Article: what is wrong the substitutionary theory of atonement.

[RC_NewProtestants]

All lamb of God signifies is that Jesus was going to be sacrificed for the purpose of reconciliation between God and man, not counting men's sins against them, Forgiven, no barrier of fear to block the person from God. It does not signify that Jesus was to be sacrificed by a priest in a temple and having his body eaten by the priest and the people who brought him to the temple to be sacrificed. A comparison does not mean that all parts of a comparison are necessary. Nor does using a comparison dictate how an early ritual was understood because someone later makes a comparison.

Still my original question stands, Why don't they just admit that they can't answer it?

 

[Byfaithalone1]

All lamb of God signifies is that Jesus was going to be sacrificed for the purpose of reconciliation between God and man, not counting men's sins against them, Forgiven, no barrier of fear to block the person from God. It does not signify that Jesus was to be sacrificed by a priest in a temple and having his body eaten by the priest and the people who brought him to the temple to be sacrificed. A comparison does not mean that all parts of a comparison are necessary. Nor does using a comparison dictate how an early ritual was understood because someone later makes a comparison.

Still my original question stands, Why don't they just admit that they can't answer it?

In 1 Corinthians 5, Paul claims that Jesus Christ was our passover Lamb. Would agree or disagree with his claim? What was the purpose of a passover lamb? What did the blood of that lamb accomplish?

BFA

 

[AzA]

Do you believe that John the Baptist literally referred to Jesus Christ as the Lamb of God?
In your view, is Jesus Christ the Lamb of God? If so what does this phrase--Lamb of God--mean?
Would you take a different view than 1 Corinthians 5, which indicates that Jesus Christ was our passover Lamb who was sacrificed? If so, in what way?
How do you view the comparison made in the book of Hebrews between the sacrifices of the Isrealites and the sacrifice of Jesus Christ? Do you disagree with the position taken by the author of Hebrews and, if so, why?
BFA

I do not treat any metaphor as if it were an indicative statement. I treat it as if it were a suggestive statement. Metaphors, similies, anologies, all suggest qualities about the subject, but they do not sum up that subject.

According to John 1, John the Baptist "literally" said, "Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sins of the world." We are entirely in order distinguishing between his words from the meaning of his words; we do the same thing in reading and interpreting Jesus' sayings (compare "Eat me" and "Your family is not your family"). It is the same thing we do in reading the rest of scripture and all commentaries on it. In all cases we try to recognize the assumptions we're bringing to the table, and we try to engage those assumptions as well.

Thanks for the suggestion to read 1 Corinthians 5; I did. I see that the dominant metaphor in the chapter is not meat, but yeast as a threat to bread. Christ-as-lamb may be useful symbolism elsewhere, and it is -- but in this chapter, the focus is bread. This is post-Christ discourse, post-Last Supper discourse, and the audience are Gentiles. We the body are the dough lump that is affected by "malice and wickedness," and in order to "keep the feast" at which Christ is represented as bread, not as meat (1 Corinthians 11), the leaven among and within us should be put away. Jesus personally shifted the paschal symbolism before He went out into the garden, so this is not Paul's innovation. He merely acknowledges it here and uses it to teach the Corinthians something more about their place in God's universe. The symbolism suggests an additional aspect of our relationship with Him, full communion with Him and with each other being the target, and such things as "malice and wickedness" undermining the communion. Not discerning the body of which we are a part, and not respecting the communion God creates thereby -- both of those are highly problematic.

Reviewing Hebrews, you will note that the author is at pains to run two arguments at the same time. They are complementary arguments. First, that "if" the blood of goats and bulls sanctified a person, how much more can God Himself sanctify a person? Has to be so much more than a goat or a bull. This is an argument of quantity or degree. Second, that "it is not possible" for the blood of goats and bulls to sanctify a person -- so how dependent are we on God in Christ to accomplish our renewal? We are totally dependent. This is an argument of quality. It's all very nicely done.

Naturally, because the metaphor is not the meaning, the author ends up in the triumph of the psalms and the prophets: The sacrificial rituals are not the endpoint, and thus Christ comes to do God's will (and He said in John 17 that He had done it). Now we are renewed vicariously, through His commitment to the covenant testified of many, many years before: "I will put my law into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them, and their sins and iniquities I remember no more." The end of memory. The end of offering. The end of corruption, and the end of sin... What an awesome plan.

When we try to investigate the ancient Hebrew rituals, we have a tendency to pluck them from the context of the communities' life. It may be easier to look at a blade and a bleeding goat decontextually than to ask what it took to birth, breed, feed, heal, mate, and ultimately kill and carve that goat, to do so with much more order and deliberation than neighboring communities applied, and to sense what it meant for a sacrificer to lock down every aspect of that goat's life from its birth to its final bleat.

But it's not that hard to see how, from those rituals, one might begin to sense of one's utter dependence on the God who cares for us from birth till death and beyond, and draw close in submission to that care. The sacrificial system teaches that God is Creator, Parent, Nurturer, Disciplinarian, Teacher, Perceiver, Surgeon, Maturing Agent, and End-of-the-Line. Christ revealed Him thus. Christ vertically integrated the God-revelation process, not just by showing who God was in verity but also showing what man is to God in verity and showing and teaching what man's right response to all of that is. When we have seen Him we have seen the Father, not because the Godhead is infighting and someone wants blood, but because God has the entire process of restoration on lock. It's in good hands. That's good news to me.

 

[Byfaithalone1]

I do not treat any metaphor as if it were an indicative statement. I treat it as if it were a suggestive statement. Metaphors, similies, anologies, all suggest qualities about the subject, but they do not sum up that subject.

According to John 1, John the Baptist "literally" said, "Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sins of the world." We are entirely in order distinguishing between his words from the meaning of his words; we do the same thing in reading and interpreting Jesus' sayings (compare "Eat me" and "Your family is not your family"). It is the same thing we do in reading the rest of scripture and all commentaries on it. In all cases we try to recognize the assumptions we're bringing to the table, and we try to engage those assumptions as well.

Thanks for the suggestion to read 1 Corinthians 5; I did. I see that the dominant metaphor in the chapter is not meat, but yeast as a threat to bread. Christ-as-lamb may be useful symbolism elsewhere, and it is -- but in this chapter, the focus is bread. This is post-Christ discourse, post-Last Supper discourse, and the audience are Gentiles. We the body are the dough lump that is affected by "malice and wickedness," and in order to "keep the feast" at which Christ is represented as bread, not as meat (1 Corinthians 11), the leaven among and within us should be put away. Jesus personally shifted the paschal symbolism before He went out into the garden, so this is not Paul's innovation. He merely acknowledges it here and uses it to teach the Corinthians something more about their place in God's universe. The symbolism suggests an additional aspect of our relationship with Him, full communion with Him and with each other being the target, and such things as "malice and wickedness" undermining the communion. Not discerning the body of which we are a part, and not respecting the communion God creates thereby -- both of those are highly problematic.

Reviewing Hebrews, you will note that the author is at pains to run two arguments at the same time. They are complementary arguments. First, that "if" the blood of goats and bulls sanctified a person, how much more can God Himself sanctify a person? Has to be so much more than a goat or a bull. This is an argument of quantity or degree. Second, that "it is not possible" for the blood of goats and bulls to sanctify a person -- so how dependent are we on God in Christ to accomplish our renewal? We are totally dependent. This is an argument of quality. It's all very nicely done.

Naturally, because the metaphor is not the meaning, the author ends up in the triumph of the psalms and the prophets: The sacrificial rituals are not the endpoint, and thus Christ comes to do God's will (and He said in John 17 that He had done it). Now we are renewed vicariously, through His commitment to the covenant testified of many, many years before: "I will put my law into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them, and their sins and iniquities I remember no more." The end of memory. The end of offering. The end of corruption, and the end of sin... What an awesome plan.

When we try to investigate the ancient Hebrew rituals, we have a tendency to pluck them from the context of the communities' life. It may be easier to look at a blade and a bleeding goat decontextually than to ask what it took to birth, breed, feed, heal, mate, and ultimately kill and carve that goat, to do so with much more order and deliberation than neighboring communities applied, and to sense what it meant for a sacrificer to lock down every aspect of that goat's life from its birth to its final bleat.

But it's not that hard to see how, from those rituals, one might begin to sense of one's utter dependence on the God who cares for us from birth till death and beyond, and draw close in submission to that care. The sacrificial system teaches that God is Creator, Parent, Nurturer, Disciplinarian, Teacher, Perceiver, Surgeon, Maturing Agent, and End-of-the-Line. Christ revealed Him thus. Christ vertically integrated the God-revelation process, not just by showing who God was in verity but also showing what man is to God in verity and showing and teaching what man's right response to all of that is. When we have seen Him we have seen the Father, not because the Godhead is infighting and someone wants blood, but because God has the entire process of restoration on lock. It's in good hands. That's good news to me.

Was the shedding of Christ's blood necessary? Would man live without that shed blood?

Was the death of the passover lamb necessary? According to the story, what happend to the first born child in households where no lamb died?

We know that Paul believed that Jesus was the passover lamb, but I'm curious whether you believe that He was.

BFA

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

The comparison to the passover lamb is pretty simple, God passes over the sin of those who trust God. The symbol of the blood is that they trusted God's promise to deliver them, both from bondage and from the possible curse of the plague.

Even from the story of the exodus we don't see the passover lamb as taking away sin. So we should immediately see that it is used as a comparison, an analogy, as way to connect to the culture at the time.

 

[StormyOne]

Was the shedding of Christ's blood necessary?

no..... it was the purpose of Christ to show the lengths to which God would go to save humanity..... just as a good parent would move heaven and earth to save one of their children.....

Would man live without that shed blood?

yes, there were millions who lived before the event occurred....

Was the death of the passover lamb necessary? According to the story, what happened to the first born child in households where no lamb died?

the analogy breaks down if you believe that Christ died for all.....

We know that Paul believed that Jesus was the passover lamb, but I'm curious whether you believe that He was.

BFA

did he? is Paul the expert or did he too see through a glass darkly?

 

[AzA]

BFA, I sense you putting a lot of stock on those (supplementary) renderings of pascha as "Passover Lamb" when the word pascha suggests not just "the lamb" but also "the ritual offering," "the supper," and "the five-or-six-day festival." Assumptions influence renderings, and that is just as true in this case as in any other. One may prefer "lamb" here, as you evidently do, but the result does not satisfy the epistle's own internal context, and it also privileges a single aspect of the original festival over all others. Paul is "literally" silent as to Jesus' lamb-ness, but he's voluminous as to Jesus' redemption. Thus I prefer a systemic view to a narrowly focused one, but I'm not here to convert you. Be assured.

 

[JohnT]

thank you for sharing, please note I did not write what you are quoting, that was RC, have a good day.....

That is not the first time I made a mistake, nor will it be the last.

Thanks for not getting upset.

 

[JohnT]

RC:

Thank you for giving us something to debate about your beliefs.

In the first paragraph you quote:

"Isn’t the everlasting gospel the good news that Jesus, the God-man, lived a life of perfect obedience to the law and then died as my substitute in order that I, by faith, can claim His perfect righteousness as my own, a righteousness that comes only by faith in His righteousness--a righteousness credited to me apart from "the works of the law" (Gal. 2:16)?
​

Please note the differences in what your source says, and what the verse he misquotes actually says

Galatians 2:15
We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles,

16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith OF Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified
​

Perfect obedience is not the focus of the verse
Nor is "my faith" (a work) but it is belief in Jesus.

Genesis 15:6 6
And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness

Romans 3:22
Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:

23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; 24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:

25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. 28Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law
​

( Guess that includes Sabbath keeping, eh?)

Therefore, it is NOT the law-keeping of Jesus that is "transferred to us who believe" That is the modal transfer theory, contingent upon works, and it severely LIMITS the Atonement because it is made to be wholly dependent on the works of mankind. Essentially it makes humans co-mediators of the Atonement, and it completely eliminates thew concept that all sin is an affront to the holiness of God, fir it is to Him alone that we must deal with about our sins.

The guy is semi Pelagian.

The theory skips over the imputation of sin unto all mankind, and the logical imputation of the righteousness of Jesus given to those who believe (see Genesis above)

Romans 4:3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.

4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.

5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted (IMPUTED) for righteousness
​

Romans 5:10
For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.

11 And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.

12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.


15 But not as the offense, so also is the free gift. For if through the offense of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one

17 For if by one man's offense death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)

18 Therefore as by the offense of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous
​

RC, Unless, and until your theory of the Atonement includes and adequately explain the above verses, it is deficient.

I stopped reading at the first paragraph because the guy was so wrong; and if a foundation is not level, then the building on which it rests (or obe's theory of the Atonement) will likewise be uneven.

 

[JohnT]

Duplicate post

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

Well if you could not even read the first paragraph then I don't think you are capable of even making any kind of assessment. Nor do I think you are capable of analysing something someone said as semi pelagian from a short rhetorical question.

I used that guys quote because he is a popular Adventists and the quote represents the predominately substitutionary theory proponents position. I could have used R.C. Sproul or John MacArthur or a host of other people.

You are merely reading something into the verses that you think is semi pelagian, There is no debate that Jesus was perfect, yet because Goldstein says perfect you seem to think it is some kind of works oriented statement.

In short you really don't even know what you are talking about, and you don't even have the courage to read a short section of an article.

 

[Adventtruth]

Apparently so Stormy as the first response to the question is AT asking a different question.

But to answer the question forgiveness is not prerequisite upon somebody paying a debt. That is why it is called forgiveness. Punishment is when someone has to pay for the debt or crime, that is why punishment is not called forgiveness. AT might want to reread a few of Jesus' parables on forgiveness.

I never said forgivness was a prereq to paying a debt. But the bible does say:

(Rom 6:23) For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

AT

 

[Adventtruth]

which is why this particular theory of atonement runs into problems... it doesn't take anything for the Creator of all to simply forgive humankind for falling.... but some ideas are difficult to let go of.... especially if they are firmly entrenched in our traditions....

Sin is always dealt with...either by the sinners death or God absorbs it through Christs atonement.

 

[sentipente]

Sin is always dealt with...either by the sinners death or God absorbs it through Christs atonement.

So, it seems that sin is always in charge. Why do you think this is an acceptable position?

 

[StormyOne]

Sin is always dealt with...either by the sinners death or God absorbs it through Christs atonement.

a sinner cannot deal with sin.....if one believes that Christ's death has forgiven all sins past, present and future, then only the last part of your statement can be correct. The sin issue was dealt with by God.....

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

I never said forgivness was a prereq to paying a debt. But the bible does say:

(Rom 6:23) For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

AT

I completely agree with this verse. But it says nothing about the gift having to be paid for, by either the sinner or anyone else (it certainly cost God, that is why it is called a sacrifice but that is the nature of love it gives unselfishly). Jesus Christ was the evidence of the forgiveness and power of life. If God wants to give us a gift why do we have to put conditions on the gift such as saying God can't give the gift unless someone is punished. Sin certainly paid it's wage, people hated and rejected Christ and killed Him. A graphic example of the results of sin, that people would kill their own creator (Acts 3:15).

 

[JohnT]

There are always people who pretend that their limited understanding is truth. Those people should be avoided.

As I said before there are people who through they limited knowledge choose to only choose their narrow meanings. That the English word for justice and righteous have to do with right doing, acting justly etc is beyond dispute. Only here in the original post we see that dispute done, not by citing any evidence but merely by making graitutius assertions.

Originally Posted by RC_NewProtestants

maybe you can point us to some article that shows us that mankind does not rebel against God, that the idea that we were at one time enemies to God is not actually what Paul said or meant. And please don't just say Paul did not understand. He provides some evidence of the what and why of his beliefs.

​

To which Stormy replied.

was that really necessary?

That is funny. Stormy a member of the SDA church is called a poser (couched in the words "you may be a poser" ) by someone who is not an SDA and who appears on this forum because someone invited him, that someone probably also not an SDA. And all this passes for a logical argument to JohnT? No wonder he has difficulty with the more complex theological ideas.

we usually antagonize that which we don't understand... your reaction/response proves true....

as I said before, just because you are in a box does not mean others are required to join you in your box....

we antagonize that which we don't understand..... I suspect if you could relax for a moment and resist the urge to be anal retentive about this, you would realize that indeed there are things in your life in which experience guides you, but then you might not admit it here as you wish to maintain the facade of being cerebral and logical......

perhaps its best as you seem to have difficulty understanding those things I have shared... take care my friend...

The problem of course...

The problem is that the fundamentalist can't understand complex ideas, they desire someone to tell them what to think and if they meet someone who thinks differently they simply attack and deny any validity to other ways of looking at things. It is those people who have been the cause the most problems on this forum. It is a clear demonstration of the anti-reasoning that established fundmentalism in the first place against modern reasoning. They hate change and love their traditions.

Exceptions don't make the rule! One who leaves fundamentalism is no longer a fundamentalist. The statement was of those currently in fundamentalism, currently stuck in their perferred rut. When you tell me to not write about what I don't know about when you know even less it only makes you look silly.

quote=RC_NewProtestants;48122823]Well if you could not even read the first paragraph then I don't think you are capable of even making any kind of assessment. Nor do I think you are capable of analysing something someone said as semi pelagian from a short rhetorical question.

I used that guys quote because he is a popular Adventists and the quote represents the predominately substitutionary (stheory proponents position. I could have used R.C. Sproul or John MacArthur or a host of other people.

You are merely reading something into the verses that you think is semi pelagian, There is no debate that Jesus was perfect, yet because Goldstein says perfect you seem to think it is some kind of works oriented statement.

In short you really don't even know what you are talking about, and you don't even have the courage to read a short section of an article.[/quote]

 

[Adventtruth]

a sinner cannot deal with sin.....if one believes that Christ's death has forgiven all sins past, present and future, then only the last part of your statement can be correct. The sin issue was dealt with by God.....

I agree stormy...sin was dealt with by God in Christ thus reconciliation. We where reconciled to God. Sin was dealt with. He died for our sins.

But what of those who are not in Christ? What of those who have already died with out faith ? The passage says the wages of sin is death...

If the sinner has not trusted Christ, he being sinful apart from Christ, renders his own life as payment for sin having not recievedd the free gift.

(Rom 6:23) For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

(1Co 15:3) For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures,

As the two passages show, sin and eternal death are forever related.


AT

 

[StormyOne]

I agree stormy...sin was dealt with by God in Christ thus reconciliation. We where reconciled to God. Sin was dealt with. He died for our sins.

But what of those who are not in Christ? What of those who have already died with out faith ? The passage says the wages of sin is death...

If the sinner has not trusted Christ, he being sinful apart from Christ, renders his own life as payment for sin having not recievedd the free gift.

(Rom 6:23) For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

(1Co 15:3) For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures,

As the two passages show, sin and eternal death are forever related.


AT

interesting.... if the sinner never knew Christ then what?

 

[Adventtruth]

I completely agree with this verse. But it says nothing about the gift having to be paid for, by either the sinner or anyone else (it certainly cost God, that is why it is called a sacrifice but that is the nature of love it gives unselfishly).

A gift is what it is...a gift. No one pays for a gift. But it does say the wages of sin is death. And according to verse 7 "one who has died is free from sin". That can mean eternal life for some or eternal death for others. Verse 8 says if we have "died with Christ we shall also live with Him."

Jesus Christ was the evidence of the forgiveness and power of life. If God wants to give us a gift why do we have to put conditions on the gift such as saying God can't give the gift unless someone is punished.

The gift is one thing and Gods wrath against sin is another. Christ died to sin being sinless. We are said to have died with Him thus being fully free from sin.

Sin certainly paid it's wage, people hated and rejected Christ and killed Him. A graphic example of the results of sin, that people would kill their own creator (Acts 3:15).

Christ laid it down....but I get what you are saying. Sin showed its ugly head.

AT