Article: what is wrong the substitutionary theory of atonement.

[Adventtruth]

. <------the point




\|/
oo <-------your head.....
L


had you been following the conversation you would have realized that my comments were in response to JM's post about how people observe other people.... since you think so concretely, it went right by you... nuff said.....

Oh brother.

 

[Adventtruth]

Stormy

It is obvious you create your own meanings to words, and them expect others to understand your misapplication.

From what I have seen here and elsewhere on this site, you do the same thing with Scripture, creating your own theology, expecting others to accept that concoction, and believe in the whimsical authority of Clay, as equal to the study of systematic theology.

Consistent in your pattern in both areas is being upset when you are pressed to explain what you mean, and then reacting negatively towards those making corrections. That is not logical behavior, and I do not deal with the illogical; it makes rational discussion impossible.

And to get back to the OP, it is also why this has gone so far astray from the OP, discussion of the Atonement. To understand the Atonement, one must also study the OT in terms of types and antitypes, and see how the OT is fulfilled in the NT.

By definition, study takes logic to understand things, and belief in the whimsically irrational is the same as no belief at all; it is pure relativism. God has not revealed himself to be relative, so your beliefs are contrary to the ontological attributes of God.

 

[StormyOne]

glad that made you feel better..... have a good day too....

 

[StormyOne]

What is interesting to me is how these former Adventists so regularly ignore the issues in this thread to focus upon triviality. This who derailment about looking at people to get to know God, do they really not know that the Bible is filled with stories about people...people and relationships to other people and to God.

Then weeks ago I asked twice the important question about how in their view of the atonement sin was transferred to Christ (who is God) and the silence was deafening. They claim they follow the Bible and some even claim they follow logic yet in reality when asked for the logic they can't demonstrate any. Oh they can post a verse such as He became sin but that is a paradoxical statement at the conclusion of a statement and it does not mean what they think it means. Because there is nothing about transference in the context. It is simply read into a verse and when questioned they have no answer yet are quick to declare themselves right and others wrong and illogical.

Why not try again instead of all the dodging and purposeful misinterpretations.

RC the answer is obvious, there are some here who have no intention on interacting or being involved in dialog.... that would involve thinking... they are more interested in repeating someone else's thoughts, and attempting to convince the rest of us to occupy the same box they have found comfort in.... so you are not going to get an answer to your question from those in that mindset, it is thought provoking and they have suppressed that ability long ago....

 

[Adventtruth]

What is interesting to me is how these former Adventists so regularly ignore the issues in this thread to focus upon triviality. This who derailment about looking at people to get to know God, do they really not know that the Bible is filled with stories about people...people and relationships to other people and to God.

Then weeks ago I asked twice the important question about how in their view of the atonement sin was transferred to Christ (who is God) and the silence was deafening. They claim they follow the Bible and some even claim they follow logic yet in reality when asked for the logic they can't demonstrate any. Oh they can post a verse such as He became sin but that is a paradoxical statement at the conclusion of a statement and it does not mean what they think it means. Because there is nothing about transference in the context. It is simply read into a verse and when questioned they have no answer yet are quick to declare themselves right and others wrong and illogical.

Why not try again instead of all the dodging and purposeful misinterpretations.

RC...do you deny that sin has to be paid for by some one?

AT

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

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.

 

[AzA]

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.

Bingo.

Forgiveness is not a trade. It is a gift. Gifts aren't bought; they are... given.
Our economic culture has have messed up our ability to distinguish between commerce and grace.

Great book: _Free of Charge: Giving and Forgiving in a Culture Stripped of Grace_ by Miroslav Volf. Systematic, readable, and sound.

 

[StormyOne]

Bingo.

Forgiveness is not a trade. It is a gift. Gifts aren't bought; they are... given.
Our economic culture has have messed up our ability to distinguish between commerce and grace.

Great book: _Free of Charge: Giving and Forgiving in a Culture Stripped of Grace_ by Miroslav Volf. Systematic, readable, and sound.

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....

 

[AzA]

A careful look at cultic religions across cultures and time will show that the idea of substitutive redemption (as opposed to vicarious redemption) is a fairly common one. That's one way to explain its persistence: humans return to the familiar.

 

[StormyOne]

A careful look at cultic religions across cultures and time will show that the idea of substitutive redemption (as opposed to vicarious redemption) is a fairly common one. That's one way to explain its persistence: humans return to the familiar.

even when it contradicts the characteristics attributed to God..... God can simply forgive.... and it is a message that Jesus constantly preached, forgiveness.... however some cling to the penalty idea, even sing about it... "Jesus paid it all...." Seems that some of our theology is wrapped up in torture, and blood....

 

[Byfaithalone1]

A careful look at cultic religions across cultures and time will show that the idea of substitutive redemption (as opposed to vicarious redemption) is a fairly common one.

If you were to suggest an alternative to such "cultic religious," would the alternative be an Eastern Orthodox church?

What do you perceive as the difference between substitutive redemption and vicarious redemption?

Were animal sacrifices literally offered by the children of Israel, or are the Biblical accounts of such sacrifices merely allegorical?

If animal sacrifices were literal, do you believe that they were commanded by God? If so, why?

BFA

 

[JohnT]

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.

Are you perhaps confusing interpersonal sin with sin against God? My initial reading is that you my be focusing on the micro, and forgetting the macro.

IOW How do you explain the need for expiation of sin, and restoration of holiness to God on His terms, not ours?

 

[AzA]

If you were to suggest an alternative to such "cultic religious," would the alternative be an Eastern Orthodox church?

No dear. I'm using "cultic" to refer to pre-modern religious systems. If you look at such belief systems across cultures you'll find a blade, a holy space, a god, and lots-o-blood, and, by whatever localized logic, appeasement or satisfaction thereby. Variations in form and reason aside, it comes up over and over no matter where you look.

What do you perceive as the difference between substitutive redemption and vicarious redemption?

Substitutive redemption switches one party for another, binds one party and lets another person go in their stead; it's a trade, person-for-person or life for life. Vicarious redemption isn't about a "switch" or a trade of persons at all; it's a regental act of liberation performed by one who can on behalf of one who can't.

Were animal sacrifices literally offered by the children of Israel, or are the Biblical accounts of such sacrifices merely allegorical?

Animal sacrifices were literally offered by the children of Israel, as any religious Jew would say. Some such Jews currently await the restoration of the Jerusalem temple so they can resume literally sacrificing animals. But the sacrifices were not offered for the reasons our Christian substitutionary atonement theories require us to read back into early Semitic customs (and any religious Jew might also tell you that ). Check out _Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple_ by Jonathan Klawans. I don't believe he's Jewish but the work is absolutely thorough and respectful. Google Books provides limited access if your library doesn't have or can't get a copy.

If animal sacrifices were literal, do you believe that they were commanded by God? If so, why?

Apparently so; various explanations for "why." I'm happy to accept the native explanation that ancient Hebrew rituals were designed to draw worshippers into a deeper sense of their place in God's creation and their right relation to Him.

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

So here are the so called answers to the question of how sin is transferred:

RC...do you deny that sin has to be paid for by some one?

AT

If you were to suggest an alternative to such "cultic religious," would the alternative be an Eastern Orthodox church?

What do you perceive as the difference between substitutive redemption and vicarious redemption?

Were animal sacrifices literally offered by the children of Israel, or are the Biblical accounts of such sacrifices merely allegorical?

If animal sacrifices were literal, do you believe that they were commanded by God? If so, why?

BFA
Are you perhaps confusing interpersonal sin with sin against God? My initial reading is that you my be focusing on the micro, and forgetting the macro.

IOW How do you explain the need for expiation of sin, and restoration of holiness to God on His terms, not ours?
John T

The sad part is that the belief in transference of sin is an idea so ingrained in people that we see mature Christians who have unquestioningly accepted it and yet they can't even explain how it could occur or why such an occurrence would be needed. Christians who seem to think that punishment and forgiveness are the same thing.

But since this thread is the subject of my article which of course the opening poster did not even bother to link to or I am sure read here is a bit from the article:

What is wrong with the Substitutionary theory of the Atonement?

Cosmic Bookkeeping​

When reading what some authors write about the Atonement it often sounds like some type of cosmic bookkeeping. Numerous examples could be given but take the following from the Adventist Review November 22, 2001 in an article by Clifford Goldstein:
"Isn&#8217;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)?"
Though written in the form of a question this is his view of what the gospel is. That Christ came down to earth, lived a perfect life and then died as my substitute. While apparently this legal fiction is comforting to people what is it saying about God. We already have seen that God knows there is no one righteous but God. According to this legal fiction God can, to use a bookkeeping term "cook the books" so that instead of us appearing on the ledger with negative sums we only appear with positives. Of course that is very appealing but does it result in anything different from forgiveness. There is no cosmic accounting needed to forgive, no accounts to be forged and made to look better then they really are.


What are the implications of Christ dying as my substitute? If my account has been rearranged to say that I am righteous why would I need a substitute to die for me? If Christ lived the perfect life and substituted it for my life record on the supposed heavenly ledger I would not need someone to die for me as a substitute. So again what is this legal fiction trying to say? It is saying that God has a law, that if His law is ever broken then someone must die to pay the penalty for breaking the law. So this legal fiction removes from God His ability to forgive a person in favor of the option of cosmic bookkeeping where, the one righteous one, dies, and his death is substituted for everyone else if they want to accept the substitution. If we used an illustration from the family we could say that the children in the family have disobeyed their father. Let us say the crime was not weeding the garden when that is what they were asked to do. So the father who loves his children instead of punishing them says, "I will go and weed the garden for you" and after weeding the garden he takes a switch and scourges himself to take the punishment that he felt the children originally should have received for their disobedience. Declaring to his children that he has perfectly weeded the garden and accepted the punishment due to his children, that he was their substitute. On his home account books, he writes that they have weeded the garden perfectly.


When we examine the concept of substitution in everyday life we see just how poor a concept it is. If we took it to the criminal justice system we would be horrified at the results. As we watch a serial murderer released and an innocent librarian executed for the crime. Would we proclaim that justice was satisfied? Of course all analogies break down at some point. For instance we would not say that justice was satisfied if the judge released the murder and said he was forgiven. Even if we thought that the murderer was really sorry for what he did and wanted to change we would not trust that he was changed, we would at least want him locked away for the rest of his life. God on the other hand not only has the power to forgive but the ability to create a new mind in the criminal, one that no longer is in rebellion to God but is willing to trust God. That faith in God is what is counted as righteousness

However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness. (Romans 4:5)​

​

What God considers to be righteousness is not following all the laws which were laid down. But the faith that one has in God is considered righteousness. To put it in less theological terms trusting God is the right thing to do, when you do that, you are right with God. When you trust God you believe that when He says you are forgiven, you are indeed forgiven, you are no longer guilty before God. God's presence is in your life, you know longer live toward your old desires but desire to follow after God.

remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near through the blood of Christ. For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace, and in this one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility. He came and preached peace to you who were far away and peace to those who were near. For through him we both have access to the Father by one Spirit.​

Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God's people and members of God's household, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone.​

In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord. And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit. (Ephesians 2:12-22)​

 

[Byfaithalone1]

Apparently so; various explanations for "why." I'm happy to accept the native explanation that ancient Hebrew rituals were designed to draw worshippers into a deeper sense of their place in God's creation and their right relation to Him.

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

 

[StormyOne]

Do you believe that John the Baptist literally referred to Jesus Christ as the Lamb of God?

I know you aren't addressing me, but your questions raised some other questions... John the Baptist didn't write down his experience with Jesus as far as we know, and the disciples were not chosen until John the Baptist was in prison. Jesus did not write his own story as far as we know, so who did Matthew, Mark or Luke get the story from? So did John the Baptist really refer to 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?

Was Christ God's lamb? The way we have centered our theology we have made him so.... however it is problematic if we say that Jesus is God, then in a real sense he would be his own lamb... I think however the analogy breaks down at some point when we attempt to extrapolate from the sacrificial system what Christ's purpose for coming was....

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?

Again the analogy breaks down. However it is possible that they were attempting to make sense of how God reconciled humans to Himself and that was the best they could do at the time..... God does not need a sacrifice to offer forgiveness, so that is what I mean when I say the analogy breaks down....

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

Since it has been accepted that Paul did not write Hebrews, what would be the point in accepting the premises put forth in Hebrews? Or are you saying that because it is included it is "holy and inspired" regardless of who authored it? Having said that, the point remains, God does not have to go through all those hoops, or have humans go through all those hoops to extend forgiveness... So the explanations in Hebrews might just be an attempt by that author to explain how God corrected a damaged relationship....

 

[Byfaithalone1]

I know you aren't addressing me, but your questions raised some other questions... John the Baptist didn't write down his experience with Jesus as far as we know, and the disciples were not chosen until John the Baptist was in prison. Jesus did not write his own story as far as we know, so who did Matthew, Mark or Luke get the story from? So did John the Baptist really refer to Christ as the Lamb of God?

Was Christ God's lamb? The way we have centered our theology we have made him so.... however it is problematic if we say that Jesus is God, then in a real sense he would be his own lamb... I think however the analogy breaks down at some point when we attempt to extrapolate from the sacrificial system what Christ's purpose for coming was....

Again the analogy breaks down. However it is possible that they were attempting to make sense of how God reconciled humans to Himself and that was the best they could do at the time..... God does not need a sacrifice to offer forgiveness, so that is what I mean when I say the analogy breaks down....

Since it has been accepted that Paul did not write Hebrews, what would be the point in accepting the premises put forth in Hebrews? Or are you saying that because it is included it is "holy and inspired" regardless of who authored it? Having said that, the point remains, God does not have to go through all those hoops, or have humans go through all those hoops to extend forgiveness... So the explanations in Hebrews might just be an attempt by that author to explain how God corrected a damaged relationship....

Stormy, I read your reply and I thank you for it. I also appreciate that you made no comment about "black-and white thinking" or "fundamentalism" that seem to often sidetrack these types of discussions.

I'm curious, how do you view references to Jesus Christ as the Son of God?

BFA

 

[StormyOne]

Stormy, I read your reply and I thank you for it. I also appreciate that you made no comment about "black-and white thinking" or "fundamentalism" that seem to often sidetrack these types of discussions.

I'm curious, how do you view references to Jesus Christ as the Son of God?

BFA

I think they are attempts to understand the nature of a being that is outside of our ability to grasp... Jesus is God, thus he is not the son of God, he is God....

 

[JohnT]

Clay:

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

In the second paragraph you write

"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 not the differences in what your source says, and what the verse he misquotes actually says

Galatians 2: 16Knowing 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.
The guy is semi Pelagian.

There is more, but I have to go.

 

[StormyOne]

Clay:

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

In the second paragraph you write

Please not the differences in what your source says, and what the verse he misquotes actually says


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

There is more, but I have to go.

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