thought (Jesus said take no thought...)...The answer to these matters is always a cross picked up or truth high and lifted up. Just as Moses' serpent on a pole in the wilderness was to Israel is Jesus Christ on the cross to us...antidote to bite of a serpent. Two sides of the same coin, Truth high and lifted up becomes an open door to heaven that no man can shut. The flip side, truth cast down becomes a bottomless pit with serpents that bite.

...two cannot walk as one unless they first agree. Jesus said we cannot serve two masters...and He said He came to make us blind that we might 'see'..."If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth.

I think it's important to realize that the fruit wasn't some magical thing that somehow transformed Adam and Eve.

I disagree that it was a contract per se, but you can be somewhat on the right track, since we are all essentially slaves to sin in the state in which we are born - with a damaged will that is inclined to self, we will all eventually choose to sin (and generally about as soon as we are developed enough in mind to make a choice at all).

But rather than the fruit creating some magical reaction, what happened is that beings who had no concept of what it was to disobey or rebel, chose to rebel. We can experience this sometimes in a small way in our lives today. Sometimes we can do a thing and know instantly it was wrong, and feel a conviction for it.

Adam and Eve had no such frame of reference in their personal experience before they fell. To sin was a drastic action for them, since sin was not any part of the material world prior to that (angels are created beings but not part of the material order). This is why all of creation fell under a curse because of Adam's sin. It represented an entire change of kind for the entire physical world and everything in it.

The important take-away is ... we are formed by what we do. Adam and Eve were literally changed by the act of sinning ... they understood what it was to sin, and their selfish desires were given rein that had not happened before.

Again we can see this today if someone who was formerly free of a thing first gets involved with an addictive substance or activity - it begins to change our desires, which changes our actions, which changes us.

The ancestral sin was the first such thing that changed man. And sins of people since then have done the same thing.

God IS love - yes, I know that might be difficult to understand/accept in light of certain passages, but when we encounter such contradiction it is always true that our understanding is faulty and often deeper understanding can resolve the issue. But "God is agape/love" is a clear statement. Agape love is a particular type that always desires the good of the object of the love - the ultimate good - and not understanding this can confuse us sometimes too.

I'm not sure if this is off the track of your concerns with PSA - just attempting to reply to a couple of points I've seen brought up in the thread.

WrongClub_Lucius said:

I have to call BS. I don't like to start out like this, but you are forcing my hand.

Here is a verse that seems to squarely contradict your first paragraph:

"I am God, and there is no other. I am God, and there is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times things that are not yet done, saying my council shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure." (Isaiah 45)

What you wrote: "Starting with God, God is Love (the epitome of Love), which means God is totally unselfish and is not doing stuff for His own sake, but is doing everything for the sake of man which is also God’s desire and might be referred to as His sake."

In the above passage, God explicitly states that he is acting according to his whims and desires...saying, "I will do all my pleasure."

Click to expand...

What kind of God is controlled by whims and personal desires?

Do you think allowing a willing Christ to be tortured; humiliated and murdered on the cross was a whim or personal desire of God?

Christ did not personally desire to go to the cross as His pray in the garden demonstrates, so would God who would have the greatest empathy possible for Christ personally “desire” Christ to go to the cross?

So what “pleases God”? It seems from scripture that helping willing humans fulfill their objective is the greatest pleasure of God, so what scripture do you see in contrast to that?

WrongClub_Lucius said:

I call BS, because this waxing poetically about love is does not reflect the complexity found in the Bible. This kind of theory serves to prevent people from dealing with that complexity...which creates the necessity for people like me to address the errors resulting from this pattern of simplification.





A few more passages for good measure. You already know these passages and many more, so I have no expectation of changing your mind...

"I didn't come to bring peace, but a fire, and how I wish it were already kindled!" (said Jesus)

"You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me,"

Click to expand...

Christ is the epitome of Love for others and the result was crucifixion, so yes Loving Christians will be in conflict with the world.

The consequences of those hating God do pass down to other generations, but that does not mean the third and fourth generation are hell bound, but they will experience real problems because of the ancestry and those problems might help them to turn to God, as we see repeatedly with the Jewish Nation in the Old Testament. Do you believe a person is inevitably “Hell Bound” not as the result of their own actions, but as the result of their parent’s actions?

Christie insb said:

I have read criticisms against the penal substitution theory. To me it makes no sense but I really haven't heard any different theories that make more sense. I will have to think about the Ransom theory more..... When I was reading Milton, I was exposed to the concept of the Fortunate Fall. This gives the. Power back to God. I don't have a big problem with not understanding God's every motive; He is God, after all. But I am open to a different theological interpretation.

Click to expand...

You might want to read my post 17 to begin with.

I got to the part where you said "limited atonement" and stopped. God so loved the world that he sent his only son so that whoever believes in him should not perish but have everlasting life. Etc. I am sure I am not going to change on this point, so if you want to start your explanation at a different point I will read it. Otherwise we disagree on too basic of a theological point for me to argue with you.

WrongClub_Lucius said:

The Garden is about choosing allegiance. There were two trees--one for God and one for Satan. And both God and Satan talked to Adam and Eve about which tree they should or should not eat from. The inclusion of two things in a story always represents a choice, and the conversation about choosing and not choosing a particular tree confirm there is a choice to be made.

The nature of the choice is about who to join, God or Satan. And eating the fruit is like signing a contract--it confirms and demonstrates the choice. Adam and Eve chose to be on Satan's team, hence we became enemies of God.

Adam and Eve chose to join Satan, and the rest of us are automatically slaves, since the children of slaves are automatically slaves.

And naturally, slaves remain slaves forever, unless their master gives them their freedom.


Jesus' death is still the means by which we are freed from death/ Satan. But instead of Jesus' death having an objective monetary value that equals the sum total of all sins ever committed, Jesus's humiliation and death is the thing that Satan wanted so much that he was willing to let us all go in exchange of it.

A major takeaway from this is that Jesus' death is not a reasonable or logical/ mathematical price or valuation of human worth. Instead, it seems it is the highest price that Satan could imagine, and I think he asked for it believing that God/ Jesus could not go through with it.

Jesus' death gives us the freedom to leave Satan if we so choose. But many people do not choose to leave.



Calling this "Ransom Theory" isn't entirely appropriate, because a ransom demand is accompanied by the act of kidnapping. But Satan did not kidnap us; we chose Satan! But God wanted to get us back, and had to negotiate with Satan to get us back.

Why is God negotiating with Satan? Because God put this whole thing in motion. God created everything, God put Satan here, and God has given Satan freedom to do what he wants. So if God were to snatch us away from Satan, he would be revoking the freedom he originally gave to Satan. And this would be a problem, because it would make God appear to be unjust/ unfair/ breaking his own rule...which is lying. This would undermine all of God's claims, and validate Satan's accusations!


And resurrection? It means that after this world's purpose is served, we have the opportunity to experience the peace and goodness that God claims to represent, but which we are unlikely to experience in this life...because of Satan's constant efforts to disprove God's wisdom.

Click to expand...

I have an additional question. With one tree for God and one tree for Satan, this sounds awfully dualistic to me. God made Satan and so the two seemingly equal trees seem to miss something. I have been thinking for awhile about the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. So they didn't really have a concept of morality at all before the Fall? Anyway. More will be revealed.

WrongClub_Lucius said:

There is some nuance separating "penal colony" from what I have in mind. In the big picture, I see this phsyical reality as the opportunity for Satan to test his accusation.

A penal colony, as I understand it, is the place to send the convicted criminal. But in this case, the judgement has not yet been made. So in my view, I think this physical reality is more like "house arrest" for Satan and the fallen angels, and God has created a framework specifically designed for testing their claims.

Click to expand...

I am one who hadn't heard of Penal substitution theory, presumably meaning our punishment transferred to Christ. The punishment Christ suffered on the cross had nothing to do with the covenant, that was Satan taking advantage of the situation. Blood shed for the remission of sin could be called a penalty but it is a price paid not a punishment as required by a blood covenant; there is substitute blood, Christ was the lamb of God since the foundation.

What did Christ achieve on the cross? He fulfilled prophesy in that He was cut off in the middle of confirming the covenant; the Kingdom of God was brought forward from a conditional promise to a reality.

Christie insb said:

I got to the part where you said "limited atonement" and stopped. God so loved the world that he sent his only son so that whoever believes in him should not perish but have everlasting life. Etc. I am sure I am not going to change on this point, so if you want to start your explanation at a different point I will read it. Otherwise we disagree on too basic of a theological point for me to argue with you.

Click to expand...

You can start with:
The Jews, especially the men, Jesus and lots of the New Testament was directly addressing, had direct individual experience with atonement through going through the atonement process for unintentional (minor) sins. God provided that wonderful education which we can only read about in Lev. 5 and try to imagine the experience for ourselves. We would also realize if we have to go through all this for “minor” (unintentional sins) than rebellious disobedience sins would require something unbelievably greater.

First off: the atonement sacrifice itself (Christ going to the cross) does not complete the atonement process since there is a part the sinner plays (again this would be understood best by those Jews who had experienced the atonement process for unintentional sins). Jesus and God have both done their part in the atonement process, but the individual sinner has to complete their part or atonement is not completed and if atonement is not completed the forgiveness is not assured. (God’s forgiveness for minor (unintentional sins) came after the correct completion of the atonement process (Lev. 5)).

Secondly: The part the sinner plays is nothing: worthy of anything, righteous, deserving of anything, or honorable. It is more like criminal, horrible and disgraceful, but necessary.

Christ Crucified is described by Paul, Peter, Jesus, John and the Hebrew writer as a ransom payment (it is not even said to be like a ransom payment, but it was a ransom payment).

I find the ransom description more than just an analogy and an excellent fit and I am not talking about the “Ransom Theory of Atonement”

(The “Ransom Theory of Atonement” has God paying satan the cruel torture, humiliation and murder of Christ but: Does God owe Satan anything? Is there some cosmic “law” saying you have to pay the kidnapper? Would it not be wrong for God to pay satan, if God could just as easily and safely take back His children without paying satan?)


Would a ransom as those in the first century might understand it (it was well known Caesura at 21 had been kidnapped and a ransom paid for him) included the following elements:


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 or for some other reason get his children any other way than making the payment.

5. The kidnapper is totally undeserving.

6. The kidnapper can accept or reject the payment.

We can agree on most of the parts with the atonement process being just like a ransom experience: The children of God be held out of the kingdom; Deity making the huge sacrificial payment; Christ’s torture, humiliation and murder on the cross being the payment; and the freedom given the child to enter the kingdom after the ransom is paid. But who is this unworthy kidnapper God will pay to release His child.

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


There is the one ransom, but could there be many unworthy kidnappers holding the children of God back?

Does not the nonbeliever himself hold the potential child of God (within them) back from the kingdom?

If the kidnapper does accept the payment has he/she done something worthy or virtually criminal?

You do have a substitute at the cross, standing in for you, but is it those that cried crucify him, the religious leaders, the Roman soldiers, one of the thieves, or maybe one of the disciples who ran away. To say: “Christ took my place” is extremely bold on your part, although you can be crucified “with” Christ like a deserving thief and join Christ in paradise.

Look at a real “Christ crucified” sermon in Acts 2 giv3en by Peter and he says nothing about Christ taking our place on the cross.

That is just an introduction to think about.

Christ definitely went to the cross for everyone, but that does not mean everyone is saved. The limitation on atonement is not put there by God/Christ, but by the individual who must accept the atonement sacrifice. The total atonement process or ransom payment is held up by the individual accepting or rejecting the sacrifice or ransom payment.

Research>
1. Substitution
2. Atonement
3. Subtitutionary Atonement