Christians only: Why do we need atonement?

[Arrow]

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

 

[Polaris]

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?

I'm not familiar with the Islamic doctrine of forgiveness and payment of sin, but I'll try to address your question from my strictly Christian understanding. It all comes down to the conflicing demands of justice vs. mercy. God has given us laws that we are commanded to live by. It is by obedience to these laws that we progress and become like our Father. There are certain penalties involved with the breaking of those laws/commandments. Without some form of payment or penalty for the breaking of laws, the laws would ultimately be pointless. They would be more like weak suggestions without any real substance.

Because God is perfectly just, he cannot give laws and then arbitrarily decide not to enforce them. He is bound by his word. When his laws are broken, some form of payment is required. Because he loves us, he has provided a way by which that payment can be made and the demands of justice may be met. He appointed Jesus Christ to come to earth and atone for our sins. His suffering was payment for our sins based on the conditions that we accept his sacrifice, believe in him and do our best to follow his example. It is through this atonement that God is both perfectly just and perfectly merciful, as we all now have the opportunity to be cleansed of our sins and become worthy to live with him after this life.

 

[Arrow]

ok so my question to you now is this. How can someone take the sins of someone else? Is that just?

 

[lunamoth]

ok so my question to you now is this. How can someone take the sins of someone else? Is that just?

Interesting question, and one that I think highlights one important distinction between Islam and Christianity. If I understand correctly, in Islam forgiveness works kind of like a balance sheet, and you hope that in the end you have sufficiently repented of your sin, or made up for it in other ways of virtue. But I might have this wrong. In Christianity our sins are all forgiven, wiped out, in spite of the fact that we are still sinners. No balance sheet, simply forgiveness and mercy. "I dersire mercy, not sacrifice."

Frankly, I don't fully understand the whole idea of Christ taking my sins upon Himself. But it's awesome: we believe in God Who died. For us. And this ultimate sharing in of our humanity brought reconcilition to the world, He took our suffering upon Himself. I usually don't dwell on this, perhaps I should, this ultimate sacrifice made out of love. Because it is love, not justice, that is at the heart of the atonement. And because it is love, not justice, it is so hard for us to accept. It takes humility to let someone do such a thing for us, to accept it even though we don't deserve it.

 

[Ody]

May I paraphrase an arguement i heard on CF?

 

[James the Persian]

This is a purely western understanding. Substitutionary atonement is not the only way to view the Crucifixion and Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox do not see it this way and never have. We do not believe that Christ became a sacrifice to God the Father that He might forgive our sins. The Incarnation of Christ was about much more than that and God can forgive whatever He so wishes. No sacrifice of His Son in our stead is necessary.

James

 

[Happier]

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

One of my favorite quotes by Ravi Zacharias:

"Christ did not come here to make bad people good.






Christ came here to make dead people live."

You have heard the terms 'dead in sin', and 'alive in Christ'. The idea being, we are dead in our sins, deaf and dumb and blind to righteousness just like a corpse. We are incapable of true life, which is complete obedience to God. Our inheritance as children of Adam is death (sin), which is utter separation from God. The penalty is too great for us to pay - a lifetime of complete obedience and no sin whatsoever. Every human being who ever lived comes up short. So the judge comes down from behind the bench, takes off his robe, and picks up our indebtedness, which we can never pay - and pays it himself.

I believe the original sin that occurred in Eden is far more disastrous and far reaching than we can comprehend. It changed our very nature, like a cancer - when before it was effortless to walk and talk with God, it became impossible. We ate of death, both physical and spiritual. The effects spread outward from Adam and Eve and affected all of creation. Scripture speaks of all of creation being 'in travail' (like a woman in labor) waiting for new birth in Christ.

Christ's act of sacrificial obedience unto death on the cross worked in the opposite way of the sin of disobedience by Adam in the garden: His righteousness is imputed to us. We inherited the death of Adam, we now inherit the life of Christ. Our nature is changed from one of death and sin to one of obedience and life.

Christ saved me, so that I too could die to sin. He died so that I could live in this life, not just the next - abundantly!

Hope this makes some sense.
--H.

 

[blueman]

That was not God's Sovereign will. We are made righteous through Christ, not our works. God required the blood of Christ as an atoning sacrifice for the redemption for our sins. The Islam belief is focused on works. We cannot work our way to heaven (Ephesians 2:8,9). We have a sinful nature that is corrupt and to be free from the bondage of sin requires life through Christ.

 

[James the Persian]

That was not God's Sovereign will. We are made righteous through Christ, not our works. God required the blood of Christ as an atoning sacrifice for the redemption for our sins. The Islam belief is focused on works. We cannot work our way to heaven (Ephesians 2:8,9). We have a sinful nature that is corrupt and to be free from the bondage of sin requires life through Christ.

I can agree with all of the rest of this post and still reject the sentence I have emboldened. I do not believe in a God so bloodthirsty as to require blood before He can forgive us. I would sooner be an atheist than worship such a monster. Thankfully the age old Incarnational soteriology of eastern Christendom does away with any requirement to see God in such a light whilst still not disagreeing with anything else you have written. That's why I'm Orthodox rather than a member of some western denomination. In my opinion the typical western view of the Crucifixion turns God into a demon.

James

 

[sojourner]

Not all "Westerners" believe in substitutionary atonement. It's prevalent and popular in this part of the world...so is meth.

Christ didn't come here to die for my sins. Christ came here to reconcile us to God. Big difference. In many respects.

 

[blueman]

I can agree with all of the rest of this post and still reject the sentence I have emboldened. I do not believe in a God so bloodthirsty as to require blood before He can forgive us. I would sooner be an atheist than worship such a monster. Thankfully the age old Incarnational soteriology of eastern Christendom does away with any requirement to see God in such a light whilst still not disagreeing with anything else you have written. That's why I'm Orthodox rather than a member of some western denomination. In my opinion the typical western view of the Crucifixion turns God into a demon.

James

We will repectfully disagree. It's got nothing to do with demonation, but more to do with scripture. We are not made righteous through any other means except Christ's atoning sacrifice and through His death and resurrection, we have life thorugh Christ and a relationship with God The Father.

 

[blueman]

Not all "Westerners" believe in substitutionary atonement. It's prevalent and popular in this part of the world...so is meth.

Christ didn't come here to die for my sins. Christ came here to reconcile us to God. Big difference. In many respects.

And through His death and resurrection, we are reconciled with God by the atoning blood of Jesus Christ. It's got nothing to do with denomination and to do with God's Word. That has not changed. In God's eyes, we are only made righteous through the blood of Christ and acceptance and belief in the sacrifice Chirst made on our behalf. That is how much He loved us.

 

[James the Persian]

Not all "Westerners" believe in substitutionary atonement. It's prevalent and popular in this part of the world...so is meth.

Christ didn't come here to die for my sins. Christ came here to reconcile us to God. Big difference. In many respects.

That's why i described the view as typical. I'm well aware that there are some westerners who hold much closer to the Incarnational model of soteriology but, judging from the churches I am familiar with, they are a distinct minority. There are likewise easterners who do hold to substitutionary atonement but again, they are a minority. The typical views then, in the two areas, differ but that doesn't mean that there aren't those who disagree with what's typical.

James

 

[Arrow]

quote: James: "I can agree with all of the rest of this post and still reject the sentence I have emboldened. I do not believe in a God so bloodthirsty as to require blood before He can forgive us. I would sooner be an atheist than worship such a monster. Thankfully the age old Incarnational soteriology of eastern Christendom does away with any requirement to see God in such a light whilst still not disagreeing with anything else you have written. That's why I'm Orthodox rather than a member of some western denomination. In my opinion the typical western view of the Crucifixion turns God into a demon."

I think that there is a difference between forgiveness and actuall need for blood. I am a little ignorant on this topic though so forgive me as i try my best. I agree that in order to forgive someone nothing is required. God can forgive anyone He wants to, but the only thing is that the effects of our sins our still there. If you shoot someone and they somehow forgive you, they are still dead. He or she forgiving you does not bring them back from the dead. The way i have had it explained i guess is that for every sin you have, a punishment must be given. When you sin against God it becomes an eternal punishment, death. Blood being the symbol of life is needed to pay it i guess. I am still working this out.

 

[blueman]

quote: James: "I can agree with all of the rest of this post and still reject the sentence I have emboldened. I do not believe in a God so bloodthirsty as to require blood before He can forgive us. I would sooner be an atheist than worship such a monster. Thankfully the age old Incarnational soteriology of eastern Christendom does away with any requirement to see God in such a light whilst still not disagreeing with anything else you have written. That's why I'm Orthodox rather than a member of some western denomination. In my opinion the typical western view of the Crucifixion turns God into a demon."

I think that there is a difference between forgiveness and actuall need for blood. I am a little ignorant on this topic though so forgive me as i try my best. I agree that in order to forgive someone nothing is required. God can forgive anyone He wants to, but the only thing is that the effects of our sins our still there. If you shoot someone and they somehow forgive you, they are still dead. He or she forgiving you does not bring them back from the dead. The way i have had it explained i guess is that for every sin you have, a punishment must be given. When you sin against God it becomes an eternal punishment, death. Blood being the symbol of life is needed to pay it i guess. I am still working this out.

The Bible states that the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Chrust Jesus. Paul was not speaklng about a spiritual death per say, but a spiritual one (eternal separation from God). The bridge to a relationship with God is through His Son, Jesus Christ. We can't make ourselves righteous on our own, but God makes us righteous through Christ and His atoning sacrifice. If God decided to facilitate salvation by just saying I forgive you, there would not have been a need to send an incarnated Christ to earth. There were three overaching purposes God had through Christ's sacrifice. (1) Through His incarnation and dwelling among us, He condemned sin, (2) Through His cruxifiction, He freed us from the bondage and condemnation from sin (the spiritual death that sin represented for those who reject Christ) and (3) His resurrection provides a path to eternal life to all who believe on Him. It was part of God's Soveriegn will for this to come to pass. That is why in the Old Testament, those who followed God offered animal sacrifices without blemish, because this represented and honored the ultimate sacrifice of Christ for our salvation.

 

[blueman]

The Bible states that the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Chrust Jesus. Paul was not speaklng about a spiritual death per say, but a spiritual one (eternal separation from God). The bridge to a relationship with God is through His Son, Jesus Christ. We can't make ourselves righteous on our own, but God makes us righteous through Christ and His atoning sacrifice. If God decided to facilitate salvation by just saying I forgive you, there would not have been a need to send an incarnated Christ to earth. There were three overaching purposes God had through Christ's sacrifice. (1) Through His incarnation and dwelling among us, He condemned sin, (2) Through His cruxifiction, He freed us from the bondage and condemnation from sin (the spiritual death that sin represented for those who reject Christ) and (3) His resurrection provides a path to eternal life to all who believe on Him. It was part of God's Soveriegn will for this to come to pass. That is why in the Old Testament, those who followed God offered animal sacrifices without blemish, because this represented and honored the ultimate sacrifice of Christ for our salvation.

In reference to Paul, I meant to say it does not represent a physical death per say, but a spiritual one.

 

[sojourner]

quote: James: "I can agree with all of the rest of this post and still reject the sentence I have emboldened. I do not believe in a God so bloodthirsty as to require blood before He can forgive us. I would sooner be an atheist than worship such a monster. Thankfully the age old Incarnational soteriology of eastern Christendom does away with any requirement to see God in such a light whilst still not disagreeing with anything else you have written. That's why I'm Orthodox rather than a member of some western denomination. In my opinion the typical western view of the Crucifixion turns God into a demon."

I think that there is a difference between forgiveness and actuall need for blood. I am a little ignorant on this topic though so forgive me as i try my best. I agree that in order to forgive someone nothing is required. God can forgive anyone He wants to, but the only thing is that the effects of our sins our still there. If you shoot someone and they somehow forgive you, they are still dead. He or she forgiving you does not bring them back from the dead. The way i have had it explained i guess is that for every sin you have, a punishment must be given. When you sin against God it becomes an eternal punishment, death. Blood being the symbol of life is needed to pay it i guess. I am still working this out.

Your statement I've highlighted in red is what I'd like to address. God can (and does) forgive whom God pleases. That's the concept known as grace. Your statement in blue flies in the face, though, of what we know about grace. Grace, once administered, makes us no longer subject to the bondage of sin.

The truth that God does not automatically wipe out the effect our sin has had on others, is not a compelling argument for blood atonement. Two wrongs never have made a right -- and never will. If I murder someone, that's a "wrong." Then, crucifying Christ is also a "wrong" in an attempt to correct the first "wrong." Problem is, two wrongs don't make a right.

The reconciliation brought about by the incarnation is much more cogent to a God who loves us than is a blood atonement. A blood atonement assumes that we are evil and flawed and need to be "fixed." An incarnational grace, on the other hand, celebrates the reality that we are reconciled to God, and acknowledges that humanity is inherently part of God's "good" creation.

 

[blueman]

Your statement I've highlighted in red is what I'd like to address. God can (and does) forgive whom God pleases. That's the concept known as grace. Your statement in blue flies in the face, though, of what we know about grace. Grace, once administered, makes us no longer subject to the bondage of sin.

The truth that God does not automatically wipe out the effect our sin has had on others, is not a compelling argument for blood atonement. Two wrongs never have made a right -- and never will. If I murder someone, that's a "wrong." Then, crucifying Christ is also a "wrong" in an attempt to correct the first "wrong." Problem is, two wrongs don't make a right.

The reconciliation brought about by the incarnation is much more cogent to a God who loves us than is a blood atonement. A blood atonement assumes that we are evil and flawed and need to be "fixed." An incarnational grace, on the other hand, celebrates the reality that we are reconciled to God, and acknowledges that humanity is inherently part of God's "good" creation.

but God's good creation was susbsequently tainted by sin and the need to be fixed was indeed warranted because of our sinful nature. In God's eyes, Christ sacrifice was by no means a wrong, but a right that redeemed those who believed on His name and allows us to have a personal and loving relationship with Him today.

 

[Happier]

Anyone:

I would like a response to my post #7, if you would be so kind. If you have reproof or correction to offer, that would be fine. One of the main reasons I looked for a forum like this was to grow in understanding in an arena of fellowship.

Thanks in advance
--- H.

 

[blueman]

Anyone:

I would like a response to my post #7, if you would be so kind. If you have reproof or correction to offer, that would be fine. One of the main reasons I looked for a forum like this was to grow in understanding in an arena of fellowship.

Thanks in advance
--- H.

Well said and aligns completely with scriptural doctrine regarding our sin nature and salvation. Christ came to replace the law (the commandments), because the law touched our pride and our rebellious sinful nature was always in conflict. Christ provided a path for us to die to sin and have life through Christ. The law incited our human nature and inner flesh.