Christians only: Why do we need atonement?

[Arrow]

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.

So your saying that God sent His Son to die a terrible death at the hands of humans because we are so wonderful? And that Jesus did not really need to die, but God sent Him to die out of celebration?
On a serious note i am just asking for clarification.

 

[Arrow]

Happier i agree with you.

For the rest of you, please let us not get off track. The pressing question is, how can someone else take your sin?

 

[blueman]

Happier i agree with you.

For the rest of you, please let us not get off track. The pressing question is, how can someone else take your sin?

Only God can take on and forgive sin and that is what Christ did.

 

[Arrow]

Okay so my question to you would be, why did not God just forgive people and do away with their sins like in the doctrine of Islam?

 

[blueman]

Okay so my question to you would be, why did not God just forgive people and do away with their sins like in the doctrine of Islam?

That was not part of His soveriegn plan. To repair the torn relationship as a result of man's sin, God's plan was to meet man right where he was at, so He revealed Himself to man in the form of Jesus Christ to dwell among us, to show us a physical example of a sinless being and to condemn us of our sin and ultimately sacrifice Himself for the redemption of sin. Through His blood, we are made righteous. The Old Testament followers of God gave an advance reprensentation of this subsequent sacrifice when then presented unblemished calfs and sheep at the altar to God in honor and anticipation of the Lord's sacrifice some 1000 years later. As a result, these Old Testament saints were saved as a result of the anticipation of the Messiah. It was all a part of God's plan and blueprint for redemption.

 

[Halcyon]

Okay so my question to you would be, why did not God just forgive people and do away with their sins like in the doctrine of Islam?

It stems from the old Jewish ritual of blood sacrifice as an offering, a way to "buy God's forgiveness." A common practice in many ancient world religions was blood sacrifice in exchange for divine favours.
So, Jesus didn't take people's sin upon himself, he simply paid for them.

Personally it makes no sense to me, if you forgive someone of a wrongdoing, you forgive them - end of story. No need for punishment, no need for payment. If someone trips me and i forgive them, i don't then punch them in the face.
Forgiveness is the alternative to vengence.

But then, the Judeo-Christian God is a self-confessed vengeful god. Why he'd want to sacrifice his son/himself to appease himself is being any kind of sane reasoning though.

 

[blueman]

It stems from the old Jewish ritual of blood sacrifice as an offering, a way to "buy God's forgiveness." A common practice in many ancient world religions was blood sacrifice in exchange for divine favours.
So, Jesus didn't take people's sin upon himself, he simply paid for them.

Personally it makes no sense to me, if you forgive someone of a wrongdoing, you forgive them - end of story. No need for punishment, no need for payment. If someone trips me and i forgive them, i don't then punch them in the face.
Forgiveness is the alternative to vengence.

But then, the Judeo-Christian God is a self-confessed vengeful god. Why he'd want to sacrifice his son/himself to appease himself is being any kind of sane reasoning though.

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.

 

[Polaris]

So, Jesus didn't take people's sin upon himself, he simply paid for them.

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.

Personally it makes no sense to me, if you forgive someone of a wrongdoing, you forgive them - end of story. No need for punishment, no need for payment. If someone trips me and i forgive them, i don't then punch them in the face.
Forgiveness is the alternative to vengence.

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?

Why he'd want to sacrifice his son/himself to appease himself is being any kind of sane reasoning though.

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

 

[sojourner]

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.

Which is why (as the creed says) Jesus became incarnate: "for us and for our salvation he became incarnate..."

 

[Quiddity]

Which is why (as the creed says) Jesus became incarnate: "for us and for our salvation he became incarnate..."

Amen!........Go Sojourner......:cheer:

 

[Arrow]

Sojourner can you please clarify your other post for me. I think it was #20 i have the quote on #21. I did not mean any disrespect, i would just like some clarification because i am getting the wrong impression. thanx

 

[blueman]

Which is why (as the creed says) Jesus became incarnate: "for us and for our salvation he became incarnate..."

But that is only half of the story Sojourner. Epehsians 1:7 in scripture tells us "In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins".

 

[sojourner]

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.

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.

 

[sojourner]

So your saying that God sent His Son to die a terrible death at the hands of humans because we are so wonderful? And that Jesus did not really need to die, but God sent Him to die out of celebration?
On a serious note i am just asking for clarification.

I didn't say any of that. I didn't say that "God sent his Son to die..." I think God became incarnate for us and for our salvation. Because of that act, there is the hope that humanity is worth saving (ref. Sodom and the Flood Narrative).

Jesus' death is rather immaterial to salvation, other than acting as a paradigm for faith and love.

 

[sojourner]

But that is only half of the story Sojourner. Epehsians 1:7 in scripture tells us "In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins".

Now you're proof-texting :redcard:. As I've said so often, proof texting is unreliable and not a good basis for formulating either belief or a good argument.

 

[blueman]

Now you're proof-texting :redcard:. As I've said so often, proof texting is unreliable and not a good basis for formulating either belief or a good argument.

Sojourner, that's fine, we disagree on this issue. I'll stick with scripture rather than pursue the anecdotal route you take.

 

[sojourner]

Sojourner, that's fine, we disagree on this issue. I'll stick with scripture rather than pursue the anecdotal route you take.

The "God said it, I believe it, that settles it" argument doesn't work either. We're both coming from a scriptural basis. The difference is interpretation, not premise.

 

[blueman]

Which is why (as the creed says) Jesus became incarnate: "for us and for our salvation he became incarnate..."

What would you to be considered more authoratative, the Creed or the Holy Bible? Would you put more weight in the creed or in the Bible and in reference to the New Testament, written during the lifetimes of many who walked and talked with Jesus and were a witness His cruxifiction and resurrection?

 

[Arrow]

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.

I didn't say any of that. I didn't say that "God sent his Son to die..." I think God became incarnate for us and for our salvation. Because of that act, there is the hope that humanity is worth saving (ref. Sodom and the Flood Narrative).

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.

 

[sojourner]

What would you to be considered more authoratative, the Creed or the Holy Bible? Would you put more weight in the creed or in the Bible and in reference to the New Testament, written during the lifetimes of many who walked and talked with Jesus and were a witness His cruxifiction and resurrection?

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.