Modern Theology 101 - The Doctrine of Atonement

[Zguy28]

Hi RB, and Zguy28,

This thread is very stimulating and insightful, for me, and after following the link 'Penal Substitution Theory' under the heading 'Penal Substitution' (above), I discovered the following under the sub-title: Propitiation Language:

There is a ( link ) to: "Nothing But The Blood" by Mark Denver @ Christianity Today, which reads as follows:

I could help noticiing that most of the Scripture mentioned in the sub-heading 'Protiation Language' is from Romans 3-5 Seeing as PS, was extended by the 16th century Reformers, out of Anslem's - Satisfaction Theory, would I be correct in thinking that his ideas were also developed from studying Romans and .. (NT), or could he have been working straight ouf of the Old Testament ?



This is fun!



Sincerely,

Eric J. Sawyer
Ghostbusker



-------------------------------
Propitiation @ Theopedia

I'm sure he based on the entire bible, not just Romans. To understand the context of Romans you have to know the OT.

[headheart]

I'm sure he based on the entire bible, not just Romans. To understand the context of Romans you have to know the OT.

Yes, I think so too. My real difficulty is explaining 'the doctrine of atonement to people who think like this:

*Atoning sacrifice* is an oxymoron, like smart bomb. It's like an apple right off *the tree of the knowledge of opposites*; tempting indeed. It's right out of dualism's libelous playbook. There is zero overlap between sacrifice and atonement just as there is no overlap between mercy and cruelty. Go(o)d does not sacrifice anything...Being Everything. Nor can it be shown - even from your preferred textual reference - that anything was sacrificed in the painless cross>>tomb escape>>ascension sequence.

The resurrection is the symbol of the atonement. The cross represents the sacrifice of the oneness of the truth....what would happen if it were possible to sacrifice the truth of oneness. The resurrection of Jesus states that it's not possible to sacrifice the truth of oneness, and that what appears to be fragmented (separated, many different) will know itself as one again. It also states that whatever is the truth can't be killed or otherwise contradicted. It means that "a house divided against itself cannot stand". The cross is the symbol of "a house divided against itself". Every *one* in death (this) world is complicit in the sacrifice of advaita/oneness. And so, each carry's a cross. Jesus cross stood for all crosses.

Jesus painless crucifixion and his walking out of a tomb after a little time had passed...were miracles for teaching/learning purposes. Those who interpret the sequence incorrectly just don't learn anything. Learning is a change of mind. Learning - correctly - and repentance are the same. So those who misinterpret symbols (teaching aids) are just finding excuses not to repent as of yet.

Those who have yet to repent believe in the efficacy of sacrifice...because they still believe/value a world built on the sacrifice of the truth of oneness. They love a world of multiplicity where each exists separate from one another and all are unique. This is accomplished through the sacrifice of the truth of oneness in favor of the *many different*. Anyone with a vested interest in inequality will value sacrifice. Likewise, they will also value the misinterpretation of teaching aids meant for the restoration of the truth of oneness to the awareness of our one mind.

Jesus taught the way of mercy, not sacrifice. Jesus had mercy on himself on the cross, despising (refusing) pain. This is only accomplished as one allows one's mind to be one with the mind of Chr(I)st. That same oneness disallows traditional death scenarios. So, Jesus popped up days later unharmed and happy.

People think Jesus sacrificed his life. No, manhood was not his life...nor was it anything of value to Jesus. So laying it down was not a sacrifice. In fact, no one can lay down his life until the whole idea of personhood has no more value at all. This is actually the truth about personhood: it has no value. The way of mercy would ask us to exchange nothing for everything. And that's what Jesus demonstrated (taught) through the painless cross>>tomb escape sequence. His "resurrection" (awakening) stands for all resurrections (to follow).

The cross is a symbol of the whole world of time>mass>diversity>death. Such a world is built on the sacrifice of the truth of oneness. Jesus states that it is impossible to change the truth, so, what we think we have done (sacrificed the truth of oneness) is not true. Therefore, we are not guilty of what we think we've done. This is important to the re-at-one-ment process that begins when one rightly interprets Jesus' teachings, and begins to practice them (ie. "love your neighbor as your self"). By showing us that he was unharmed by the experience, Jesus is stating that the Son of Go(o)d is unharmed by the cross we put on his shoulders (our beloved world of time>mass>diversity>death).

Chr(I)st is not a man. This is rule number one for those interested in atonement. Chr(I)st is a whole totality (holy). Man is not part of a whole totality, symbolizing, conversely, a fragmented partiality.

Link - here

Sincerely,
Eric J. Sawyer.

[RBerman]

You will indeed have great difficulty explaining anything to UrbanMonk, because he has skewed definitions of all the key topics. Why does he occupy your mind so much that your SIG picture is about him?

[headheart]

You will indeed have great difficulty explaining...

Especially sentences, like this one: (from the quote comment, above)

'Jesus painless crucifixion and his walking out of a tomb after a little time had passed...were miracles for teaching/learning purposes.'

Sincerely,
Eric J. Sawyer.

[headheart]

RB,

I believe he can understand what we are talking about but, he has a genuine difficulty understanding how the doctrine of Atonement works. Sure his ideas are pure Gnosticism, and extreme dualism, but we all have to start somewhere. I thought with your skills in this department, it would be a simple matter.

Peace,
Eric J. Sawyer.

re: My signature: I enjoy helping people who are trapped in the same things I was. I was deceived by Gnostic writings when I was a young man of 17, and nearly died as a result of following their ideas. Now I spend my life helping others who are ensnared the way that I was. It is what I enjoy doing.

[RBerman]

RB,

I believe he can understand what we are talking about but, he has a genuine difficulty understanding how the doctrine of Atonement works. Sure his ideas are pure Gnosticism, and extreme dualism, but we all have to start somewhere. I thought with your skills in this department, it would be a simple matter.

UrbanMonk is going to have genuine difficulty understanding just about anything in Christianity until he throws aside the false prophets which bind him in ignorance. As it stands right now, he reads the Bible plenty, but because he defines the words all wrong, he is unable to profit from his reading. Thus the idiosyncratic vocabulary he uses, full of Go(o)d and P(s)aul and the like.

[headheart]

UrbanMonk is going to have genuine difficulty understanding just about anything in Christianity until he throws aside the false prophets which bind him in ignorance. As it stands right now, he reads the Bible plenty, but because he defines the words all wrong, he is unable to profit from his reading. Thus the idiosyncratic vocabulary he uses, full of Go(o)d and P(s)aul and the like.

RB,

I am sure there was a time when he read the Bible, but now his primary focus is ACIM, which he began reading a year ago. He posted up the following post on TWC, and asked : "Should I take this book seriously?" A Course In Miracles. Author? Though MaxVel, SeanD and Vivian who said, 'I found the students of the course to be heavily weighted mentally, by that I mean relying what felt to be too much on their own intellect, and their journey becoming more philosophical than actual.' Shunyadragon who said, 'It proposes a metaphysical monism where the reality of our physical existence is an illusion, and a great deal of conjecture over coincidences. Nothing more.' , and countless others attempted to discourage him.

In post 16, it is crystal clear that he put up the post to begin propogating ACIM and Adviata VedAnta, when he says, 'A Course in Miracles and Adi Shankara's interpretation of the Veda are what is sometimes called non-dualistic [oneness]...meaning, the truth is the truth, and there is nothing else. There is not truth and lies...good and evil. There is only truth and good. All else is an illusion..."maya". ' - Which means either he read and understood the book, before he posted this, or quickly assembled his ideas from Wikipedia in 3 days, which anyone with a modicum of intelligence should be able to do.

I engaged him in discussions, St. Paul vs Adviata VendAnta & What is "Adviata VedAnta" ? attempting to find overlaps between ACIM - Adiata VedAnta, and Christianity. "overlaps" - headheart and urban monk only.

According to JB (who is extremely well read), '...Anyway, one could describe Advaita Vedanta as one of the main sorts of Hindu religious philosophy, referring to "non-dualism" (advaita). However, I should also note that one Indian Christian theologian, Brahmabandhav Upadhyay, performed what I consider to be a rather masterful synthesis of Advaita Vedanta and Thomism.' The Thomists, may have succeeded in reconciling certain ideas about the 'doctrine of G_d', but they failed to address the matter of the 'Doctrine of Atonement'. It seems that the Bhaki tradition, has endeavoured to explain the doctrine of the Atonement, in Hindu terms, thanks to the work of Sadhu Sundar Singh and others, hence it seems that rather than as you put it, 'throw away false prophets which bind him in ignorance', it might be wiser to continue to exploring the overlaps, instead of divorcing from existing efforts, on the part of those who were/have and are still busy doing so.

ACIM + A.V. is such a radically different way of understanding G_d and salvation, than that of strict Biblical Christianity, and yet they seem to have some very positive overlaps. I am not sure if you are aware of it, but ACIM has been widely taught in Churches, but I am determined to get the most Biblically accurate teaching of 'The Doctrine of Atonement' that I can, in hopes that if urbanmonk, or the millions of others who have/are and will read ACIM, might at least be able to read a clear presentation of 'The Doctrine of Atonment' (with 'propitiation' in mind), hence the reason for this thread.

I hope you are able to assist me in this regard, if not I am sure that others will be willing to do so.

Kindly,
Eric J. Sawyer.

[RBerman]

ACIM + A.V. is such a radically different way of understanding G_d and salvation, than that of strict Biblical Christianity, and yet they seem to have some very positive overlaps. I am not sure if you are aware of it, but ACIM has been widely taught in Churches, but I am determined to get the most Biblically accurate teaching of 'The Doctrine of Atonement' that I can, in hopes that if urbanmonk, or the millions of others who have/are and will read ACIM, might at least be able to read a clear presentation of 'The Doctrine of Atonment' (with 'propitiation' in mind), hence the reason for this thread.

I hope you are able to assist me in this regard, if not I am sure that others will be willing to do so.

If you'd like to understand the doctrine of atonement more fully, I commend to you John Stott's book "The Cross of Chist." If you simply want to refute ACIM, just take each of UrbanMonk's absurd statements like, "Atoning sacrifice is an oxymoron" or "Jesus taught the way of mercy, not sacrifice" or "The cross is a symbol of the whole world of time>mass>diversity>death" and get him to defend it.

[headheart]

If you'd like to understand the doctrine of atonement more fully, I commend to you John Stott's book "The Cross of Chist."

RB,
Seeing as I have not read the book, nor do I have the money to do so, perhaps you could summarize the section which applies to the Doctrine of Atonement, with particular emphasis on 'propitiation' ?

If you simply want to refute ACIM, just take each of UrbanMonk's absurd statements like, "Atoning sacrifice is an oxymoron" or "Jesus taught the way of mercy, not sacrifice" or "The cross is a symbol of the whole world of time>mass>diversity>death" and get him to defend it.

After I engaged in the discussion to explore overlaps, and various discussions since, it became clear to me that there were these and other differences, which needed to be addressed, and so I posted - A Course or a Curse in Miracles? where eventually, I was able to identify the major differences between ACIM-AV and the Scriptures (based also on research and discussions with Dr. G Friessen, Professor Vishal Mangalwadi, Dr Richard Ganz, brother malachi of TWC ( a pastor from Alabama ), and countless others), who have granted me their wisdom and insight (God bless them all!) , I was able to ask urbanmonk 7 primary questions, to which he replied in full (below) of which Question 5 : The Old Rugged Cross, deals exclusively with the issue at hand:

Question 1:
Do you think that ACIM ( A Course In Miracles) is something harmful, and if so why?

Answered

Question 2:
Are we pre-existent?

Answered

Question 3:
Is the Kingdom of God within you?

Answered

Question 4:
The Authority of the Bible?

Answered - Correction

Question 5
The Old Rugged Cross?

Answered < click to read!

Question 6:
The Suffering of Jesus?

Answered

Question 7:
Pre-existence/Predestination?

Answered

Once again;

'ACIM + A.V. is such a radically different way of understanding G_d and salvation, than that of strict Biblical Christianity, and yet they seem to have some very positive overlaps. I am not sure if you are aware of it, but ACIM has been widely taught in Churches, but I am determined to get the most Biblically accurate teaching of 'The Doctrine of Atonement' that I can, in hopes that if urbanmonk, or the millions of others who have/are and will read ACIM, might at least be able to read a clear presentation of 'The Doctrine of Atonment' (with 'propitiation' in mind), hence the reason for this thread.

I hope you are able to assist me in this regard, if not I am sure that others will be willing to do so. '

Sincerely,
Eric J. Sawyer

----------------------------------------------
'Daar breekt de natuurlijke generatie uit geestelijke zaad van Adam door en stelt een nieuwe geestelijke orde in de plaats; de wedergeboorte uit den Heiligen Geest. En Christus betekent radicale vernieuwing van levenswortel en daarom betekent Christus’ verlossingswerk in principe niet allen de redding van den individueelen mensch, maar van heel het Scheppingswerk Gods, dat in den mensch geconcentreerd was.'
Herman Dooyeweerd. (1894-1977)

[headheart]

I commend to you John Stott's book "The Cross of Chist."

By-the-way, which edition would that be: 1986 , 1989 (with author - D Stone) , or 2006 ( with foreward by Alister E. McGrath ) ? I read quite a bit of 'Basic Christianity', which was highly recommended by Dr. DA Carson - for understanding 'Justifcation by Faith') , but passed it on to a friend. I also have a physical copy of 'Your Confirmation', (written the year Madonna, Michael Jackson, and I were born )but it is little thin on detail. So, I look forward to your summary of 'the Doctrine of Atonement' with emphasis on propitiation, as it occurs in JRW Stott's, 'The Cross of Christ'.

Sincerely,
Eric J. Sawyer.

------------------------------------------
Possible Articles on the Subject :
Was It Neccessary for Jesus to die? by JRW Stott

[RBerman]

It doesn't matter which edition of "The Cross of Christ" you get. The whole book is about penal substitution. When I read it way back when, I thought, "This is dumb. Everybody knows this." At the time I did not appreciate how much fire that doctrine was (and now is) under in academic and liberal circles.

[headheart]

It doesn't matter which edition of "The Cross of Christ" you get. The whole book is about penal substitution. When I read it way back when, I thought, "This is dumb. Everybody knows this." At the time I did not appreciate how much fire that doctrine was (and now is) under in academic and liberal circles.

Certainly, I am now sure you do. It is equally an area of great error, and your thoughts I am sure will be appreciated, by those who read this one day.

If you have some time and can summarize the primary points, of what impressed you most about the book, I would greatly appreciate that, as I really do not have the money for such luxuries, and I am sure there are many who are in the same place as I am, and would appreciate you sharing your 'fire' with us all.

Here are a few reviews of 'The Cross of Christ' by JRW Stott:

1. The Cross of Christ @ Corum Deo
2. The Cross of Christ by J.R.W. Stott @ Southern View Chapel


Sincerely,
Eric J. Sawyer

--------------------------------------------
Possible Articles/Audio/Video on the Subject :
Was It Neccessary for Jesus to die? by JRW Stott
The Doctrine of Propitiation by Paul Washer (sermonaudio.com)

[bling]

1. This is a huge subject that Agnostics, Atheists ,and Muslim use to show how illogical the Bible message is.
2. As Tercel points out the “how” it happens is not really directly addressed. For the most part Christians do not need to know “how” God does anything to believe and the result is our salvation.
3. Explaining it as Penal Substitution is trying to justify the “Whipping Boy” concept and does not go over.
4. The “idea” that God must have a blood sacrifice to forgive sins flies with Jews and pagans that sacrifice animals (thus not much need to explain in the first century.) But it makes God out to have some weakness or problem.
This takes some thinking:
1. God is doing all He can to help willing humans fulfill their objective, so whatever is happening it is for the sake of willing humans and not for God’s sake.
2. “Punishment” is a form of discipline and discipline has lots of benefits: Deterrent for future offences by the person being punished and others, is just and consistent, shows we are children and God is our parent, and relieves the concern with not being “punished” yet.
3. The severity of the offence is often determined by the severity of the punishment and sin is a huge offence carrying a huge debt.
4. As a wonderful Parent God would need to see to it that His Children were disciplined (punished).
I have written a parable to help explain:
There is battle going on and you as an old man leave you post. The crime is punishable by 40 lashes or equivalent, but that will kill you. Your young innocent son offers to take your place and explains to the judge (general) that; 40 lashes on him will cause you tremendous pain and anguish. The judge (general) refuses because that would not be just to punish an innocent for the guilty (Whipping Boy). The innocent son then says: “I will go over to the enemy’s camp for my father’s sake and they will beat me and imprison me until the end of the war”. The Judge (general) says he cannot stop the young man from doing such a thing and knows this will really hurt the father when you find out, so the judge will not have to punish you further (justice has been done). You plead for the son’s return, but there is really no other way for you to be punished and live.

When you come to the realization of what Christ has done it is painful and heart retching, but there is this tremendous Love shown in what Christ and God did that keeps the thought of the cross from becoming debilitating. We should look at the cross with mixed emotions.
That is my introduction.

[RBerman]

Bling, I agree with you on one point: The cross of Christ is certainly a scandal (literally a "stumbling block") to those who do not believe. They find it reprehensible that God would be holy, and thus be offended at sin, and thus punish sin, and then go to the trouble to take that punishment onto Himself.

Eric, that is what penal substitution is.

[RBerman]

As far as a brief sample of Stott's comments about propitiation:

John Stott, The Cross of Christ, pp. 169ff

To propitiate somebody means to appease or pacify his anger... The crucial question is whether the object of the atoning action is God or man. If the former, then the right word is "propitiation" (appeasing God); if the latter, the right word is "expiation" (dealing with sin and guilt)... Dr David Wells has elaborated this succinctly:

David Wells

In Pauline thought, man is alienated from God by sin and God is alienated from man by wrath. It is in the substitutionary death of Christ that sin is overcome and wrath averted, so that God can look on man without displeasure and man can look on God without fear. Sin is expiated and God is propitiated.

© source where applicable

© source where applicable