Christians only: Why do we need atonement?

Arrow said:

Maybe i am just really dense right now, but i do not understand this. In the first quote you so that we are good. If we are good than why do we need to be saved. What need is there for our salvation? Btw if i offended you with my questions, i did not mean to i was just playing around. Sorry I really am just looking for clarification.

Click to expand...

Not offended at all. Look at those two quotations side-by-side. Incarnational theology holds out hope for the inherent goodness of humanity. God chose to reconcile us to God by becoming one of us. We are not a throw-away part of God's creation -- we are worth saving, because we are inherently good...even though we choose to sin. By becoming one of us, God reconciled our natural tendency for free choice. God took our nature upon God, reconciling our nature with God's nature, which is unity. God doesn't need a blood atonement in order to do that.

Okay, i have to disagree, but my disagreeing goes back to man being inherently evil not good thing. I believe that Adam and Eve were inherently good, but they screwed it up. I would not mind doing a one on one debate over inherant good vs inherant evil though... in the end though i do not think either one of us would budge.

sojourner said:

I am not coming from a basis of sola scriptura. Tradition is equally as important as scripture, since scripture is part of the tradition. Tradition formed the Bible (as we have it...including the writing of the NT) in the first place. It's the tradition that keeps us from taking the interpretive process into heretical territory.

Click to expand...

So is the remissions of sins through Christ sacrifice considered to be heretical in your eyes, even though such a belief is underscored throughout the New Testament and was a fundamental belief among Christians in the 1st century?

sojourner said:

Your theology works if you're Calvinist. While original sin and the blood atonement are one way to extrapolate salvation theology, I feel that it's not the best way. Original sin undermines the inherent goodness of God's creation. Blood atonement undermines grace as a free gift.

Click to expand...

Okay. Now I am hopelessly confused.

A. Did not original sin originate from Adam and Eve's disobedience in the garden? Or is the concept itself incorrect? I have been struggling with this sentence and can't understand it at all. I honestly believe in the inherent goodness of God's creation, and find no problem reconciling that with the idea of original sin as a corruption of that goodness.

B. If the crucifixion was not blood atonement, what was it? Again, I just don't understand. How does the blood of Christ shed on the cross undermine grace as a free gift? I truly believe grace is a free gift, that Christ gave his life to give us that gift.

Maybe if you could just tell me in plain English why Jesus died on the cross it would be a good beginning. I hate to walk away from this without fully understanding what you are saying.

Happier said:

Okay. Now I am hopelessly confused.

A. Did not original sin originate from Adam and Eve's disobedience in the garden? Or is the concept itself incorrect? I have been struggling with this sentence and can't understand it at all. I honestly believe in the inherent goodness of God's creation, and find no problem reconciling that with the idea of original sin as a corruption of that goodness.

Click to expand...

The concept of Original Sin is wrong. We do not inherit the guilt of Adam, we are not born sinful. We are, however, born with the mortal nature that is a consequence of the fall. This understanding is much older than the Augustinian idea of Original Sin and was accepted in both the eastern and western sees of the Church whereas Original Sin a la Augustine was rejected in the eastern sees and confined to Rome.

B. If the crucifixion was not blood atonement, what was it? Again, I just don't understand. How does the blood of Christ shed on the cross undermine grace as a free gift? I truly believe grace is a free gift, that Christ gave his life to give us that gift.

Click to expand...

It, and the Resurrection (the two are inseparable) was Christ's conquest of death's hold over mankind. Salvation was achieved by the entire Incarnation, not just the Crucifixion, when Christ divinised human nature by assuming it and thus repairing what had been broken when Adam turned from God at the fall. Again, this understanding is much, much older than the juridical concept of substitutionary atonement, which is actually a development of scholastic theology. Incarnational theology is also entirely consonant with Scripture, despite what some of the westerners here have said. You only see substitutionary atonement in Scripture if you come to it expecting to see it. It's not at all clear from the text itself, or else why did the doctrine take centuries to develop?

The idea of God requiring a blood sacrifice doesn't so much deny grace as a free gift as it does make God something other than omnipotent. This is what I've sometimes referred to here as the 'deification of Necessity'. God never needs to do anything and neither Justice nor Necessity are things that He is beholden to. He can do whatever He wants. This is the great failing of substitutionary atonement. You either accept that God needs to sacrifice His Son in order to forgive us, making Him subject to the higher power of Necessity, or you accept that He can do whatever He wants, thus avoiding the pitfall of reducing His omnipotence but doing something much worse in the process - turning Him into a monster who wants blood before He will forgive. Incarnational theology, on the other hand, avoids both pitfalls, is perfectly Scriptural, perfectly consonant with a God who is Love and, in fact, is the original understanding of the Church as demonstrated amply by the writings of the early Fathers. There are no downsides whatsoever.

James

JamesThePersian said:

The concept of Original Sin is wrong. We do not inherit the guilt of Adam, we are not born sinful. We are, however, born with the mortal nature that is a consequence of the fall. This understanding is much older than the Augustinian idea of Original Sin and was accepted in both the eastern and western sees of the Church whereas Original Sin a la Augustine was rejected in the eastern sees and confined to Rome.


It, and the Resurrection (the two are inseparable) was Christ's conquest of death's hold over mankind. Salvation was achieved by the entire Incarnation, not just the Crucifixion, when Christ divinised human nature by assuming it and thus repairing what had been broken when Adam turned from God at the fall. Again, this understanding is much, much older than the juridical concept of substitutionary atonement, which is actually a development of scholastic theology. Incarnational theology is also entirely consonant with Scripture, despite what some of the westerners here have said. You only see substitutionary atonement in Scripture if you come to it expecting to see it. It's not at all clear from the text itself, or else why did the doctrine take centuries to develop?

The idea of God requiring a blood sacrifice doesn't so much deny grace as a free gift as it does make God something other than omnipotent. This is what I've sometimes referred to here as the 'deification of Necessity'. God never needs to do anything and neither Justice nor Necessity are things that He is beholden to. He can do whatever He wants. This is the great failing of substitutionary atonement. You either accept that God needs to sacrifice His Son in order to forgive us, making Him subject to the higher power of Necessity, or you accept that He can do whatever He wants, thus avoiding the pitfall of reducing His omnipotence but doing something much worse in the process - turning Him into a monster who wants blood before He will forgive. Incarnational theology, on the other hand, avoids both pitfalls, is perfectly Scriptural, perfectly consonant with a God who is Love and, in fact, is the original understanding of the Church as demonstrated amply by the writings of the early Fathers. There are no downsides whatsoever.

James

Click to expand...

God's Sovereign will for Christ to be sacrificed on Calvary's cross does not represent a blood thirsty being as you arbitrarily pontificate. It represented just how much He loved us that He would present His Son as a offering to redeem our sins as part of His overarching purpose to save mankind so that He may be glorified.

In regards to this "mortal nature", would you also categorize this as an inherited "sinful nature" that all human beings possessed? How would you explain the origin of this nature and our inherent propensity to sin? The curse of sin on mankind was derived from Adam and human nature and behavior tend to validate that truth.

blueman said:

You are using a secular analogy and understanding to a plan that had a spiritual impact on mankind. If you or I forvive someone, it will have not impact whatsoever on their spiritual destiny. God's plan was for His Son to bear the penalty for our sins as a means for redemption. Through that we may be saved and God would be glorified for providng a path to righteousness. Some tend to minimize the fact that it was the same God The Father who raised His Son from the dead. I think our focus should be on the fact that He loved us that much that He would sacrifice His Only Begotten Son on our behalf. That's mind-boggling that an Almighty God had a plan for you and me.

Click to expand...

Ok, fine - but why does God need a sacrifice? Why can't you pay for your sins, why would you rather Jesus suffer in your place?

Polaris said:

This is probably just a sematics issue, but the fact that Jesus paid for our sins underscores the idea that he took our sins upon him. He took our sins upon him and suffered in our place.

Click to expand...

Its not semantics, its a matter of interpretation. Where you see substitutionary atonement, i see extrapolation of ancient ritual sacrifice.

Polaris said:

We are commanded to forgive all, but God is bound by his word to provide justice concerning the breaking of his established laws. If there is no need for punishment, then there is no need for laws. If there is no need for laws there is no consequence to any decision we make because there is no right and wrong. Then why are we here?

Click to expand...

Fine then, answer me this - where in the Bible or anywhere else does it say that God must forgive us?
From my perspective, if you break the Law you suffer the consequences - God has no compulsion to forgive you, but He can if He feels you deserve forgiveness.
Isn't a bit selfish to go around commiting sins, and then simply pass them onto Jesus so that you can get to heaven? How Christian is it to rejoice in murder because you will benefit from it?

Polaris said:

He's not appeasing himself, he's appeasing the demands of justice without making us suffer the full consequences of our transgressions.

Click to expand...

Then how is that justice?

Halcyon said:

Ok, fine - but why does God need a sacrifice? Why can't you pay for your sins, why would you rather Jesus suffer in your place?


Its not semantics, its a matter of interpretation. Where you see substitutionary atonement, i see extrapolation of ancient ritual sacrifice.


Fine then, answer me this - where in the Bible or anywhere else does it say that God must forgive us?
From my perspective, if you break the Law you suffer the consequences - God has no compulsion to forgive you, but He can if He feels you deserve forgiveness.
Isn't a bit selfish to go around commiting sins, and then simply pass them onto Jesus so that you can get to heaven? How Christian is it to rejoice in murder because you will benefit from it?


Then how is that justice?

Click to expand...

Because He chose to redeem man by sacrifice Himself. It was His Soveriegn will!!! We cannot pay for our sins through works (Ephesians), but through God's grace and free gift in Jesus Christ. It's not what wanted to do, it was what He wanted to do, because He loved us so much. It's a love you nor I could even fathom. All we have to do is accept His free gift and spend less time focusing on the "why" did He choose to do it this way.

Halcyon said:

Ok, fine - but why does God need a sacrifice? Why can't you pay for your sins, why would you rather Jesus suffer in your place? Its not semantics, its a matter of interpretation. Where you see substitutionary atonement, i see extrapolation of ancient ritual sacrifice.

Click to expand...

Halcyon,

I know you're just dying to hear the LDS slant on this topic. Allow me to oblige...

We believe that only that which is perfectly pure and clean can reside in the presence of God. When we were born, we were in that state, and if we die prior to reaching the age where we can understand the difference between good and evil, we remain in that state, and can return to God as pure and clean.

Then there are the rest of us, the ones who live past that time and who, because we as mortals have the inborn propensity to sin, do so pretty darned early in our lifetimes. We may not commit any horrendous sins, but even the best of us occasionally does do things that are not in keeping with God's commandments. From the very first time we lie, or cheat or fail to honor our parents or are mean to our younger siblings, we have sinned and are, therefore, in a position where we are no longer pure and clean. Our "perfect" record is no longer perfect. Now, imagine a person who has committed only one very minor sin throughout his life. That's pretty hard to do, but for the sake of our argument, it's necessary.

Now, I don't know anything about the grading system in British schools, but here in the US, it works like this. An 'A' grade = 4.0 points. A 'B' = 3.0 points. A 'C' = 2.0 points. A 'D' = '1' point. Anything lower than a 'D' is considered failure. The goal is to get through school with a perfect 4.0 G.P.A. (grade point average). Imagine a person who starts college and during his very first semester gets one 'A-'. (An A- = 3.667 points.) He gets A's in his other classes and ends up with a cumulative G.P.A. for his first semester of 3.916. That's not bad, but it's not perfect either. During his four years of college, he never again gets anything less than A's. By the time he graduates, his cummulative G.P.A. is 3.99999999, etc. It's an exceptional record, but it's not perfect, and it doesn't even have the potential to be perfect -- even, no matter how many more classes this student were to take. If God required a perfect G.P.A. for a person to get into heaven, this poor guy wouldn't make it. The thing is, He does. He requires perfect purity, perfect cleanliness. One mistake and we are unworthy of His presence, and it's not going to matter in the slightest how well we do after we make that one mistake.

Fortunately, in His love and wisdom, God provided a means by which both the demands of justice and mercy could be met. He allowed (and I don't mean forced; I mean allowed) His Only Begotten Son, Jesus Christ, to pay the price for our sins so that we could be forgiven and made perfectly pure and clean again. Why could Jesus do that which we couldn't do? The answer is that, unlike us, He was perfect. He was not only perfect, but infinite. His grade point average was not just 4.0. It extended infinitely above 4.0.

What is the result when you add a positive, infinite number to a negative, finite number? The result is a positive, infinite number. When Jesus Christ's perfection is added to our sins, it completely does away with that which would otherwise have kept us forever out of God's presence. It makes us "perfect in Christ."

To me, this sounds like something that would make perfect sense to the gnostic way of looking at things, but I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts.

blueman said:

God's Sovereign will for Christ to be sacrificed on Calvary's cross does not represent a blood thirsty being as you arbitrarily pontificate. It represented just how much He loved us that He would present His Son as a offering to redeem our sins as part of His overarching purpose to save mankind so that He may be glorified.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but that sounds like exactly the monster I was describing. He wills that Christ must be sacrificed before He will forgive. In other words He seeks recompense for our ancestor's personal slight. That's an attitude fitting to a feudal tyrant (the political system in which this particular doctrine developed) but not a God who is love. Let me ask you, why cling to a doctrine that is not known in the early centuries of the Church and distorts the image of God so when there is an older understanding that does not? It seems to me from your post that you have never read anything on Incarnational soteriology and do not understand it at all, so how can you decide that your, more modern, interpretation is correct?

In regards to this "mortal nature", would you also categorize this as an inherited "sinful nature" that all human beings possessed? How would you explain the origin of this nature and our inherent propensity to sin? The curse of sin on mankind was derived from Adam and human nature and behavior tend to validate that truth.

Click to expand...

And the whole of this, likewise, rests on late western theology, unknown in the early centuries of the Church. This theology is Augustinian, a theology that was immediately rejected by 4/5 of the Church as inconsonant with the faith delivered to the Apostles. We are not born with a sinful nature, but with a predisposition towards sin. This predisposition, as is our mortality, is a natural consequence (absolutely not a curse) of turning from God, who is the source of all life and all goodness. Human behaviour doesn't validate the Augustinian view that you espouse any more than it does the much older one that we do.

James

This is a simple answer to the question of why we need atonement:

"The wages of sin is death."

Is that too simple?

SPLogan said:

This is a simple answer to the question of why we need atonement:

"The wages of sin is death."

Is that too simple?

Click to expand...

Yes. I believe that the wages of sin is death, but I most certainly do not believe in substitutionary atonement. Christ conquered sin and death, but He did not do so by becoming a sacrifice to God the Father. That doctrine is utterly abhorrent to me.

James

JamesThePersian said:

Yes. I believe that the wages of sin is death, but I most certainly do not believe in substitutionary atonement. Christ conquered sin and death, but He did not do so by becoming a sacrifice to God the Father. That doctrine is utterly abhorrent to me.

James

Click to expand...

All I did was quote scripture...:sarcastic
I am a so called "western Christian," to use your term.
Would you agree with my assessment that we do not share the same religion?

SPLogan said:

All I did was quote scripture...:sarcastic
I am a so called "western Christian," to use your term.
Would you agree with my assessment that we do not share the same religion?

Click to expand...

Not exactly. Western Christianity started off exactly the same as eastern Christianity. Over the centuries the west slowly drifted off in their own direction (in great part due to the majority of the Church using Greek whilst Rome used Latin and generally lost the ability to read the Greek Fathers, concentrating instead on a relative few, such as Augustine, that wrote in Latin). This process culminated in the Great Schism of 1054 when the See of Rome left the other four Patriarchates to go its own way. Without the brake on innovation provided by the rest of the Church, the now independant Rome began to innovate yet more and many of these innovations were accepted by the Reformers, the Reformation accelerating the process still further. The basics of the faith are still the same on both sides, but the theology sometimes differs and sometimes markedly. I wouldn't say that western Christians are a different religion from us, but they do have differing views on some aspects, several of which are important, soteriology and triadology in particular. Unfortunately, from my point of view, where the west differs they do so by preferring new doctrines over the ancient ones, which is an obvious cause for worry.

James

JamesThePersian said:

I wouldn't say that western Christians are a different religion from us, but they do have differing views on some aspects, several of which are important, soteriology and triadology in particular. Unfortunately, from my point of view, where the west differs they do so by preferring new doctrines over the ancient ones, which is an obvious cause for worry.

Click to expand...

The peculiar thing is that I see my doctrines as more ancient, more faithful to scripture than yours. I consider myself to be Calvinistic, Augustinian, and Pauline, not simply one who has drifted westward, away from the "faithful church" that, obviously, moved eastward. The doctrines of Sola-Scriptura and Sola-Fide are supposed to keep us from drifting anywhere. While there is division among churches, there is ultimate unity in Christ. I see other strands of Christianity to be ones that have drifted astray into anthropocentrism, away from theocentrism. While it is likely that they also contain true members of Christ's body (the Holy Catholic Church), I see them as being more focused on human accomplishments than the work of God alone. It is our tendency, as sinners, to see ourselves (the church) as the ultimate authority, rather than God. The Church is the body of Christ, but Christ is the head of His Body and He has spoken clearly. That's the way I see things.

We are getting off the topic.

I do not see the doctrine of substitutionary atonement as negotiable. As you said, it is "utterly abhorrent," but so is sin! Abraham did not have to sacrifice his only son Isaac because God sacrificed His only Son, Jesus. Isaac was not a sufficient substitute, Jesus was. The OT sacrificial system was "sacramental," pointing forward toward Christ. Now, in retrospect, we have the sacrament of communion, pointing back toward Christ. "All the people answered, 'Let his blood be on us and on our children!'"- Matthew 27:25
In my sin, I was abhorrent to God, a defilement of His image. I thank God His blood is on me; Christ is risen!

JamesThePersian said:

I'm sorry, but that sounds like exactly the monster I was describing. He wills that Christ must be sacrificed before He will forgive. In other words He seeks recompense for our ancestor's personal slight. That's an attitude fitting to a feudal tyrant (the political system in which this particular doctrine developed) but not a God who is love. Let me ask you, why cling to a doctrine that is not known in the early centuries of the Church and distorts the image of God so when there is an older understanding that does not? It seems to me from your post that you have never read anything on Incarnational soteriology and do not understand it at all, so how can you decide that your, more modern, interpretation is correct?


And the whole of this, likewise, rests on late western theology, unknown in the early centuries of the Church. This theology is Augustinian, a theology that was immediately rejected by 4/5 of the Church as inconsonant with the faith delivered to the Apostles. We are not born with a sinful nature, but with a predisposition towards sin. This predisposition, as is our mortality, is a natural consequence (absolutely not a curse) of turning from God, who is the source of all life and all goodness. Human behaviour doesn't validate the Augustinian view that you espouse any more than it does the much older one that we do.

James

Click to expand...

You make no sense whatsoever. One of the earliest creeds of antiquity was described by Paul The Apostle in 1st Corinthians 15, so your claim that the belief I hold is a modern one is absolutely ridiculous. It's what the church believed and preached in the 1st century. Also, this predisposition of sin seems more like we inherited it and this is becoming more semantical if anything. As the Bible states, "While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us". Sin was not a learned behavior, this was as much a part of us as our soul (mind, will, emotions), senses and physical makeup were.

Katzpur said:

Halcyon,

I know you're just dying to hear the LDS slant on this topic.

Click to expand...

Always.

Katzpur said:

What is the result when you add a positive, infinite number to a negative, finite number? The result is a positive, infinite number. When Jesus Christ's perfection is added to our sins, it completely does away with that which would otherwise have kept us forever out of God's presence. It makes us "perfect in Christ."

To me, this sounds like something that would make perfect sense to the gnostic way of looking at things, but I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts.

Click to expand...

Ok, i think i've heard this before, and it makes sense in a way.
But i still can't understand why Jesus had to be tortured to death for this plan to come to fruition.
Why couldn't Jesus simply accept our sins upon himself in heaven, why incarnate and die?
Why is blood necessary for God to be satisfied?

Halcyon said:

Always.


Ok, i think i've heard this before, and it makes sense in a way.
But i still can't understand why Jesus had to be tortured to death for this plan to come to fruition.
Why couldn't Jesus simply accept our sins upon himself in heaven, why incarnate and die?
Why is blood necessary for God to be satisfied?

Click to expand...

I'm afraid you lost me. How would He have "simply accepted our sins upon himself in heaven"? What would that have entailed on His part?

Katzpur said:

I'm afraid you lost me. How would He have "simply accepted our sins upon himself in heaven"? What would that have entailed on His part?

Click to expand...

Not a lot if he's infinitely sinless. He's God, he can do whatever he wants, right?

How is accepting our sins then dying any different to accepting our sins but not dying? Why the need for blood?

Halcyon said:

Not a lot if he's infinitely sinless. He's God, he can do whatever he wants, right?

How is accepting our sins then dying any different to accepting our sins but not dying? Why the need for blood?

Click to expand...

It's entirely different. When God placed us here, we were given laws to live by. But whenever there is a law, there must be consequences for failure to obey that law. Sinning results in punishment, which is only reasonable. Our punishment for disobedience is eternal separation from God, or would be if it were not for the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Through the Atonement, we are not merely offered forgiveness (which is what I think you are suggesting), but we are made innocent again. When Jesus Christ took upon himself the sins of each and every one of us, there was an actual transfer of guilt for innocence. Someone had to accept the consequences for our sins; someone had to pay the price so that the demands of justice would be met. It was never God's plan to simply ignore the fact that we have broken His laws. I think that's what you're suggesting could/should have happened.