Looking for non-sacrificial doctrine

As I studied the Bible, I have noticed that there are genuine Christians and fake. False Christians are the product of the false teaching as it was foretold by our lord Jesus (Matt. 24:25, Mark 13:16, Luke 21:8)
Genuine Christians were converted through experience. They have experienced how Jesus changed their lives, accepted Jesus in public confession through baptism in the name of Jesus for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38). Thus Jesus qualifies them to be witnesses (Acts 1:8). Living holy life (Hebrews 12:14). And the most important is that, they have experienced BAPTISM WITH THE HOLY GHOST (Acts 2:1-4). As Jesus promised this in the book of Acts 1:5.

Back to the original point of this thread:

It seems like you're ready to be done with religion *about* Jesus and ready to find other who want to live the religion *of* Jesus. And by that I don't mean Judaism. I mean, living what he taught not just believing creeds.

I feel much the same way.

Substitutionary Atonement doesn't really make sense to me either. So much focus on just believing that Christ died for our sins takes away from what he spent his public ministry teaching. The teachings are not an afterthought. Jesus didn't just spend his life waiting around until he could die on the cross. He turned the prevailing belief system on it's head with his talk that the Kingdom of God was here! And that we must repent and turn from sin so that we can enter the Kingdom of God. God is Love and so is Jesus and he wants us to live a life of love.

Anyway, I don't want to get caught up in the debate, I just wanted to suggest that you look into the United Methodist Church

I will post more specifics tomorrow with quotes and things. I feel like we agree on the points you have made, and the UMC is where I feel most at home.

Also, perhaps look into the Quakers and congregations associated with the Christian Universalist Association

firechild,

Substitutionary Atonement doesn't really make sense to me either. So much focus on just believing that Christ died for our sins takes away from what he spent his public ministry teaching. The teachings are not an afterthought. Jesus didn't just spend his life waiting around until he could die on the cross. He turned the prevailing belief system on it's head with his talk that the Kingdom of God was here! And that we must repent and turn from sin so that we can enter the Kingdom of God. God is Love and so is Jesus and he wants us to live a life of love.

Anyway, I don't want to get caught up in the debate

Click to expand...

You have automatically become caught up in the debate by your saying that Christ's substitutionary atonement doesn't make sense to you.

It won't make sense unless these factors are included.

1. Christ's life of perfect obedience to God to make righteousness available for believers (1 Cor. 1:10; Heb. 5:8).

2. The pain of bearing sin, and making salvation available to the whole world: "The Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all" (Isa. 53:5; also 2 Cor. 5:21). This is because ...

3. Adam's sins were imputed to us, so God needed to impute our sins to Christ if we wanted eternal salvation. God writes the rules for our reconciliation with God and vicarious atonement was needed to deal with imputed sin.

4. Christ's death appeased the wrath of God, so the language of "propitiation" is used (Rom. 3:25-26; Heb. 2:17; 1 John 2:2; 4:10). To propitiate means that Christ's sacrifice bears the wrath of God and so appeases God's wrath towards us and make God favourable towards us. This is clearly seen in Rom. 3:25-26. God doesn't just forgive sin in Jesus' death, but Jesus bore the wrath of God against sin. It is critical that we understand this:

There is an eternal, unchangeable requirement in the holiness and justice of God that sin be paid for. Furthermore, before the atonement ever could have an effect on our subjective consciousness, it first had an effect on God and his relation to the sinners he planned to redeem. Apart from this central truth, the death of Christ cannot be adequately understood (theologian Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology, Zondervan 1994, p. 575).

Click to expand...

5. The atonement penalty was inflicted by God the Father (2 Cor. 5:21; Isa. 53:6, 10). This demonstrated God the Father's love for all human beings (Rom. 5:8).

6. It is God's rule (His law) that committing sin requires the payment of a penalty to reinstate relationship with God. Remember the OT lamb sacrifice? If you and I were to pay the penalty for our own sins, we could not do it. We would have to suffer eternal separation from God. If we suffered for our own sins, without substitutionary/penal sacrifice, we could never be right with God. Therefore ...

7. Christ's shedding of his blood was a "penal" death in that he bore our penalty when he died (see 1 Peter 1:18-19). Substitutionary atonement means that Christ was our substitute through the shedding of his blood.

8. There is no salvation except through penal substitution. God writes the laws and there is no such thing as universal salvation.

If we want to bear the penalty for our own sins and reject substitutionary atonement, then that is what will happen. We will face God without accepting substitutionary atonement and pay the price for our own sin. That means eternal damnation.

Sincerely, Spencer

Brother Vince,

brother vince said:

As I studied the Bible, I have noticed that there are genuine Christians and fake. False Christians are the product of the false teaching as it was foretold by our lord Jesus (Matt. 24:25, Mark 13:16, Luke 21:8)
Genuine Christians were converted through experience. They have experienced how Jesus changed their lives, accepted Jesus in public confession through baptism in the name of Jesus for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38). Thus Jesus qualifies them to be witnesses (Acts 1:8). Living holy life (Hebrews 12:14). And the most important is that, they have experienced BAPTISM WITH THE HOLY GHOST (Acts 2:1-4). As Jesus promised this in the book of Acts 1:5.

Click to expand...

While all Christians have experiences associated with conversion, all conversions begin with repentance, forgiveness and faith. I know from the words of Jesus that

Repentance and forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations (Luke 24:47)

Click to expand...

What's repentance? The NT word means making an internal U-turn through a change of mind so that a person's "views, values, goals and ways are changed and one's whole life is lived differently" (J. I. Packer, Concise Theology, p. 162).

How can we repent of our sin unless we know we are sinners? I'm convinced that a biblical view of the comprehensive sinfulness of all human beings is needed as we begin a proclamation of the Gospel. Sin belongs to every human being's sinful nature and we inherited it from Adam. It infects all human beings thoroughly. We call this the result of original sin and total depravity - total meaning comprehensive, it infects every part of our being. That's why we need a Saviour.

I have outlined the "content of the Gospel".

Regards, Spencer

seashale76 said:

If you are nixing Substitutionary Atonement then you want to find a church that has a Christus Victor view. You want to look into Orthodox Christianity. It is what the early Church believed.

Click to expand...

Wait, you're saying EO teaches Christ was not our Atonement?

Gal 5:11 And I, brethren, if I yet preach circumcision, why do I yet suffer persecution? then is the offence of the cross ceased."

OP: you're taking offense at the cross. This is the stumbling stone and Rock of offense prophesied that Jesus would be. You don't understand what the Lord accomplished via blood sacrifice, and you even found someone else who doesn't either. It would be far better to become part of a good, solid Church and sit under Anointed teaching.

Robot iMonkey said:

After some consideration of Christian teaching and history, ancient Hebrew practice, and my own personal sensibilities, I have come to see that the major difference between my views and the great majority of Christian thought boils down to one point of conflict. That is the concept of blood sacrifices. (I'm not posting this here to debate this issue. If you want to do so, look for other messages I have posted.) Growing up in traditional Baptist churches, preachers would always rail against those other liberal denominations that teach Jesus was just a good man instead of acknowledging him as the Divine Son of God. Well now I am all grown up and intelligent enough to make up my own mind. I want to be a part of a Christian community that celebrates the life, miracles, healing and teaching of Jesus. I want to learn from Jesus. I want to celebrate the life of Jesus. Not his death as a substitutionary sacrifice. I am looking for a denomination or other group that keeps their thought and religious practice as close to the actual teaching of Jesus as possible. Any suggestions on who that would be?

(Please, no hate mail.)

Click to expand...

This might be worth reading:

Evangelical Christians sing hymns in which blood figures prominently; one in particular is called "Nothing But the Blood." Such Christians may have to change their tune after reading J. Denny Weaver's The Non-Violent Atonement, which proposes that the idea of "satisfaction atonement" must be jettisoned in favor of a nonviolent approach. Jesus' death, says Weaver, was not planned or sanctioned by God the Father; it was the inevitable result of sinful humans taking matters into their own hands. Perhaps the new hymn can be called "Everything But the Blood"?
Amazon.com: The Nonviolent Atonement (9780802849083): J. Denny Weaver: Books

Click to expand...

Christian churches who follow the teachings of the Bible and not their opinion believe Romans 10:9...if you believe in your heart that Jesus died, and that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.
if you are Muslim, you still believe and confess something...there is no God but Allah, and Mohmammed is His prophet.
the point is, these are two different religions but to be a Christian means one thing, and one thing only. Muslims understand this, and so does every other religion. may God lead you to the truth...

Robot iMonkey said:

Yes, it is very clear that Substitutionary Atonement is what Paul preached, but breaking away from the Levi presthood that said it was found in the death of animals, Paul applied their concepts to the death of Jesus. This has absolutely nothing to do with the Gospel of Grace consistantly taught BY Jesus.

Jesus said “But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy and not sacrifice,’For I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance.” (Matt 9) Jesus is referring to Hosea 6:6 which says:“For I desire mercy and not sacrifice, and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.”

Click to expand...

An old thread, I know. But I believe as you do and wondering if you ever found a church. I'm still looking.

CelticRebel said:

An old thread, I know. But I believe as you do and wondering if you ever found a church. I'm still looking.

Click to expand...

Well. there are the usual, theologically liberal, church bodies that don't deal in the matter of sacrifice, not even something like a symbolic sacrifice of ourselves to God in prayer or worship. And there are the ones that take almost no stands on doctrine, preferring only to expect the members to accept Jesus as Lord. I don't see why you would have much of a problem finding a church in which you'd feel at home.

I don’t normally support reanimating zombie threads, but since we have a poster who has the same question as the original one, it’s probably worth answering.

Mainline churches generally allow the whole variety of theories of the atonement. These include theories such as moral influence, which hold that Jesus’ death was intended to help transform us, by being an example, and (following Romans 6) because in communion with Christ we experience the new life of the Resurrection. Indeed this appears to be one of the oldest theories of the atonement. This perspective needn’t assume that God needed someone to die in order to forgive us. But Jesus did in fact die, and both he and his followers thought he did it for us, so you can't remove his death completely.

Many in the mainline churches focus on the Gospels, expecting to ground theology in Jesus’ teachings, with the letters as secondary helps in understanding Jesus.

As Albion notes, mainline churches normally require only that a person accept Christ as Lord and savior. They accept a variety of understandings of this. Hence you’ll find plenty of people with traditional understandings of the significance of Jesus’ death, as well as the understanding I’ve described. If you’re not willing to coexist with traditional Christians, you’ll need to go further left, to the Unitarians or the traditional (not evangelical) Friends.

I use mainline to include both the usual churches (see the list near the beginning of Mainline Protestant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia), and the more liberal end of the evangelical movement.

Albion said:

Well. there are the usual, theologically liberal, church bodies that don't deal in the matter of sacrifice, not even something like a symbolic sacrifice of ourselves to God in prayer or worship. And there are the ones that take almost no stands on doctrine, preferring only to expect the members to accept Jesus as Lord. I don't see why you would have much of a problem finding a church in which you'd feel at home.

Click to expand...

I have several issues that make it hard for me to find a church: I am neither liberal nor fundamentalist; I am traditional in morality and ethics; I hold to the atonement views found in the early church through the first millennium -- namely, Christus Victor/Ransom/Recapitulation. I do not believe in any of the Western views, whether Roman Catholic or Protestant; I live in a very rural area; while my atonement views would fit with Eastern Orthodoxy, my ecclesiology, views of the sacraments and Mary would not.

Because of all those things, it has been extremely difficult for me to find a church. If you or anyone else has suggestions, I would be very happy and thankful to read them.

Thank you for you thoughtful and detailed post.

I have been a member of fundamentalist churches; in the end, I could not accept their theology. I have been a member of mainline churches (United Methodist, Episcopal Church); I could not accept their liberal moral/ethical beliefs. I also had some trouble with their ecclesiology.

I am not Pentecostal, so that's out. There are Mormons and Seventh Day Adventists within an hour of me, but I don't agree with their distinctives.

I have almost given up hope.

CelticRebel said:

I have several issues that make it hard for me to find a church: I am neither liberal nor fundamentalist; I am traditional in morality and ethics; I hold to the atonement views found in the early church through the first millennium -- namely, Christus Victor/Ransom/Recapitulation. I do not believe in any of the Western views, whether Roman Catholic or Protestant; I live in a very rural area; while my atonement views would fit with Eastern Orthodoxy, my ecclesiology, views of the sacraments and Mary would not.

Because of all those things, it has been extremely difficult for me to find a church. If you or anyone else has suggestions, I would be very happy and thankful to read them.

Click to expand...

Wow. Well, that certainly adds a lot to the list of problems identified in the OP! The "very rural area" might close the door in itself. Not that it would necessarily be convenient for you to identify them all, but the next question I'd ask would be, "What churches of any sort are within driving distance?"

Albion said:

Wow. Well, that certainly adds a lot to the list of problems identified in the OP! The "very rural area" might close the door in itself. Not that it would necessarily be convenient for you to identify them all, but the next question I'd ask would be, "What churches of any sort are within driving distance?"

Click to expand...

I don't want to overstate the "very rural" thing, so let me clarify. I live about four miles from a town of about 2,000 people. The next largest towns are about 30 minutes away, and they have about 10,000 people. The next largest town, a university town, is about an hour away, with about 18,000 people. The largest big city is 90 minutes away.

I don't know what would be considered driving distance, but the churches within 30 minutes would be: various Pentecostal churches; Episcopal Church; PCUSA; Southern Baptist; Church of the Nazarene; UMC; Roma Catholic. The nearest Eastern Orthodox church is 90 minutes away.

There is an Anglican Mission in the Americas church in the university town, about an hour away.

So, I could be more rural than I am, and yet I do feel isolated.

CelticRebel said:

I don't want to overstate the "very rural" thing, so let me clarify. I live about four miles from a town of about 2,000 people. The next largest towns are about 30 minutes away, and they have about 10,000 people. The next largest town, a university town, is about an hour away, with about 18,000 people. The largest big city is 90 minutes away.

I don't know what would be considered driving distance, but the churches within 30 minutes would be: various Pentecostal churches; Episcopal Church; PCUSA; Southern Baptist; Church of the Nazarene; UMC; Roma Catholic. The nearest Eastern Orthodox church is 90 minutes away.

There is an Anglican Mission in the Americas church in the university town, about an hour away.

So, I could be more rural than I am, and yet I do feel isolated.

Click to expand...

Thanks! Yes, I'd consider you to be living in a rural area, if not necessarily a "very rural" area.

But few towns of 2,000 --or even 10,000--offer many choices in denominations, and I'd call an hour's drive too far for you to be a regular member of whatever denomination...unless, of course, you are a very exceptional person. So, yes, I tend to agree with the location being a big issue.

Anyway, and after perusing the list of possibilities, I'd agree that you cannot find what you'd like to find. The nearest to it would IMO be The Episcopal Church, in which you can believe just about anything you want--and that's the case with many of its members (significantly detached from the official teachings of the church).

This would, however, leave you (who are more thoughtful than the average and concerned about these things) to attend a church that accommodates you but which does not really reflect or testify to what you believe, doctrinally.

And that's the typical Episcopal parish of today that I'm referring to. If, in a rural area in a conservative part of the country, it's more traditional, then it might not even accommodate you in some of your beliefs although, again, Episcopalians are not the kind to throw you out because of it. In my opinion, you have no chance with the other denominations.

The remaining alternative is to find the denomination that does reflect what you believe, and seek some at large or distance membership in it for the sake of having an identity and a connection...but then attending one of the nearby churches as a perpetual visitor. The Episcopal Church would, again, be the most likely to welcome such a person out of the ones you mentioned.

Albion said:

Thanks! Yes, I'd consider you to be living in a rural area, if not necessarily a "very rural" area.

But few towns of 2,000 --or even 10,000--offer many choices in denominations, and I'd call an hour's drive too far for you to be a regular member of whatever denomination...unless, of course, you are a very exceptional person. So, yes, I tend to agree with the location being a big issue.

Anyway, and after perusing the list of possibilities, I'd agree that you cannot find what you'd like to find. The nearest to it would IMO be The Episcopal Church, in which you can believe just about anything you want--and that's the case with many of its members (significantly detached from the official teachings of the church).

This would, however, leave you (who are more thoughtful than the average and concerned about these things) to attend a church that accommodates you but which does not really reflect or testify to what you believe, doctrinally.

And that's the typical Episcopal parish of today that I'm referring to. If, in a rural area in a conservative part of the country, it's more traditional, then it might not even accommodate you in some of your beliefs although, again, Episcopalians are not the kind to throw you out because of it. In my opinion, you have no chance with the other denominations.

The remaining alternative is to find the denomination that does reflect what you believe, and seek some at large or distance membership in it for the sake of having an identity and a connection...but then attending one of the nearby churches as a perpetual visitor. The Episcopal Church would, again, be the most likely to welcome such a person out of the ones you mentioned.

Click to expand...

I think you have pretty much nailed it.

The nearest Episcopal Church would be about a 30-minute drive. The AMiA church, about an hour's drive, would maybe be the best fit, but after working my day job all week, itself a 30-minute drive, I just can't drive an hour and back every Sunday to church. I work probably 60 hours a week, so I am totally exhausted and fatigued by the weekend. Heck, I'd be pushing it to be able to drive 30 minutes and back to church.

Besides the AMiA, the other churches I feel most compatible with are: Moderate Baptists (closest, 90 minutes), moderate Mennonites (closest, over two hours away); moderate Quakers (none anywhere within hours).

Of the churches I listed in my previous post, what do you think about the Church of the Nazarene? There are two within 30 minutes.

I really appreciate your responses to me!

I'm not sure what the problem is with mainline churches, including the Episcopal church that Albion is trying to sell you. Your theology seems pretty typical mainline. Is the problem sexual ethics? If so, you may be stuck. Churches that reexamine theology directly from Jesus teaching -- which seems to be your preference -- generally do the same with ethical teaching.

You seem to have some experience with mainline churches and didn't like the ethical teaching. What did you object to? Could it have been atypical congregations? I'm in a pretty liberal PCUSA church, and I wouldn't think our ethics would differ from other churches except in the hot-button sexual issues. But the conservative side of those is associated with traditional Biblical exegesis tightly enough that I'd expect it to be associated with traditional theology as well.

CelticRebel said:

I think you have pretty much nailed it.

The nearest Episcopal Church would be about a 30-minute drive. The AMiA church, about an hour's drive, would maybe be the best fit, but after working my day job all week, itself a 30-minute drive, I just can't drive an hour and back every Sunday to church. I work probably 60 hours a week, so I am totally exhausted and fatigued by the weekend. Heck, I'd be pushing it to be able to drive 30 minutes and back to church.

Besides the AMiA, the other churches I feel most compatible with are: Moderate Baptists (closest, 90 minutes), moderate Mennonites (closest, over two hours away); moderate Quakers (none anywhere within hours).

Of the churches I listed in my previous post, what do you think about the Church of the Nazarene? There are two within 30 minutes.

I really appreciate your responses to me!

Click to expand...

First, let me say I'm glad I've helped at all. Yours is a familiar problem but it's still close to unsolvable.

As for the Church(es) of the Nazarene, my immediate thought is that you might as well give them a visit in the near future. After all, you don't have much to lose except the drive and almost nothing is competing with them for your allegiance!

The CofN is a holiness church, so if you didn't care for the Pentecostals, this might turn out to be only modestly better. They're not liturgical and not much given to extra-Biblical theological concepts., although they're related to the Methodists with which you have had some connection in the past.

That said, I have known members and even clergy and they're quite nice people and didn't especially wear their doctrines on their sleeve or seek to convert me. I'd still think, really think, that The Episcopal Church is the better bet unless you find vestments, liturgies, crucifixes, saints, etc. to be objectionable, which I don't think is the case. The CofN would be devoid of all of that.