Hello,
Is there truly a moral defence for the Atonement?
In the garden of Gethsemane, prior to his arrest, Jesus fervently and passionately prayed to be spared by God. What awaited him was the excruciating horrific torture of crucifixion, followed by a descent into hell.
Christians say "God so loved the world that he gave his only son".
I have heard and read the apparent morality of this act. But can anyone here convince me that this act of God as described in Christian teaching is morally truly defensible?
I remain a Christian today, but among my objections to Christianity this is by far my most serious.
I hope for some considered replies!
Thank you.
Atonement is a huge topic. Jesus is not the atonement, but just the atonement Sacrifice, so what else is included, especially what is man’s part?
You say: “Jesus died for his elect so that they can be saved, he bought them with his blood,” so who was paid off?
It is referred to as a ransom payment, who was the underserving, criminal, kidnapping, bully offered the ransom payment?
God can powerful enough to take anything from satan without paying anything, so it would not be satan and God is not a kidnapper?
Think about this: When you go up to a nonbelieving sinner, what are you trying to get him/her to accept: A doctrine, a denomination, a book, a theology, a church or something else. NO, you want the nonbeliever to accept “Jesus Christ and Him Crucified” and if he does accept a child of God is released to enter the Kingdom and be with God, but if the sinner rejects “Jesus Christ and Him crucifies” a child is kept out of the Kingdom.
Does this not sound very much like a kidnapping scenario with a ransom being offered?
“Jesus Christ and Him crucified” is described in scripture as the ransom payment?
Would the sinner holding a child of God out of the Kingdom of God, be described as a kidnapper?
“Jesus Christ and Him crucified” is a huge sacrificial payment, like you find with children being ransomed?
Parents will make huge sacrificial payments to have their children released.
All the popular theories of atonement all having huge issues:
1. They make God out to be blood thirsty?
2. God is seen as being extremely wrathful toward His children?
3. All leave out man’s part in the atonement process, but do try to inject it someway?
4. They show universal atonement, which has to be illogically explained away to be for only those saved?
5. Jesus, Paul, John, Peter and the Hebrew writer explain Jesus going to the cross as literally being a ransom payment, yet the theories do a poor job explaining how these theories are ransom/kidnap scenario (the Ransom Theory of Atonement also does a poor job).
6. A rebellious disobedient child of a wonderful parent not only needs forgiveness, but fair/just Loving discipline conducted if at all possible, with the Parent (this is for best results), yet these theories only show forgiveness and not how atonement is a fair/just loving disciplining of the sinner.
7. It makes God out to be weak needing something like Christ going to the cross to forgive or accept the sinner and/or there is this “cosmic law” God has to obey.
8. They do not fit the definition for atonement in Lev.5 here minor sins (unintentional sins) are atoned for.
9. They do not explain the contrast between those forgiven before and after the cross Ro. 3:25.
10. They have no reason for why these explanations are left out of the Christ Crucified sermons given in the New Testament.
11. They do not fit, what the new convert can/should experience when coming to the realization they caused Christ to be tortured, humiliated and murdered (being crucified with Christ).
12. All will give illogical interpretations of verses and words in scripture, like (My God, My God why have you forsaken me) and the English word translating the Greek “for”.
13. They have or say: God forgives our sins 100% and Christ paid for our sins 100%, but that is contradicting the scriptural understanding of “paying” and “forgiving”, since if it truly “forgiven” there is nothing to be paid. It also cheapens sin.
14. The atonement sacrifice losses significance is lost by rolling it up with the death burial and resurrection.
15. We have Peter in Acts 2 giving a wonderful “Christ Crucified” sermon, yet there is no mention of Christ being our substitute or the cross “satisfying” God in some way and that is not presented in other sermons in scripture.
The cross is foolishness to the nonbeliever so it is not easy to explain:
To truly understand we need to go through every Old and New Testament verse concerning the atonement process and Christ’s crucifixion. I like to start with Lev. 5, but we might find the greatest understanding in Ro. 3:25, since there is Godly logic in what happened.
Atonement is one of those religious concepts which is best understood through experiencing it, then trying to explain it. Unfortunately, the new Christian is filled with ideas about atonement prior to experiencing it, so they are brain washed into trying to feel something that does not happen and quenching what should happen.
One of the advantages the Jews before Christ’s sacrifice had with atonement was personally going through the atonement process for very minor sins (unintentional sins). Lev. 5 explains why, what sinner goes through in the atonement process and might be a good place to start, since Lev. 4-5 is where atonement begins. There is also the advantage of the Lev. 5 atonement being for the individuals personal and actual sins.
We might be able to take the atonement process for very minor sins and extrapolate up to what it could be like for rebellious disobedience directly towards God requiring death for the sinner with no atonement possible under the Old Law.
It would be best to imagen yourself as a first century (BC) Jewish man who just accidently touched a dead unclean animal. If you are real poor you are going to have to work an extra job help someone else for money to buy a sack of flour. If you live in the city and have money you are going to have to go out and buy a lamb and some grain to feed it. You are not a shepherd, so you will have to drag or carry a balling, thirsty and hungry lamb to the altar. You get up early to hike into Jerusalem wait in line for hours to hand the flour or lamb to the priest and watch them go through their part of the atonement process which if you all did everything right will result in God forgiving you and you feeling forgiven.
There is more to what and why this happens which we can find in Lev. 5:
5…they must confess in what way they have sinned. (which we need to do in the atonement process)
6 As a penalty for the sin they have committed… Here the reason for atonement is given “as a penalty” (punishment but better translated disciplining).
If the sacrifice was made as a “payment” for a sin: these sins are all the same and God considers all people the same, so the sacrifice would need to be the same (a lamb for all or doves for all or flour for all) but they are not the same. The different values of the sacrifices, is an attempt to equalize the hardship/penalty (disciplining) on the sinners and does not suggest a payment being made to God especially a payment to forgive a sin. God does not need a bag of flour to forgive sins.
The intention of the sinner going through all this, would be, all the benefits that come from being Lovingly disciplined.
We really need to go through every verse relating to atonement and sacrifice to gleam a true understanding, but you asked for other word used to describe Jesus’ sacrifice:
Try just this small part of atonement:
There is this unbelievable huge “ransom payment” being made: Jesus, Peter, Paul, John and the author of Hebrews all describe it as an actual ransom scenario and not just “like a ransom scenario”. And we can all agree on: the payment being Christ’s torture, humiliation and murder, the Payer being God/Christ, the child being set free (sinners going to God), but have a problem with: “Who is the kidnapper”? If there is no kidnapper than the ransom scenario does not fit, so who is the kidnapper?
Some people try to make God the receiver of the payment, which calls God the kidnapper of His own children which is crazy.
Some people say satan is the kidnapper (this is what the Ransom Theory of atonement has), but that would mean God is paying satan when God has the power to safely take anything from satan and it would be wrong for God to pay satan.
Some say it is an intangible like death, evil, sin, or nothing, but you would not pay a huge payment to an intangible?
There is one very likely kidnapper and that is the person holding a child back from entering the Kingdom to be with God. When we go to the nonbeliever, we are not trying to convince them of an idea, a book, a doctrine or theology, but to accept Jesus Christ and Him crucified (which is described as the ransom payment). If the nonbeliever accepts the ransom payment (Jesus Christ) there is a child released to go to the Father, but if the nonbeliever refuses to accept Jesus Christ and Him crucified a child is kept out of the Kingdom. Does this all sounds very much like a kidnapping scenario?
Yes, Christ is the ransom payment for all, but the kidnapper can accept or reject the payment. If the kidnapper rejects this unbelievable huge payment, the payers of the ransom are going to be upset with that kidnapper.
There is a lot more to say about this, but this is an introduction.
God could have determined from the beginning of time, He would save everyone who humbly accepted Hid unselfish, unconditional Love.
Everyone who accepted the invitation and went to the banquet were invited to the banquet to be with Christ.
It is in no way’s Christ’s fault people leave, that is there free will choice, just as Judas left Christ, Christ did all He could to help Judas.
Try just this small part of atonement:
There is this unbelievable huge “ransom payment” being made: Jesus, Peter, Paul, John and the author of Hebrews all describe it as an actual ransom scenario and not just “like a ransom scenario”. And we can all agree on: the payment being Christ’s torture, humiliation and murder, the Payer being God/Christ, the child being set free (sinners going to God), but have a problem with: “Who is the kidnapper”? If there is no kidnapper than the ransom scenario does not fit, so who is the kidnapper?
Some people try to make God the receiver of the payment, which calls God the kidnapper of His own children which is crazy.
Some people say satan is the kidnapper (this is what the Ransom Theory of atonement has), but that would mean God is paying satan when God has the power to safely take anything from satan and it would be wrong for God to pay satan.
Some say it is an intangible like death, evil, sin, or nothing, but you would not pay a huge payment to an intangible?
There is one very likely kidnapper and that is the person holding a child back from entering the Kingdom to be with God. When we go to the nonbeliever, we are not trying to convince them of an idea, a book, a doctrine or theology, but to accept Jesus Christ and Him crucified (which is described as the ransom payment). If the nonbeliever accepts the ransom payment (Jesus Christ) there is a child released to go to the Father, but if the nonbeliever refuses to accept Jesus Christ and Him crucified a child is kept out of the Kingdom. Does this all sounds very much like a kidnapping scenario?
Yes, Christ is the ransom payment for all, but the kidnapper can accept or reject the payment. If the kidnapper rejects this unbelievable huge payment, the payers of the ransom are going to be upset with that kidnapper.
There is a lot more to say about this, but this is an introduction.
