• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Christians only: Why do we need atonement?

Halcyon

Lord of the Badgers
Katzpur said:
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.
An innocent man dies so many sinful people can go to heaven, transferring our guilt to him so that he can die and we can live. How is that justice? It seems more like a violation.
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
Halcyon said:
An innocent man dies so many sinful people can go to heaven, transferring our guilt to him so that he can die and we can live. How is that justice? It seems more like a violation.
The innocent man volunteered to do what we could not do for ourselves. He was not forced into it. He did it out of a love which we cannot even begin to comprehend. How is that a violation?
 

Halcyon

Lord of the Badgers
Katzpur said:
The innocent man volunteered to do what we could not do for ourselves. He was not forced into it. He did it out of a love which we cannot even begin to comprehend. How is that a violation?
Because its not justice. If we pay for our own sins then it is justice, if someone else pays for them, willingly or not, then it is not justice.

And it is not just, nor morally right, to allow another to suffer for your sake.
How is personally causing a person to suffer any different to standing by and allowing them to suffer because you will receive a reward, even if they offered too.

If a man named Dave murdered his neighbour, but Dave's brother offered to confess and go to prison in Dave's place - is that justice?
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
Halcyon said:
Because its not justice. If we pay for our own sins then it is justice, if someone else pays for them, willingly or not, then it is not justice.
Well, I disagree. There is a debt to be paid. As long as the debt is paid, the slate is clean and justice has been met.

And it is not just, nor morally right, to allow another to suffer for your sake.
How is personally causing a person to suffer any different to standing by and allowing them to suffer because you will receive a reward, even if they offered too.
Okay, so to you, the Christian God is unjust and immoral. I'm afraid we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this point. Well, Halcyon, as you may already know, we Latter-day Saints believe that this plan was laid out before the foundations of this world. It was designed by someone whose concept of what is morally right and wrong is evidently different from yours. We believe that we all knew and understood the purpose for our coming here. We knew that it would only be through Christ that we could be redeemed, but this is what both He and our Father in Heaven wanted for us. The whole point of our existence here is to take the essential first step on the path that has the potential of eventually leading to Exaltation. I don't see most Christians (at least not most Latter-day Saints) as "standing by and allowing [Christ] to suffer [in order to] receive a reward." Why do you think we worship Christ? Why do you think we do our best to serve Him and to follow His example. It is not our wish to have contributed to His agony.

If a man named Dave murdered his neighbour, but Dave's brother offered to confess and go to prison in Dave's place - is that justice?
Christ did not confess to our sins. He offered to pay the debt we incurred. Likewise, Dave's brother would be lying if he were to confess to a murder he did not commit, but if he were willing to accept the punishment on Dave's behalf, I believed that justice would be served.
 

Halcyon

Lord of the Badgers
Katzpur said:
Well, I disagree. There is a debt to be paid. As long as the debt is paid, the slate is clean and justice has been met.

Okay, so to you, the Christian God is unjust and immoral. I'm afraid we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this point. Well, Halcyon, as you may already know, we Latter-day Saints believe that this plan was laid out before the foundations of this world. It was designed by someone whose concept of what is morally right and wrong is evidently different from yours. We believe that we all knew and understood the purpose for our coming here. We knew that it would only be through Christ that we could be redeemed, but this is what both He and our Father in Heaven wanted for us. The whole point of our existence here is to take the essential first step on the path that has the potential of eventually leading to Exaltation. I don't see most Christians (at least not most Latter-day Saints) as "standing by and allowing [Christ] to suffer [in order to] receive a reward." Why do you think we worship Christ? Why do you think we do our best to serve Him and to follow His example. It is not our wish to have contributed to His agony.
I guess we will have to agree to disagree.
I don't think i will ever understand substitutionary atonement, nor how people can happily accept Jesus's blood on their hands.

Katzpur said:
Christ did not confess to our sins. He offered to pay the debt we incurred. Likewise, Dave's brother would be lying if he were to confess to a murder he did not commit, but if he were willing to accept the punishment on Dave's behalf, I believed that justice would be served.
OK no confession, but i honestly can't understand how you can see Dave's brother going to prison while Dave the dangerous murderer walks free as justice.
The innocent suffer so the guilty can live free - it doesn't make sense to me :( .
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
First, back to your earlier remark:
Halcyon said:
Because its not justice. If we pay for our own sins then it is justice, if someone else pays for them, willingly or not, then it is not justice.
The fact remains, we are incapable of paying for our own sins. Yes, we can and need to repent of them, but as I explained in my first post on the subject, nothing we could conceivably do could restore us to the state of perfection God demands of anyone who wishes to live in His presence. So without the sacrifice of someone who was in a position to be able to pay the price, we would all find ourselves separated from God for eternity. That may strike you as more just, but is it really what you would want?

I don't think i will ever understand substitutionary atonement, nor how people can happily accept Jesus's blood on their hands.
I think the word would be "gratefully," more than "happily."

The innocent suffer so the guilty can live free - it doesn't make sense to me :( .
It's called perfect love, and yes, it's very hard to make sense of.

Me: But why would you do this for me?
Jesus: Because I love you.
Me: But it doesn't seem fair.
Jesus: That's right. It's not fair at all -- it's merciful. It is, after all, a gift.
Me: But how can I possibly deserve such a gift?
Jesus: Don't be silly. You can't. You don't. This gift is offered because I love you and want to help you, not because I owe it to you.
Me: But how can I ever repay you?
Jesus: There you go again. Don't you get it yet? You can't repay me, not you or all the billions like you. Gifts of this magniture can never be repaid. For what I've done out of love for you, you can only love me back, and seek to become what I am -- a giver of good gifts.

(From "Believing Christ" by LDS author and scholar, Stephen E. Robinson)
 

Halcyon

Lord of the Badgers
Katzpur said:
First, back to your earlier remark:
The fact remains, we are incapable of paying for our own sins. Yes, we can and need to repent of them, but as I explained in my first post on the subject, nothing we could conceivably do could restore us to the state of perfection God demands of anyone who wishes to live in His presence. So without the sacrifice of someone who was in a position to be able to pay the price, we would all find ourselves separated from God for eternity. That may strike you as more just, but is it really what you would want?

I think the word would be "gratefully," more than "happily."

It's called perfect love, and yes, it's very hard to make sense of.

Me: But why would you do this for me?
Jesus: Because I love you.
Me: But it doesn't seem fair.
Jesus: That's right. It's not fair at all -- it's merciful. It is, after all, a gift.
Me: But how can I possibly deserve such a gift?
Jesus: Don't be silly. You can't. You don't. This gift is offered because I love you and want to help you, not because I owe it to you.
Me: But how can I ever repay you?
Jesus: There you go again. Don't you get it yet? You can't repay me, not you or all the billions like you. Gifts of this magniture can never be repaid. For what I've done out of love for you, you can only love me back, and seek to become what I am -- a giver of good gifts.

(From "Believing Christ" by LDS author and scholar, Stephen E. Robinson)
Ok, you make a good argument.

But surely the greatest demonstration of love you can show Jesus is not accepting his sacrifice.
You show you are willing to suffer forever, separated from God, because you cannot accept another to suffer on your behalf. Because it is not fair, not just and you love Jesus.
Therefore if God is really a good, righteous, just, fair and loving God - He will see your act as the ultimate sacrifice, forgive you and welcome you into His house. You are willing to suffer eternally out of pure love for your God and His Son! What greater show of love and faith can there be?

;)
Me: But why would you do this for me?
Jesus: Because I love you.
Me: But it doesn't seem fair.
Jesus: That's right. It's not fair at all -- it's merciful. It is, after all, a gift.
Me: But how can I possibly deserve such a gift?
Jesus: Don't be silly. You can't. You don't. This gift is offered because I love you and want to help you, not because I owe it to you.
Me: No Jesus, i won't accept your blood on my hands.
Jesus: But if you do not you will be suffer for eternity.
Me: Better that than see you suffer on my behalf, you are innocent, i am not - this is the right thing to do.
Jesus: You love me so much that you willingly damn yourself?!
Me: Yes Master, i'd rather be damned than benefit from your pain.
Jesus: Such a sacrifice would be greater than mine! Truly you are worthy of eternal life.
 

Happier

Member
I'd rather accept His will and His sacrifice than to be separated from Him forever.

One scenario pretty much demands we worship and praise him. It's the one where He has done it all for us. (GRACE)

Another pretty much hopes He praises and rewards us for something we do. (WORKS)
 

SoyLeche

meh...
Halcyon said:
Ok, you make a good argument.

But surely the greatest demonstration of love you can show Jesus is not accepting his sacrifice.
You show you are willing to suffer forever, separated from God, because you cannot accept another to suffer on your behalf. Because it is not fair, not just and you love Jesus.
Therefore if God is really a good, righteous, just, fair and loving God - He will see your act as the ultimate sacrifice, forgive you and welcome you into His house. You are willing to suffer eternally out of pure love for your God and His Son! What greater show of love and faith can there be?

;)
Me: But why would you do this for me?
Jesus: Because I love you.
Me: But it doesn't seem fair.
Jesus: That's right. It's not fair at all -- it's merciful. It is, after all, a gift.
Me: But how can I possibly deserve such a gift?
Jesus: Don't be silly. You can't. You don't. This gift is offered because I love you and want to help you, not because I owe it to you.
Me: No Jesus, i won't accept your blood on my hands.
Jesus: But if you do not you will be suffer for eternity.
Me: Better that than see you suffer on my behalf, you are innocent, i am not - this is the right thing to do.
Jesus: You love me so much that you willingly damn yourself?!
Me: Yes Master, i'd rather be damned than benefit from your pain.
Jesus: Such a sacrifice would be greater than mine! Truly you are worthy of eternal life.
I think the part that you are missing is that he has alread paid for our sins. If we don't accept that, he suffered for nothing - so not accepting can't be an act of love on our part.
 

Halcyon

Lord of the Badgers
SoyLeche said:
I think the part that you are missing is that he has already paid for our sins. If we don't accept that, he suffered for nothing - so not accepting can't be an act of love on our part.
If he's already paid for our sins then it doens't matter if we accept it or not, does it?

My point is, if you accept his sacrifice, even though he has already done it, then you are acknowledging that you are glad he sacrificed himself for you - you are accepting his blood onto your hands. You are saying to the risen Jesus, "If i had been alive in 33 AD, i would have accepted your sacrifice and would not have tried to stop you."

By rejecting the sacrifice, even 2000 years posthumously, you are saying to the risen Jesus that "Had i been alive 2000 years ago, i would have rather been damned than see you suffer. But since you have already sacrificed yourself, i would still rather be damned than accept your suffering on my behalf."

It doesn't matter that its too late, the message to Jesus is the same - i love him too much to accept his sacrifice.
 

James the Persian

Dreptcredincios Crestin
SPLogan said:
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.

But these two doctrines (the solas) are far, far more recent than even the doctrine of Substitutionary Atonement. Hence they, themselves, are a move away from the beliefs of the early Church. How, then, can they prevent anyone from drifting? If you look to the writings of the early Fathers you will not find Substitutionary Atonement, Sola Scriptura or Sola Fide amongst them. Likewise, Sola Scriptura is an impossibility (without the Holy Tradition of the Church you wouldn't even have Scripture), Sola Fide is in direct contradiction to Scripture, hence why Luther regarded the Epistle of James as spurious and, as I said, you will only see Substitutionary Atonement in Scripture if you want to do so. There isn't a single verse that specifically outlines this doctrine, nor one that isn't more easily and consistently understood in an Incarnational sense. If you disagree, by all means try to argue your case from Scripture alone but I'm confident that the case for Substitutionary Atonement will be shown to be far from easily sustainable if you do.

James
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
I don't believe Jesus paid for our sins by dying on the cross. Salvation is not a spiritual book-keeping exercise. Jesus didn't "balance the books."

In the Christ-event, we were reconciled to God. Sin is not paid for...it's rendered completely null and void. (Sin is not part of the "currency" any more.)
 

Halcyon

Lord of the Badgers
sojourner said:
I don't believe Jesus paid for our sins by dying on the cross. Salvation is not a spiritual book-keeping exercise. Jesus didn't "balance the books."

In the Christ-event, we were reconciled to God. Sin is not paid for...it's rendered completely null and void. (Sin is not part of the "currency" any more.)
Could you explain how, please?
 

Baerly

Active Member
Arrow said:
At this point i do not think that i even spelled atonement right. I know that we need our sins to be forgiven and that atonement is the Christian way to have that done, but my question is why cannot God just forgive our sins in the way that is done in the doctrine of Islam?

thanks for your help,
Arrow

To learn about atonement it is always best to go to the bible and see how the word is used. Here is one example:

From: thepreachersfiles.com ----------/ ATONEMENT:

Genesis 3:20-21
April 4, 2005 by G. E. Watkins -Before this time the woman was simply "ishah" (woman), but now she is given a name by her husband. We should consider that she was not given a name with which to remember her folly in the Garden, or a name to remind her of the sentence she was under (the pain in childbearing and the subjection to her husband), rather she was given a name corresponding to her honorable position as mother of all living. It seems to me to be a queenly name. From the beginning a man's wife was to be cherished and not demeaned or bought and sold like cattle as was done in the ancient world and is so often done to this very day.
We turn our attention to verse 21. Notice the care given by God here and bring to mind other possible responses He might have made. Instead of abandoning them, or torturing them the God who had been insulted by disobedience was actually caring for them in their sin. He covers their shame. To do this he sheds blood. This is required to provide animal skins. Under the New Covenant when we sin God clothes us with Christ (Gal. 3:27). Christ had to die for this to be so (Romans 5:8). in love Baerly
 

Baerly

Active Member
ARROW :

Gods word and Islam do not harmonize. God cannot lie. this is one reason God will not accept the Islam religion. Anyone who rejects Jesus as being the Saviour,Head of the church and mediator of the new testament,is actually rejecting Jesus himself according to (John 12:48) (Eph.1:22,23) (Eph. 5:23) (Heb. 9:15) (Mark 8:38).

( Matt.10:33) - Says anyone who denies Jesus before men,Jesus will deny them before the father which is in heaven. To deny that Jesus is the Saviour of the world is to deny him before men. This applies to anyone and any religion.

(2 Chron.15:2) Teaches that as long as we seek our Lord he will be with us,but if we forsake him he will forsake us. - in love Baerly
 

Halcyon

Lord of the Badgers
Baerly said:
Gods word and Islam do not harmonize. God cannot lie. this is one reason God will not accept the Islam religion.
Right... so when did God start taking orders from you?
 
Top