Article: what is wrong the substitutionary theory of atonement.

[JonMiller]

By the way, I don't advocate completing ignoring all other religious traditions (although the lack of success of Greek pantheism and what I have read about it makes it uninteresting to study as a religion). Other successful religions have a reason why they are successful.

But there is a reason I picked Christianity when I was reevaluating my belief system in my teens. It was because the other major successful religions had a narrative that interested me less, that didn't seem as correct. Christianity (some versions of it) told about interactions with the God I desired to follow. The same is not true of the other religions I read about.

I could go case by case. Not all religions are the same, if they were all true, they would describe interactions with very different beings (or not beings, as the case may be). And I would still choose the Christian God.

JM

 

[StormyOne]

Throwing away all history and previous experience is a good way of getting nowhere. As Newton said "Pigmaei gigantum humeris impositi plusquam ipsi gigantes vident".

JM
*"One who develops future intellectual pursuits by understanding the research and works created by notable thinkers of the past"

do you think this applies to religious things?

 

[StormyOne]

How is that a relevant comment? The issue comes down to if you believe God could do something, then the writings could have been written much closer to the time when the historical events took place. If you believe God couldn't do something, then they had to happen later. The reason to doubt to veracity of the described events is if you doubt they could happen in the first place.

you are missing the point.... the NT did not come hand delivered. Neither did the complete bible. Men sat down and decided what would and would not be included. Until the late 1800s the bible contained the apocrypha, now it does not... so my point is if the bible was compiled via committee, then how can you say "God" did it? Additionally, look at what was included, some material was included that was not even written by Paul... yet some people believe it was....

If you believe that they could happen in the first place, then you have no reason to doubt the description of the events based upon the time between when the events took place and when they were written down.
The theory is that someone went back and added a saying by Jesus. This didn't happen after 120 AD, but for some reason happened before hand. There is no reason to believe that such a thing happened, unless you desire to believe that described events didn't happen. The question comes down to whether you believe God has the power to do it.

see my previous comment...

Theology is an attempt to apply critical and logical reasoning to religion.

which cannot be done with any degree of success....

We don't know which Mathew wrote Mathew (that it was the Apostle clearly didn't become tradition until later, note that this isn't a change of the book). Yes, we don't know if what was said by Christ was said by Christ. But obviously, if He was God, or even just a very important person who revealed God, then God would make sure that what was said to come from Him was what God desired for us to think was said by Him. This is because we are followers of God.

is that the response you would give about an area of science if someone told you to just believe God made it happen?

Once more it comes down to believing in God (well, specifically the Christian God, as obvious Shiva wouldn't have any reason to keep a message clear).
Why do you believe so?

Jon Miller

Why do I believe what? I believe God created, but I do not believe everything that has been written about him...

 

[JonMiller]

is that the response you would give about an area of science if someone told you to just believe God made it happen?

Science is looking for explanations for what we observe happening. I don't see someone walking on water, I am not looking for an explanation of it.

I don't believe that people can walk on water, or that the dead can be brought to life, or that water can be turned to wine. I don't see these things either, so I am not looking for an explanation for them.

However, I do believe that God could do such things (being God). And from my experience, and from reading the Bible, I believe that Christians are following God. And I am told in stories (in the Bible) that God did such things. So I am not looking for an explanation in those stories, the only reason I think that they could occur is that God did them. If God didn't do them, I don't think they could occur. So I am not looking for an explanation to observe events. Mostly because I didn't observe them, and the only reason I think that they could occur is because of my belief in God.

Note in my use the vast difference between believing something and thinking that it is true. This is because English is a complicated language, with numerous meanings for words. Believe means both assuming that something happens, and thinking that something happens as a result of some assumption. Science has the assumptions of empiricism and other such things. I also believe in the existence and power of God though.

To put it a way that refers directly to science. I don't believe that when I drop a spoon, it will fall to the ground. I believe in empiricism, logic, and the other elements of science. Those tell me that the spoon will drop to the ground. It isn't a matter of belief. Now, I am only looking for explanations of things I observe which don't already have an explanation. I already have an explanation for the spoon falling to the ground (when I let go), or for Peter walking on the water.

Supernatural events aren't scientific because they aren't repeatable or anything of the sort. I can't say "I do this, this, and this, and this supernatural event occurs". Which is good, if such things did happen then it wouldn't be the events of the God that I follow. Rather, it would just be another part of physics, just ones that weren't made up of electromagneticism /etc, and that were related to things that we traditionally call supernatural (just like lightning).

If I were told that Peter walked on water because he was a great man, I wouldn't think it was true. However, what we are told is that as a demonstration of faith, God kept Peter's feet above the water. Yes, I think that happened, because God could do that. And it is the God whose relationship is described in the Bible that I am following, of all the gods I have read about in the world (That have different properties/etc).

I am not looking to God for an explanation of stuff I see, like why confinement exists within the nucleon. I guess that I am looking to God for an explanation of why we are here. But that isn't in the realm of science anyways.

JM
(BTW, I don't look to God for an explanation of the creation of the universe either. I believe He created it because the Bible says so, and because He could, and because the God I worship would.)

 

[sentipente]

Science is looking for explanations for what we observe happening. I don't see someone walking on water, I am not looking for an explanation of it.

I don't believe that people can walk on water, or that the dead can be brought to life, or that water can be turned to wine. I don't see these things either, so I am not looking for an explanation for them.

Obviously, you have never travelled on a boat and don't understand that the purpose of the vine and the vintner is to change water into wine. It is all a matter of perspective.

 

[JohnT]

This quote by Stormy encapsulates the belief of those who do not believe in the Substitutionary Atonement

Why do I believe what? I believe God created, but I do not believe everything that has been written about him...

Instead of positing another existing theory, or proposing one of their own, they make up their own religion, picking and choosing as they desire, and simultaneously denying the things in the Bible that they do not like.

That is not a systematic theology, but rather a smörgåsbord theology.

They cited no reasons for their picking and choosing, other than an apparent personal whimsy.

Therefore, in addition to whimsically choosing Bible verses, or secular sources in the case of Stormy's sig line, they are also "logically" choosing their own whimsical Jesus, and their own whimsical Holy Spirit.

The unfortunate thing despite their claiming to be SDAs is that they also reject the SDA versions of the Trinity, and the Atonement. For neither have used any of the SDA Fundamental Beliefs as their own beliefs, either. And most unfortunately, when you whimsically pick your own Jesus, independent of the totality of Scripture, you necessarily create an untrue, and unsaving Jesus at your eternal peril.

If I am wrong in my logic, I appreciate your input.

 

[StormyOne]

This quote by Stormy encapsulates the belief of those who do not believe in the Substitutionary Atonement

Instead of positing another existing theory, or proposing one of their own, they make up their own religion, picking and choosing as they desire, and simultaneously denying the things in the Bible that they do not like.

That is not a systematic theology, but rather a smörgåsbord theology.

They cited no reasons for their picking and choosing, other than an apparent personal whimsy.

Therefore, in addition to whimsically choosing Bible verses, or secular sources in the case of Stormy's sig line, they are also "logically" choosing their own whimsical Jesus, and their own whimsical Holy Spirit.

The unfortunate thing despite their claiming to be SDAs is that they also reject the SDA versions of the Trinity, and the Atonement. For neither have used any of the SDA Fundamental Beliefs as their own beliefs, either. And most unfortunately, when you whimsically pick your own Jesus, independent of the totality of Scripture, you necessarily create an untrue, and unsaving Jesus at your eternal peril.

If I am wrong in my logic, I appreciate your input.

JohnT no need to drink the haterade... you are simply frustrated because I am choosing to discuss this issue on my own terms and not according to the artificial criteria you think is important... no need to denigrate me because I choose not to fit the mold..... someone such as yourself should appreciate that, but I guess not... lastly no need to threaten just because my walk is not your walk.... I am glad God is the ultimate judge cause some christians have an extreme case of the "older brother." Of course if I were a card carrying traditional sda, you would have other issues to take me to task on, so its a no-win for me...lol I still enjoy the dialog though, it is quite enlightening....as for your logic.... its not working in this case...

 

[JohnT]

JohnT no need to drink the haterade... you are simply frustrated because I am choosing to discuss this issue on my own terms and not according to the artificial criteria you think is important... no need to denigrate me because I choose not to fit the mold..... someone such as yourself should appreciate that, but I guess not... lastly no need to threaten just because my walk is not your walk.... I am glad God is the ultimate judge cause some christians have an extreme case of the "older brother." Of course if I were a card carrying traditional sda, you would have other issues to take me to task on, so its a no-win for me...lol I still enjoy the dialog though, it is quite enlightening....as for your logic.... its not working in this case...

Hater aid??? Over the top, Stormy

Please deal with the issues. I did.

All I did was describe your approach, and its logical consequences.

Naturally, you are entitled to your beliefs, no matter how much they fail to conform to orthodox (Nycean Creed) Christianity.

All I pointed out, and you still failed to demonstrate to the contrary is that from this end, because you follow no systematic way of choosing this to believe, or that, your approach is whimsical.

Once you used the word "eclectic" to describe your beliefs. Whimsical is very similar to eclectic that in both you choose this or that to believe.

Sorry, but you take offense where none was intended.

 

[StormyOne]

Hater aid??? Over the top, Stormy

Please deal with the issues. I did.

All I did was describe your approach, and its logical consequences.

Naturally, you are entitled to your beliefs, no matter how much they fail to conform to orthodox (Nycean Creed) Christianity.

All I pointed out, and you still failed to demonstrate to the contrary is that from this end, because you follow no systematic way of choosing this to believe, or that, your approach is whimsical.

Once you used the word "eclectic" to describe your beliefs. Whimsical is very similar to eclectic that in both you choose this or that to believe.

Sorry, but you take offense where none was intended.

I am not offended... more amused that your interactions with me consist of you trying to fit me in a box which I will not go into..... you like labels, they give you comfort... There are no issues to deal with John, you are still my brother in spite of the haterade you are sipping on....take care

 

[JohnT]

I am not offended... more amused that your interactions with me consist of you trying to fit me in a box which I will not go into..... you like labels, they give you comfort... There are no issues to deal with John, you are still my brother in spite of the haterade you are sipping on....take care

Stormy, I am very surprised at your aversion to labels. We all have them: lefty. liberal, conservative, independent, Christian, Mormon, etc.

In the religious realm, we believe the things which the group to which we belong, all have in common. Examples are Jehovah Witnesses, Rosicrucians , nudists, atheists , and the various examples of the flavors of Christianity.

We are Reformed if we have a Calvinistic bent to our theology. We are Charismatics if we believe the gifts of Holy Spirit are operational. and Dispensational if we believe the gifts have ceased.

Common to all Christians excepting the cults, is a base line adherence to the Creeds, especially the Apostles Creed and the Nycean Creed. In each are the basic tenets of the faith, and each is a recitation of the Trinity, and the life history of Jesus Christ.

Therefore, I respectfully ask what is so objectionable about those?

So far, form you and sentipete all I get is "I do not like being put into a box." We are all in a box of some kind, be it educational, marital statue, race, nationality or state of residence.

More to the point is the absence from either of you stating a positive belief, and the reasons for it. If we are unable to state a reason for our belief, then is surely seems to be whimsical. That is not a cut, or hate as you erroneously stated, but an honest attempt to try to make sense of something.

Do you now see what I am saying?

 

[sentipente]

So far, form you and sentipete all I get is "I do not like being put into a box." We are all in a box of some kind, be it educational, marital statue, race, nationality or state of residence.

This goes to the heart of the problems humans have with each other. We have failed to distinguish between "boxes" that define our roles in society and "boxes" that give us identity.

 

[sentipente]

Instead of positing another existing theory, or proposing one of their own, they make up their own religion, picking and choosing as they desire, and simultaneously denying the things in the Bible that they do not like.

That is not a systematic theology, but rather a smörgåsbord theology.

If I am wrong in my logic, I appreciate your input.

Here are two things wrong. First, how do you find a difference between proposing one's own religion and making one's own religion? Second, where is it written that one has to be guided by systematic theology?

 

[StormyOne]

Stormy, I am very surprised at your aversion to labels. We all have them: lefty. liberal, conservative, independent, Christian, Mormon, etc.

and therein lies the problem.... we are more than the labels some attach to us... and labels cannot capture all that we are....

In the religious realm, we believe the things which the group to which we belong, all have in common. Examples are Jehovah Witnesses, Rosicrucians , nudists, atheists , and the various examples of the flavors of Christianity.

We are Reformed if we have a Calvinistic bent to our theology. We are Charismatics if we believe the gifts of Holy Spirit are operational. and Dispensational if we believe the gifts have ceased.

artificial divisions, which don't reflect how most people think... humans are alot more fluid in their thoughts and positions that some people care to recognize. However as I pointed out earlier, you seem to like the idea of labels cause it brings you a degree of comfort...

Common to all Christians excepting the cults, is a base line adherence to the Creeds, especially the Apostles Creed and the Nycean Creed. In each are the basic tenets of the faith, and each is a recitation of the Trinity, and the life history of Jesus Christ.

Therefore, I respectfully ask what is so objectionable about those?

see the comment above.... artificial designations, which don't reflect reality....and you cannot say with any degree of certainty that people who claim adherence to "creeds" actually do adhere to those creeds... they may or may not for various reasons....

So far, form you and sentipete all I get is "I do not like being put into a box." We are all in a box of some kind, be it educational, marital statue, race, nationality or state of residence.

people choose to be in a box, or not.... you seem distressed that not everyone you meet wants to be boxed in....

More to the point is the absence from either of you stating a positive belief, and the reasons for it. If we are unable to state a reason for our belief, then is surely seems to be whimsical. That is not a cut, or hate as you erroneously stated, but an honest attempt to try to make sense of something.

Do you now see what I am saying?

And that seems to be the rub as far as you are concerned, you want me to state what I believe and why, so that it will help you to categorize me? I reject your premise that if a person is unable to state a reason for a belief it makes them whimsical. That is your opinion, but it doesn't make your opinion correct. I have understood everything you have said from the very beginning, however you have chosen not to hear nor try to understand what I am saying, probably because you are busy trying to figure out where to place me in a category or not being able to do that, to dismiss me as whimsical, irrational, illogical, etc and not worthy of your time.

John as I have told you repeatedly, I am human, I have a brain, I have beliefs/opinions about different things, and in this forum I have shared some of those things. The reality is that as a human adult I don't need your permission to believe what I believe, neither do I have to apologize for what I believe. As I have told you at least twice, I am not asking you to believe as I do, so what is the problem? If you have a difficult time wrapping your brain around what I have shared, that is your problem, not mine...

 

[sentipente]

And that seems to be the rub as far as you are concerned, you want me to state what I believe and why, so that it will help you to categorize me? I reject your premise that if a person is unable to state a reason for a belief it makes them whimsical. That is your opinion, but it doesn't make your opinion correct. I have understood everything you have said from the very beginning, however you have chosen not to hear nor try to understand what I am saying, probably because you are busy trying to figure out where to place me in a category or not being able to do that, to dismiss me as whimsical, irrational, illogical, etc and not worthy of your time.

John as I have told you repeatedly, I am human, I have a brain, I have beliefs/opinions about different things, and in this forum I have shared some of those things. The reality is that as a human adult I don't need your permission to believe what I believe, neither do I have to apologize for what I believe. As I have told you at least twice, I am not asking you to believe as I do, so what is the problem? If you have a difficult time wrapping your brain around what I have shared, that is your problem, not mine...

As you may have noted, he does not really want to deal with you. He is more interested in dealing with a group. This is why he wishes to institutionalize you so he can dismiss you. Simon the Pharisee had the same problem and Jesus had to ask him, "Do you see the woman?"

 

[StormyOne]

As you may have noted, he does not really want to deal with you. He is more interested in dealing with a group. This is why he wishes to institutionalize you so he can dismiss you. Simon the Pharisee had the same problem and Jesus had to ask him, "Do you see the woman?"

exactly, and so he continues to try to stuff me (and others) into a category so that he can proceed to part two which would be, why that category (Arian, JWs, SDAs, etc) are in error.... He has chosen NOT to hear the words coming out of my mouth....

 

[JohnT]

Both of you seem to confuse the statement, "I am black because..." with the statement, I am conservative because..."

The first defines your state of being, the second describes your state of thinking. There is a big difference between the two statements.

No one questions why you may be Caucasian or Hispanic. That is inherent in our genes.

Being liberal or Republican or a Rotarian or Lion. etc is a matter of choice. It is assumed that the choice that one makes is formed from a decision-making process spanning time, and maturity. In college, I was a liberal, and taunted conservatives with the sign on the back of my Opel, saying "Don't blame me, I voted for McCarthy". (Nixon was to be impeached for Watergate) Naturally, I did not have too many Republican friends then.

If we are talking about Christian beliefs, then there is a source for all Christian thought: Scripture. Christian thought then is derived from Scripture. When we say, "Scripture says..." we have a source for our belief, and can back it up.

If, OTOH we derive our "christian thought" from Vishnu as an example, it is not derived from Scripture, and by definition is other-than-Christian. Following that example, if someone says, I am a Christian who believes in reincarnation, it is legitimate to state that Scripture does not support reincarnation, not moving on towards Nirvana or the Hindu heaven. Can you see what I am saying relative to sources of belief?

But you are not your thoughts, and your thoughts do not define your essence. That is stating that I am Reformed, and he is Arminian, but she is charismatic are designations of intellectual choices, not epithets of one's character.

If you are a Giants fan, you may razz me about being an Eagles fan, but neither my favorite sports team, nor the theological tenets I hold characterize me as a person. To get to know me as a character, you need to know my person.

That is why I state confusion about your positions; both claim to be SDAs, yet neither have identified any SDA positions that you accept, or reject except top say "I do not like that" of "I do not want to be placed in a box." Nor have you given reasons for why you accept this, in the Bible, and reject that.

Expecting others to accept this or that belief without giving reason gives us nothing to understand from where you both come theologically. It is NOT as you have numerously mentioned erroneously that "I am trying to stuff you or others into a box". That is wrong because you mis characterize me, impugning motives, when you do not know me.

All others and I ask is reasoned discourse for stating what you believe. that takes place in a logical framework, saying yes to this, and no to that because.... Is that wrong, or objectionable?

 

[sentipente]

If we are talking about Christian beliefs, then there is a source for all Christian thought: Scripture. Christian thought then is derived from Scripture. When we say, "Scripture says..." we have a source for our belief, and can back it up.

Scripture is not inherently Christian. There is Christians Scripture and there is non-Christian Scripture. All Scripture came from the same source. Their differences reflect the human agencies. Claiming that only Christian writings are Scripture exposes your lack of objectivity on this subject.

 

[sentipente]

Double post. Blame browser.

 

[StormyOne]

If we are talking about Christian beliefs, then there is a source for all Christian thought: Scripture. Christian thought then is derived from Scripture. When we say, "Scripture says..." we have a source for our belief, and can back it up.

absurd.... it is only "backed up" as you phrase it IF those to whom you speak agree that the bible is authoritative..... not everyone accepts the infallibility or inerrancy of the bible so to them, you have backed up nothing... we have covered this ground before... I do not share your view of the bible... it is not infallible, nor is it inerrant.... so while we can discuss things from the bible I do not give it the weight you do.... now what?

 

[StormyOne]

Expecting others to accept this or that belief without giving reason gives us nothing to understand from where you both come theologically.

I have not asked you to accept anything I believe... and as I have indicated earlier, I have not asked you to believe as I do.... in fact I expect that you will disagree with what I believe... and I don't have a problem with it, neither am I going to lose any sleep over us not agreeing....

It is NOT as you have numerously mentioned erroneously that "I am trying to stuff you or others into a box". That is wrong because you mis characterize me, impugning motives, when you do not know me.

your actions suggest otherwise....

All others and I ask is reasoned discourse for stating what you believe. that takes place in a logical framework, saying yes to this, and no to that because.... Is that wrong, or objectionable?

I am being reasonable, and I have shared my beliefs, because they do not fit into a framework you can wrap your brain around is not my issue... its yours...