Article: what is wrong the substitutionary theory of atonement.

[Avonia]

Atonement means At One Ment

Nicely said.

RC, you've clearly spent a great deal of time looking at this issue. I'm curious why you care about it so much.

 

[Adventtruth]

Some people read but are so intent upon disagreeing they don't understand.

I understand perfectly well what you are teaching, but I disagree with your ideas put forth here.

From strongs: kâphar
kaw-far'
A primitive root; to cover (specifically with bitumen); figuratively to expiate or condone, to placate or cancel: - appease, make (an) atonement, cleanse, disannul, forgive, be merciful, pacify, pardon, to pitch, purge (away), put off, (make) reconcile (-liation).


At that is what I told you in that posting that atonment is. Its to cover.

Atonement means At One Ment, that is reconciliation. Of course It is not God who went away from man but man away from God. Therefore the reconciliation is about God reaching out to rebellious man.

And of course it was man who rebelled. God never needs to be reconciled to us but us to Him, but this is a moot point. The idea of at one ment is an idea that is based upon what has taken place.

Of course that involves love and forgiveness because one cannot be reconciled back to someone that you hate and or that you think is out to kill you.

And that is why it had to be based upon His grace alone...

Forgiveness no matter how freely given does not do anything if the person forgiven rejects the forgiveness.They simply remain hostile.

Agreed.

Forgiveness is the method of reconciling and reconciling is the result of a love that does not let go but seeks after the hurting and rebellious man.

And what do you base this on? And to what is the foundation that forgivenss rest upon?

Unfortunately Christianity in the last couple hundred years has sought to make man feel that God has to punish, that love and forgiveness can't exist without punishment. Thus they read the Bible texts in a much different way that the Jew or Christian who wrote those things.

Then why did Christ suffer and die on the cross? Was it only to display His love? No the bible tells us that Christ had to die and suffer for the sin of humanity, and to ratify the New Covenant with His blood. Without blood, there is no forgivness.

(Heb 9:11) And Christ being come, chief priest of the coming good things, through the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands--that is, not of this creation--
Heb 9:12 neither through blood of goats and calves, but through his own blood, did enter in once into the holy places, age-during redemption having obtained;
Heb 9:13 for if the blood of bulls, and goats, and ashes of an heifer, sprinkling those defiled, doth sanctify to the purifying of the flesh,
Heb 9:14 how much more shall the blood of the Christ (who through the age-during Spirit did offer himself unblemished to God) purify your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
Heb 9:15 And because of this, of a new covenant he is mediator, that, death having come, for redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, those called may receive the promise of the age-during inheritance,
Heb 9:16 for where a covenant is , the death of the covenant-victim to come in is necessary,
Heb 9:17 for a covenant over dead victims is stedfast, since it is no force at all when the covenant-victim liveth,
Heb 9:18 whence not even the first apart from blood hath been initiated,
Heb 9:19 for every command having been spoken, according to law, by Moses, to all the people, having taken the blood of the calves and goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, he both the book itself and all the people did sprinkle,
Heb 9:20 saying, `This is the blood of the covenant that God enjoined unto you,'
Heb 9:21 and both the tabernacle and all the vessels of the service with blood in like manner he did sprinkle,
Heb 9:22 and with blood almost all things are purified according to the law, and apart from blood-shedding forgiveness doth not come.


It also tells us that forgivness is based upon God grace which is the foundation of the blood sacrifice and forgivness. It is the finished work of Christ upon the cross.

(Eph 1:6) to the praise of the glory of His grace, in which He did make us accepted in the beloved,
(Eph 1:7) in whom we have the redemption through his blood, the remission of the trespasses, according to the riches of His grace,

(Col 1:13) who did rescue us out of the authority of the darkness, and did translate us into the reign of the Son of His love,
(Col 1:14) in whom we have the redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of the sins,


(Mat 26:27) and having taken the cup, and having given thanks, he gave to them, saying, `Drink ye of it--all;
(Mat 26:28) for this is my blood of the new covenant, that for many is being poured out--to remission of sins;

It is clear from the bible that the forgivness is through the blood.


AT

 

[sentipente]

And of course it was man who rebelled.

Man did not rebel. Why do we continue to push the same disproven views?

 

[StormyOne]

Man did not rebel. Why do we continue to push the same disproven views?

because it makes the traditional theory work.....

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

Man did not rebel. Why do we continue to push the same disproven views?

I don't think I have ever seen the idea that man rebelled dis-proven. Maybe you can show where and how it is dis-proven. Certainly the old testament is full of the idea of people rebelling against God.

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.

 

[StormyOne]

Eve was deceived.... Adam chose to share her fate whatever it was... disobedience because of deception is not the same as knowing what was at stake and then blatantly doing the opposite of the directive....

 

[StormyOne]

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.

was that really necessary?

 

[Adventtruth]

Eve was deceived.... Adam chose to share her fate whatever it was... disobedience because of deception is not the same as knowing what was at stake and then blatantly doing the opposite of the directive....

And what has that to do with RC's very sound argument?


AT

 

[sentipente]

I don't think I have ever seen the idea that man rebelled dis-proven. Maybe you can show where and how it is dis-proven. Certainly the old testament is full of the idea of people rebelling against God.

I always wonder why we deliberately suspend reason when reading those passages. Are you suggesting that the human race is in trouble because of these "rebellions" you read about in the OT? It is better if we seek for meaning instead of just doing word searches and being satified that a word we desire has been located in the text. I suggest you do some independent study into the nature of rebellions and what they entail.

 

[sentipente]

And what has that to do with RC's very sound argument?


AT

A rose by any other name is just as sweet. A thing is not a rebellion merely because the word has been attached to it. It must meet the prerequisites or a rebellion for it to be a rebellion. I don't think you understand the meaning of a rebellion. An uprising or riot is not a rebellion. Not even a revolution is a rebellion. That argument cannot be sound because it was based on a very flawed premise.

 

[StormyOne]

And what has that to do with RC's very sound argument?


AT

simple.... consequences are different for rebellion than they are for deception... or look at in another way, in the parables of the lost coin, lost sheep and the prodical's son, in two situations the thing that was lost could do nothing except wait for rescue.... the rebellious son had to choose to return home... the lesson there is obvious.....

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

was that really necessary?

Necessary, who knows but none the less true. Notice Senti could do nothing to provide us with an answer as to why the idea of rebellion is "dis-proven"

As for deception not being rebellion that is hardly the way the story in Genesis regards the situation. Now I don't take the story literally but I do take it as allegorical truth. The story has man listening to half truths and choosing to go against the instruction of God. Because man wants to be what he is not, man wants to be God.

In simple terms man rebels against his own conscience which is the point of communication with God, as imperfect as that may be due to people's immersion in their cultural ideas it is still the place where reason says that we know what is right and what is wrong. We know it is better to care for other people then to just be self centered and self important. We know love is the better way and we rebel against it, to rebel against love is to rebel against God because God is love.

 

[sentipente]

RC, thankfully Paul was wise enough to note that the woman was deceived but you seem to read a non-existent rebellion in Genesis. What can I say? Based on your last post, you are an awful good fiction writer. You have a vivid imagination.

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

Well I don't just base it on the Genesis story. But then maybe this passage from Paul will help you.

[SIZE=+0](NASB) 1 Timothy 1:3 As I urged you upon my departure for Macedonia, remain on at Ephesus so that you may instruct certain men not to teach strange doctrines, 4 nor to pay attention to myths and endless genealogies, which give rise to mere speculation rather than furthering the administration of God which is by faith. 5 But the goal of our instruction is love from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. 6 For some men, straying from these things, have turned aside to fruitless discussion, 7 wanting to be teachers of the Law, even though they do not understand either what they are saying or the matters about which they make confident assertions. 8 But we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully, 9 realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers 10 and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching, 11 according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted. 12 I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who has strengthened me, because He considered me faithful, putting me into service, 13 even though I was formerly a blasphemer and a persecutor and a violent aggressor. Yet I was shown mercy because I acted ignorantly in unbelief; 14 and the grace of our Lord was more than abundant, with the faith and love which are found in Christ Jesus. 15 It is a trustworthy statement, deserving full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, among whom I am foremost of all. [/SIZE]

 

[sentipente]

Don't confuse a preacher who is trying to make people aware of their ways with a treatise on the nature and condition of man. What does he mean that he was shown mercy for "acting ignorantly from unbelief?" Did you consider that?

 

[JohnT]

ISBE part 3 of 3

(2) All the New Testament writers agree in making Jesus the center of their idea of the way of salvation and that His death is an essential element in His saving power. This they do by combining Old Testament teaching with the facts of the life and death of the Lord, confirming their conclusion by appeal to the Resurrection. Paul represents himself as holding the common doctrine of Christianity at the time, and from the beginning, when in 1Co 15:3 f he sums up his teaching that salvation is secured through the death and re surrection of Jesus according to the Scriptures. Elsewhere (Eph 2:16,18; 1Ti 2:5; compare Ac 4:12) in all his writings he emphasizes his belief that Jesus Christ is the one Mediator between God and man, by the blood of His cross (Col 1:20; 1Co 2:2), removing the sin barrier between God and men. Peter, during the life of Jesus so full of the current Jewish notion that God accepted the Jews de facto, in his later ministry makes Jesus in His death the one way to God (Ac 4:12; 1Pe 1:2,18,19; 2:21,24; 3:18).

John has this element so prominent in his Gospel that radical critical opinion questions its authorship partly on that account, while the epistles of John and the Revelation are, on the same ground, attributed to later Greek thought (compare 1Joh 1:7; 2:2; 3:5; 4:10; Re 1:5; 5:9). The Epistle to the Hebrews finds in Jesus the fulfillment and extension of all the sacrificial system of Judaism and holds that the shedding of blood seems essential to the very idea of remission of sins (He 9:22; compare He 2:17; 7:26 f; 9:24-28).

3. How Shall We Understand the Atonement?

When we come to systematize the teaching concerning the Atonement we find, as in all doctrine, that definite system is not offered us in the New Testament, but all system, if it is to have any value for Christianity, must find its materials and principles in the New Testament. Proceeding in this way some features may be stated positively and finally, while others must be presented interrogatively, recognizing that interpretations may differ.

(1) An initial consideration is that the Atonement originates with God who "was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself" (2Co 5:19), and whose love gave Jesus to redeem sinful men (Joh 3:16; Ro 5:8, etc. ). In all atonement in Old Testament and New Testament the initiative is of God who not only devises and reveals the way to reconciliation, but by means of angels, prophets, priests and ultimately His only begotten Son applies the means of atonement and persuades men to accept the proffered reconciliation. Nothing in the speculation concerning the Atonement can be more false to its true nature than making a breach between God and His Christ in their attitude toward sinful men.

(2) It follows that atonement is fundamental in the nature of God in His relations to men, and that redemption is in the heart of God's dealing in history. The "Lamb slain from the foundation of the world" (Re 13:8 the King James Version and the English Revised Version; compare Re 5:5-7) is the interpreter of the seven-sealed book of God's providence in historyú In Jesus we behold the Lamb of God taking away the sin of the world (Joh 1:29).

(3) The question will arise in the analysis of the doctrine: How does the death of Christ save us? No specific answer has ever been generally satisfactory. We have numerous theories of the Atonement. We have already intimated that the answer to this question will depend upon our idea of the nature of God, the nature of sin, the content of salvation, the nature of man, and our idea of Satan and evil spirits. We ought at once to dismiss all merely quantitative and commercial conceptions of exchange of merit. There is no longer any question that the doctrines of imputation, both of Adam's sin and of Christ's righteousness, were overwrought and applied by the early theologians with a fatal exclusiveness, without warrant in the Word of God. On the other hand no theory can hold much weight that presupposes that sin is a thing of light consequence in the nature of man and in the economy of God. Unless one is prepared to resist unto blood striving against sin (Heb 12:2-4), he cannot know the meaning of the Christ. Again, it may be said that the notion that the death of Christ is to be considered apart from His life, eternal and incarnate life, as the atoning work, is far too narrow to express the teaching of the Bible and far too shallow to meet the demands of an ethical conscience.

It would serve clearness if we reminded ourselves that the question of how in the Atonement may involve various elements. We may inquire: (a) for the ground on which God may righteously receive the sinner; (b) for the means by which God places the restoration within the reach of the sinner; (c) for the influence by which the sinner is persuaded to accept the reconciliation; (d) for the attitude or exercise of the sinner toward God in Christ wherein he actually enters the state of restored union with God. The various theories have seemed to be exclusive, or at least mutually antagonistic, largely because they have taken partial views of the whole subject and have emphasized some one feature of the whole content. All serious theories partly express the truth and all together are inadequate fully to declare how the Daystar from on high doth guide our feet into the way of peace (Lu 1:79).

(4) Another question over which theologians have sorely vexed themselves and each other concerns the extent of the Atonement, whether it is available for all men or only for certain particular, elect ones. That controversy may now be passed by. It is no longer possible to read the Bible and suppose that God relates himself sympathetically with only a part of the race. All segregated passages of Scripture formerly employed in support of such a view have now taken their place in the progressive self-interpretation of God to men through Christ who is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world (1 Joh 2:2). No man cometh unto the Father but by Him (Joh 14:6): but whosoever does thus call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved (Joe 2:32; Ac 2:21).

 

[sentipente]

JohnT, if you understand what you just pasted please summarize it in a few cogent sentences.

 

[JohnT]

ISBE Part 2 of 3
.
2. The Breach in the Unity:

In both Old Testament and New Testament the assumption of unity between God and man stands over against the contrasted fact that there is a radical breach in this unity. This breach is recognized in all God's relations to men; and even when healed it is always subject to new failures which must be provided for, by the daily oblations in the Old Testament, by the continuous intercession of the Christ (Heb 7:25; 9:24) in the New Testament. Even when there is no conscious breach, man is taught to recognize that it may exist and he must avail himself of the appointed means for its healing, e. g. daily sacrifices. This breach is universally attributed to some behavior on man's part. This may be moral or ceremonial uncleanness on man's part. He may have broken with God fundamentally in character or conduct and so by committing sin have incurred guilt; or he may have neglected the fitting recognition that his life is in common with God and so by his disregard have incurred uncleanness. After the first breach between God and man it is always necessary that man shall approach God on the assumption that this breach needs healing, and so always come with an offering. In human nature the sin breach is rooted and universal (Ro 3:9-19; 5:12-14).

3. Means for Expressing, Restoring and Maintaining:

Numerous and various means were employed for expressing this essential unity of life, for restoring it since it was broken off in sin, and for maintaining it. These means were primarily spiritual and ethical but made extensive use of material substances, physical acts and symbolical ceremonials; and these tended always to obscure and supplant the spiritual and ethical qualities, which it was their function to exhibit. The prophet came to the rescue of the spiritual and ethical and reached his highest insight and function in the doctrine of the Suffering Servant of Yahweh through whom God was to be united with a redeemed race (compare among many passages, Isa 49:1-7; 66:18 ff; Ps 22:27 ff).



[FONT=&quot]III. The Atonement of Jesus Christ

1. Preparation for New Testament Doctrine:

All the symbols, doctrine and examples of atonement in the Old Testament among the Hebrews find their counterpart, fulfillment and complete explanation in the new covenant in the blood of Jesus Christ (Mt 26:28; Heb 12:24). By interpreting the inner spirit of the sacrificial system, by insisting on the unity and holiness of God, by passionate pleas for purity in the people, and especially by teaching the principle of vicarious suffering for sin, the Prophets laid the foundation in thought-forms and in religious atmosphere for such a doctrine of atonement as is presented in the life and teaching of Jesus and as is unfolded in the teaching of His apostles.

The personal, parabolic sufferings of Hosea, the remarkable elaboration of the redemption of spiritual Israel through a Suffering Servant of Yahweh and the extension of that redemption to all mankind as presented in Isa 40-66, and the same element in such psalms as Ps 22, constitute a key to the understanding of the work of the Christ that unifies the entire revelation of God's righteousness in passing over human sins (Ro 3:24 f). Yet it is remarkable that such a conception of the way of atonement was as far as possible from the general and average Jewish mind when Jesus came. In no sense can the New Testament doctrine of the Atonement be said to be the product of the thought and spirit of the times.

2. The One Clear Fact:

However much theologians may disagree as to the rationale of the Atonement, there is, as there can be, no question that Jesus and all His interpreters in the New Testament represent the Atonement between God and men as somehow accomplished through Jesus Christ. It is also an agreed fact in exegesis that Jesus and His apostles understood His death to be radically connected with this Atonement. [/FONT]

 

[JohnT]

Part 1 of 3

In the KJV, the Hebrew word for justice, mishpat appears 112 times, and mostly translated as justice.

Here we see the same thing for the Greek word ho krisis, and its five cognates (derivatives)

In the NT the word krisis or ho krisis is used only 11 times.

What does this prove? Nothing, except how to do a word study. The proper way is not through a lexicon. Therefore, the following is submitted in hopes of generating an biblically accurate theology as a common ground for discussion

I believe that the heart of this discussion is a confusion between the words ATONEMENT and JUSTIFICATION,.

Here are excerpts from the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (ISBE) to consider.

ATONEMENT:

a-ton'-ment: Translates kaphar; chaTa'; ratsah, the last employed only of human relations (1Sa 29:4); translates the following Greek stems hilas-, simple and compounded with various prepositions; allag- in composition only, but with numerous prepositions and even two at a time, e. g. Mt 5:24; lip- rarely (Da 9:24).

I. Terms Employed.

1. Hebrew and Greek Words:

The root meanings of the Hebrew words, taking them in the order cited above, are, to "cover," hence expiate, condone, cancel, placate; to "offer," or "receive a sin offering," hence, make atonement, appease, propitiate; "effect reconciliation," i. e. by some conduct, or course of action. Of the Greek words the meanings, in order, are "to be," or "cause to be, friendly"; "to render other," hence to restore; "to leave" and with preposition to leave off, i. e. enmity, or evil, etc. ; "to render holy," "to set apart for"; hence, of the Deity, to appropriate or accept for Himself…


5. Notes on Use of Terms:

The history of the explanation of the Atonement and the terms of preaching atonement cannot, of course, be ignored. Nor can the original meaning of the terms employed and the manner of their use be neglected. There are significant features in the use of terms, and we have to take account of the history of interpretation. Only we must not bind ourselves nor the word of God in such forms.

(1) The most frequently employed Hebrew word, kaphar, is found in the Prophets only in the priestly section (Eze 45:15,20; Da 9:24) where English Versions of the Bible have "make reconciliation," margin, "purge away." Furthermore, it is not found in Deuteronomy, which is the prophetic book of the Pentateuch. This indicates that it is an essentially priestly conception. The same term is frequently translated by "reconcile," construed as equivalent to "make atonement" (Le 6:30; 8:15; 16:20; 1Sa 29:4; Eze 45:15,20; Da 9:24). In this latter sense it connects itself with chaTa'. In 2Ch 29:24 both words are used: the priests make a sin offering chaTa' to effect an atonement kaphar. But the first word is frequently used by metonymy to include, at least suggestively, the end in view, the reconciliation; and, on the other hand, the latter word is so used as to involve, also, doing that by which atonement is realized.

(2) Of the Greek words employed hilaskesthai means "to make propitious" (Heb 2:17; Le 6:30; 16:20; Eze 45:20); allattein, used however only in composition with prepositions, means "to render other," "to restore" to another (former?) condition of harmony (compare Mt 5:24 = "to be reconciled" to a fellow-man as a condition of making an acceptable sacrifice to God).s an essentially priestly conception. The same term is frequently translated by "reconcile," construed as equivalent to "make atonement" (Le 6:30; 8:15; 16:20; 1Sa 29:4; Eze 45:15,20; Da 9:24). In this latter sense it connects itself with chaTa'. In 2Ch 29:24 both words are used: the priests make a sin offering chaTa' to effect an atonement kaphar. But the first word is frequently used by metonymy to include, at least suggestively, the end in view, the reconciliation; and, on the other hand, the latter word is so used as to involve, also, doing that by which atonement is realized.

(3) In the English New Testament the word "atonement" is found only at Ro 5:11 and the American Standard Revised Version changes this to "reconciliation." While in strict etymology this word need signify only the active or conscious exercise of unity of life or harmony of relations, the causative idea probably belongs to the original use of the term, as it certainly is present in all current Christian use of the term. As employed in Christian theology, both practical and technical, the term includes with more or less distinctness: (a) the fact of union with God, and this always looked upon as (b) a broken union to be restored or an ideal union to be realized, (c) the procuring cause of atonement, variously defined, (d) the crucial act wherein the union is effected, the work of God and the response of the soul in which the union becomes actual. Inasmuch as the reconciliation between man and God is always conceived of as effected through Jesus Christ (2Co 5:18-21) the expression, "the Atonement of Christ," is one of the most frequent in Christian theology. Questions and controversies have turned mainly on the procuring cause of atonement, (c) above, and at this point have arisen the various "theories of the Atonement."

II. Bible Teaching concerning Atonement in General:

The Atonement of Christ must be interpreted in connection with the conception of atonement in general in the Scriptures. This idea of atonement is, moreover, part of the general circle of fundamental ideas of the religion of Yahweh and Jesus. Theories of the Atonement root themselves in conceptions of the nature and character of God, His holiness, love, grace, mercy, etc.; of man, his nature, disposition and capacities; of sin and guilt.

1. Primary Assumption of Unity of God and Man:

The basal conception for the Bible doctrine of atonement is the assumption that God and man are ideally one in life and interests, so far as man's true life and interest may be conceived as corresponding with those of God. Hence, it is everywhere assumed that God and man should be in all respects in harmonious relations, "at-one." Such is the ideal picture of Adam and Eve in Eden. Such is the assumption in the parable of the Prodigal Son; man ought to be at home with God, at peace in the Father's house (Lu 15).

Such also is the ideal of Jesus as seen especially in Joh 14-17; compare particularly 17:21ff; compare also Eph 2:11-22; 1Co 15:28. This is quite possibly the underlying idea of all those offerings in which the priests--God's representatives-and the people joined in eating at a common meal parts of what had been presented to God. The prohibition of the use of blood in food or drink is grounded on the statement that the life is in the blood (Le 17:10 f) or is the blood (Ge 9:4; De 12:23). Blood was used in the consecration of tabernacle, temple, vessels, altars, priests; all things and persons set apart for Yahweh. Then blood was required in offerings made to atone for sin and uncleanness. The reason for all this is not easy to see; but if we seek an explanation that will account for all the facts on a single principle, shall we not find it in the idea that in the life-principle of the blood God's own life was present? Through this life from God all living beings shared God's life. The blood passing out of any living being must therefore return to God and not be consumed. In sprinkling blood, the life-element, or certainly the life-symbol, over persons and things set apart for God they were, so to say, visibly taken up into the life of God, and His life extending over them made them essentially of His own person. Finally the blood of sacrifices was the returning to God of the life of the man for whom the beasts stood. And this blood was not burned with the dead sacrifice but poured out beside the holy altar. The now dead sin offering was burned, but the blood, the life, returned to God. In peace-offerings of various sorts there was the common meal in which the common life was typified

 

[StormyOne]

good to see you John T...... was hoping that there would be discussion as opposed to copy and paste but its all good....