Modern Theology 101 - The Doctrine of Atonement

[headheart]

Your reply to RBerman's question in ( Post 44 + Post 45 ) is duly noted.

Please keep in mind the reason for this thread. ( Post 36 )
It was not started so you could publish your 'pages of ideas' to Theology 201
Perhaps it might be bettter if you start a thread of your own dealing with all your extraneous thinking.

Sincerely,
Eric J. Sawyer.

[bling]

Bling, I think your analogy, (and Zguy28's) (sorry) both subtley miss an important distinction. In both your analogies, the "whipping boy" or sacrificial lamb, or however you want to put it, isn't some "stranger" or some such...It is God himself. A more accurate analogy would be:

"It's as if you stand in trial before a king and the verdict is delivered "GUILTY!" So then, The King Himself comes down off of his throne and says "I will take your punishment so that you can receive mercy and henceforth serve and glorify Me."

Now, I know there are implications here about the Trinity and what not. but we have to put into simple terms what really is Happening. God Himself is the propitiation. HE is paying our debt that we cannot repay. That is the Gospel...the Good News...God Himself has redeemed us by His Own sacrifice. All we do is accept the free gift, that we do NOT deserve. Would you not want to love and serve such a King with your whole life? I know I do....

LJ

Problems with this idea (what I have heard from Muslims and agnostics):
1. God is punishing an innocent party (and that is never fair to punish the innocent instead of the guilty), even if it is Himself that He is punishing. What primitive society would allow such a thing? Would you vote such an exception into our law?
2. You are saying the reason is “…so that you can receive mercy...” That means God is not “loving” enough to be able to forgiven you without punishment (Muslims say: Allah can do it.)
3. You go on to say: “… and henceforth serve and glorify Me…” This makes God out to be wanting to get something from us. Am I wrong to be presenting the idea that God is trying to give us an unconditional, undeserving gift (Charity) without expectation of something in return (conditional [serve and glorify ME])?
4. Do you not believe there are benefits to being disciplined and punishment done with Love can benefit a child? Do you not give your child time out for playing with that gun of yours if he disobeyed you in doing it? Do you not give your child time out when you told him not to play in the street and he does it anyway?
5. I insist on being punished for I am guilty, I believe in justice and being fair and consistency (if God sees to the punishment of other guilty He should see to my punishment), I believe a true loving parent sees to the discipline (punishment) for offences of their children, and I want to know I have done the time for the crime. What you describe does not fulfill these benefits.
6. Parents discipline and forgive their children and it is not the same thing. How do you relate them to each other? I Love because I have been forgiven of a huge debt caused by my sins and I feel my Father has seen to my punishment through my pain and sorrow of Christ being on the cross because of me.
I have addressed you now could you address the problems you have with my posts: 28 and 35

[headheart]

Please keep in mind the reason for this thread. ( Post 36 )
It was not started so you could publish your 'pages of ideas' to Theology 201
Perhaps it might be bettter if you start a thread of your own dealing with all your extraneous thinking.

Sincerely,
Eric J. Sawyer.

[Littlejoe]

Problems with this idea (what I have heard from Muslims and agnostics):
1. God is punishing an innocent party (and that is never fair to punish the innocent instead of the guilty), even if it is Himself that He is punishing. What primitive society would allow such a thing? Would you vote such an exception into our law?
2. You are saying the reason is “…so that you can receive mercy...” That means God is not “loving” enough to be able to forgiven you without punishment (Muslims say: Allah can do it.)
3. You go on to say: “… and henceforth serve and glorify Me…” This makes God out to be wanting to get something from us. Am I wrong to be presenting the idea that God is trying to give us an unconditional, undeserving gift (Charity) without expectation of something in return (conditional [serve and glorify ME])?
4. Do you not believe there are benefits to being disciplined and punishment done with Love can benefit a child? Do you not give your child time out for playing with that gun of yours if he disobeyed you in doing it? Do you not give your child time out when you told him not to play in the street and he does it anyway?
5. I insist on being punished for I am guilty, I believe in justice and being fair and consistency (if God sees to the punishment of other guilty He should see to my punishment), I believe a true loving parent sees to the discipline (punishment) for offences of their children, and I want to know I have done the time for the crime. What you describe does not fulfill these benefits.
6. Parents discipline and forgive their children and it is not the same thing. How do you relate them to each other? I Love because I have been forgiven of a huge debt caused by my sins and I feel my Father has seen to my punishment through my pain and sorrow of Christ being on the cross because of me.
I have addressed you now could you address the problems you have with my posts: 28 and 35

Bling, Eric has requested we take this part of our conversation elsewhere. If you want to continue the conversation, please start a new thread and post it's location, and I will attempt to answer your questions.

Thanks,

LJ

[RBerman]

The only questioned you asked was:
I answered your question with rhetorical questions:
Why is God’s “character” so “weak” that it demands a sacrifice? (The Muslims like to point out that Allah forgives sins without needing blood).

That is not an answer. It's a loaded rhetorical question which is defective, just like "have you stopped beating your wife?"

What is the difference between Penal Substitution and the “Whipping Boy” concept?
The “Whipping Boy” concept is considered by most (if not everyone) to be unfair and unjust.

Describe the "whipping boy" concept and why you think it applies to God's self-sacrifice on the cross.

Why does God have to have a sacrifice to Himself, without it sounding like a character flaw?

I'm not aware that self-sacrifice is generally held to be a character flaw; quite the opposite.

Is God blood thirsty that He requires a blood sacrifice?

Yes, where sin is concerned. Would a Christian argue otherwise?

What is wrong with my alternative?

It ignores the Biblical evidence.

[Michael T.]

Tercel,

Tercel wrote:
“Two caveats...

Firstly, there really just aren't enough surviving examples of the usage of this word to be absolutely sure what it means. Any attempts at guessing its meaning are speculative.”

There’s no need to guess; a comprehensive study of the Old Testament Scriptures will edify you concerning Propitiation and its vital function within the crucially-essential task of obtaining satisfaction for the sins of GOD’s elect people, which the Lord Jesus Christ fully accomplished on their behalf on the Golgotha cross.

Tercel wrote:
“Secondly, even if we work out what it means that doesn't really tell us much. E.g. my conclusion that the Apostle Paul is saying that the Lord Jesus Christ reconciled humanity and that God doesn't tell us anything about how he did that.”

You seem to be unaware of the fundamental Biblical truths of election and pre-destination taught by Christ and His Apostles which specify that Christ is the Saviour of all of God’s elect pre-destinated people; i.e. of all those whom GOD the Father chose from before Creation to be brought to eternal salvation in Christ. [Ephesians 1:3-11[.

It’s necessary to note that although the extent of God’s elect people is indeed vast it is nevertheless significantly less than all of the entire human race ever to exist in all generations.

Therefore the popular but unBiblical idea that “Christ reconciled humanity;” where the term “humanity” designates “all of the entire human race ever to exist without any exception” is a fallacy and a grave misrepresentation of Biblical fact.

Michael T.

[footwasher]

Bling, Eric has requested we take this part of our conversation elsewhere. If you want to continue the conversation, please start a new thread and post it's location, and I will attempt to answer your questions.

Thanks,

LJ

Hi all!

This spin-off is interesting! Shall I start the thread?

I'd like to call it:

Reparation: Can an innocent party offer to compensate an injured party in light of the guilty party's inability to do so, and if so, is it not the hallmark of a developed society?

:)

[headheart]

Thanks LJ,

Here is a list from Theology 201, dealing with related and extraneous thinking of others, on the subject of 'The Doctrine of the Atonement'.

Is Penal Substitutionary Theory Coherent?
The end of Calvinism and penal substitution
If satisfaction doctrine is true, then how was it lost?
Did He Fail His Mission? The extent of the atonement
2 Corinthians 5:21 - Christ became sin...
Limited Atonement?
Propitiation vs. Expiation
Christology: Did Jesus lay down His divine nature ?
Why does God need Blood, why cant he except repentance without the human sacrifice of Jesus?
Jesus became sin
Purged of our sins
What was needed to redeem man?
A Question for Calvinists
Regeneration Before Atonement
SAVED versus BEING SAVED

Penal Substiution vs Moral Exemplar
Christ's sacrifice is... ?
Is Sanctification a part of the atonement?
The Satisfaction/Gift model of atonement
why is wrath a good quality
Foreknowledge & Limited Atonement
Recapitulation Theory of Atonement: (For Tercel)
Must one believe in Penal Substitution to be saved?
On Predestination, Reprobation and the Love of God
Penalty for sin?
Penal Substitution

Sincerely in Christ,
Eric J. Sawyer

[bling]

Bling, Eric has requested we take this part of our conversation elsewhere. If you want to continue the conversation, please start a new thread and post it's location, and I will attempt to answer your questions.

Thanks,

LJ

That is fine, but I might have discussed this already. I will leave it in MT 101 and call it problems with Penal Substitution.

[bling]

That is not an answer. It's a loaded rhetorical question which is defective, just like "have you stopped beating your wife?"



Describe the "whipping boy" concept and why you think it applies to God's self-sacrifice on the cross.



I'm not aware that self-sacrifice is generally held to be a character flaw; quite the opposite.



Yes, where sin is concerned. Would a Christian argue otherwise?



It ignores the Biblical evidence.

The “whipping boy concept” is where the judge/teacher whip an innocent boy (paid generously for his work, so is willing to take it) because the teacher cannot physically punish the guilty boy (rich or part of royalty). It is suppose to help relieve the teacher or judge of the need to be punishing someone for disobeying him.
In penal substitution you have God as the judge punishing the innocent Jesus Christ, because God cannot punish humans that are guilty and have offended God. This punishment is to relieve God of a need He has to punish someone (a blood sacrifice). Jesus is willing and you might consider God Himself, but that makes no difference.
“Self Sacrifice” giving up stuff to build character making you a better person and/or serving others is good, but masochism is not. What is the motive and what problem is this solving to be a brutal sacrifice:
Does Jesus need to build character?
Is it just to serve self, so self can feel better (that is masochism)?
If we say it is for man to bring them in a right relationship with God, man does not need Christ to be sacrificing, so the blame falls on God having to be brought around?
Self sacrifice to satisfy a self need is masochism.
The idea of God needing “Blood” is belittling God. We needed to have blood sacrifices in the Old Testament to see the symbolic representation of Christ. God does not need or want blood, but allows this cruel bloody sacrifice to help us understand the debt of sin, to allow us be punished (disciplined) without being destroyed, and to provide us all the benefits that come from being disciplined.
As far as my explanation being unbiblical, I will be happy to go verse by verse and show you how it fits.

[RBerman]

The “whipping boy concept” is where the judge/teacher whip an innocent boy (paid generously for his work, so is willing to take it) because the teacher cannot physically punish the guilty boy (rich or part of royalty). It is suppose to help relieve the teacher or judge of the need to be punishing someone for disobeying him.
In penal substitution you have God as the judge punishing the innocent Jesus Christ, because God cannot punish humans that are guilty and have offended God. This punishment is to relieve God of a need He has to punish someone (a blood sacrifice). Jesus is willing and you might consider God Himself, but that makes no difference.

Of course it makes a difference. How can it not make a difference that God takes his own wrath onto himself? You appear to be uncritically accepting the nonChristian spin on Christianity. What does your pastor think about your approach?

“Self Sacrifice” giving up stuff to build character making you a better person and/or serving others is good, but masochism is not. What is the motive and what problem is this solving to be a brutal sacrifice:
Does Jesus need to build character?
Is it just to serve self, so self can feel better (that is masochism)?
If we say it is for man to bring them in a right relationship with God, man does not need Christ to be sacrificing, so the blame falls on God having to be brought around?
Self sacrifice to satisfy a self need is masochism.

That's a poor definition of masochism. Masochism is a pathological condition of taking pleasure in painful stimuli, in and of themselves. It's not masochism to undergo pain for some greater purpose. For instance, when I get my teeth cleaned at the dentist, it can be unpleasant, but I do it because I know the end result is good. Or when a soldier dives onto a grenade to save his friends from dying, he does not enjoy the pain, but he endures it for a greater good. This is what Jesus did: He endured the cross not because he derived pleasure from the pain itself, but because of a greater good which he knew would follow:

Hebrews 12:2

Let us fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy set before him endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.

The idea of God needing “Blood” is belittling God. We needed to have blood sacrifices in the Old Testament to see the symbolic representation of Christ. God does not need or want blood, but allows this cruel bloody sacrifice to help us understand the debt of sin, to allow us be punished (disciplined) without being destroyed, and to provide us all the benefits that come from being disciplined.

Why do you want to redefine punishment as only being "discipline"? They are two perfectly good words with distinct meanings. What do you believe the Bible means when it describes God as having "wrath"?

As far as my explanation being unbiblical, I will be happy to go verse by verse and show you how it fits.

Proceed. But at Eric's request, perhaps you can respond to my post in the other thread which you started. Also, it's not enough to show that things you say can be defended from the Bible. You need to show that Penal Substitution is actually disproven in the Bible as well.

[headheart]

Hebrews 12:2

Let us fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy set before him endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.

Attachment 81561


Hebrews 9



Soli Deo Gloria!
Eric J. Sawyer.

[bling]

Of course it makes a difference. How can it not make a difference that God takes his own wrath onto himself? You appear to be uncritically accepting the nonChristian spin on Christianity. What does your pastor think about your approach?



That's a poor definition of masochism. Masochism is a pathological condition of taking pleasure in painful stimuli, in and of themselves. It's not masochism to undergo pain for some greater purpose. For instance, when I get my teeth cleaned at the dentist, it can be unpleasant, but I do it because I know the end result is good. Or when a soldier dives onto a grenade to save his friends from dying, he does not enjoy the pain, but he endures it for a greater good. This is what Jesus did: He endured the cross not because he derived pleasure from the pain itself, but because of a greater good which he knew would follow:

Hebrews 12:2

Let us fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy set before him endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.

Why do you want to redefine punishment as only being "discipline"? They are two perfectly good words with distinct meanings. What do you believe the Bible means when it describes God as having "wrath"?


Proceed. But at Eric's request, perhaps you can respond to my post in the other thread which you started. Also, it's not enough to show that things you say can be defended from the Bible. You need to show that Penal Substitution is actually disproven in the Bible as well.

I will address this in my tread on issues with PS

[headheart]

Attachment 81634

"Bye, bye bling." - Problem with Penal Substitution!

[headheart]

Also, it's not enough to show that things you say can be defended from the Bible.

While I am having a serious read and re-think, of this very important doctrine, I have enlisted the scholars from Biblical Languages 301 @ TWC and Bible @ Apologetics.com to examine the 3 verses referred to in my opening post, as well as the quote from Dr. Blanchard's book.

For now, I shall leave it in their capabable hands and let the Lamb of G_d, Lion of the tribe of Judah, the root of Jesse ..... RO___________AR!

Attachment 81651