Ezekiel 18:20 makes the Atonement impossible

[Many Sages One Truth]

Ezekiel 18:20 The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him.

Doesn't that kind of fly in the face of the traditional atonement theology as "Orthodox Christianity" believes it? How can Jesus die for your sins if the one who sins is the one that dies?

 

[waitasec]

opcorn:

 

[Gjallarhorn]

You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.

Deuteronomy 5:9-10

...and from the same book:

Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sin.

Deuteronomy 24:16

 

[The Sum of Awe]

You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.

Deuteronomy 5:9-10

...and from the same book:

Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sin.

Deuteronomy 24:16

Jesus (our father), died for us though. Accordingly.

 

[Many Sages One Truth]

Jesus (our father), died for us though. Accordingly.

Even though the father cannot die for the sins of the sons?

 

[fallingblood]

Ezekiel 18:20 The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him.

Doesn't that kind of fly in the face of the traditional atonement theology as "Orthodox Christianity" believes it? How can Jesus die for your sins if the one who sins is the one that dies?

There is no problem here. Let's look at Paul. He states we all will die as we all have sinned. So we all die.

Now looking at Jesus, he is not our father. According to Orthodox Christianity, he is the son of God. God is sinless, thus, Jesus wasn't dying for the sins of the father. And the father was not dying for the sins of the son. So again, no problem there.

Again, atonement theology does not state that we won't die. Paul makes it clear that the punishment for sin is death, and we all have sinned (thus we all die).

 

[fallingblood]

Even though the father cannot die for the sins of the sons?

Where in the Gospels or NT does it say Jesus died for the sins of the sons? Where does it even state that Jesus is our father?

 

[waitasec]

Where in the Gospels or NT does it say Jesus died for the sins of the sons? Where does it even state that Jesus is our father?

i think the passage in ezekiel is what many sages had in mind...
not the NT.

 

[fallingblood]

i think the passage in ezekiel is what many sages had in mind...
not the NT.

My point was that Jesus is never said to have died for the sins of the sons and is not called our father anyway. In those regards, Ezekiel really has no bearing as the verses used have nothing to do with antonment theology.

 

[Splarnst]

Now looking at Jesus, he is not our father. According to Orthodox Christianity, he is the son of God. God is sinless, thus, Jesus wasn't dying for the sins of the father. And the father was not dying for the sins of the son. So again, no problem there.

But no one is saying that Jesus died for the Father or vice versa; they're saying Jesus died for the rest of humanity. I don't see how this discusses the problem in the OP at all.

The problem is dying for anyone else, isn't it?

Of course, if without Jesus our punishment is eternal suffering, then Jesus didn't really pay the same price we would have to pay. 2.5 days is less than eternity. And it's less than eternity times the billions of people who have ever lived. To compensate, there must be some hand-waving about divinity trumping all potential problems.

 

[fallingblood]

But no one is saying that Jesus died for the Father or vice versa; they're saying Jesus died for the rest of humanity. I don't see how this discusses the problem in the OP at all.

The problem is dying for anyone else, isn't it?

Of course, if without Jesus our punishment is eternal suffering, then Jesus didn't really pay the same price we would have to pay. 2.5 days is less than eternity. And it's less than eternity times the billions of people who have ever lived. To compensate, there must be some hand-waving about divinity trumping all potential problems.

The verse in Ezekiel states that the soul who sins is the one who will die. Jesus never died in our place. That is not the atonement idea. We still die. Everyone dies. Atonement theology does not state that since Jesus died, none of us will die.

The verse then says that the guilt of the father is not the guilt of the son and vice versa. Jesus isn't our father. He is not our son. So that really doesn't factor in here as well.

The OP simply took a verse and placed too much emphasis on it, and at the same time, did not understand atonement theology.

 

[Many Sages One Truth]

That is what the atonement teaches though, that Jesus can die for the sins of all, when Ezekiel 18 says no one can die for anyone else's sin. It's not just about the consequence, it's about sin period. The part that says the righteousness of the righteous is upon him and the wickedness of the wicked is charged against him means just that.

 

[Tarheeler]

That is what the atonement teaches though, that Jesus can die for the sins of all, when Ezekiel 18 says no one can die for anyone else's sin. It's not just about the consequence, it's about sin period. The part that says the righteousness of the righteous is upon him and the wickedness of the wicked is charged against him means just that.

That's what happens when you try to force Jewish scriptures to conform with Christian doctrine. Jewish theology holds that each individual is responsible for himself; vicarious salvation plays no part in it.

 

[javajo]

Ezekiel 18 is just saying that if someone lives wickedly they will die. If their son lives wickedly their son will die, but they won't. If people turn and do what is right, they will live. That's all its saying. To try to take this and apply it to the Doctrine of the Atonement is just really way far out there. If you want to understand the Atonement, try Isaiah 53 if you like, but mainly the New Testament Epistles, for in them Christ reveals through the Apostles the mystery which had been hidden until then, of how salvation comes to the Gentiles through faith in his atoning death on the cross.

 

[Many Sages One Truth]

I as a Christian, though a very heretical one, personally reject the atonement. It doesn't make very much sense if you think about it. I have this theory when looking at the NT and Christian history that the atonement theology has evolved throughout time to what it is now.

I think this came to a full head when the Protestant Reformation took place and Protestants needed to believe the RCC had no authority, so the idea of "grace alone, faith alone" was just another way of wresting power from Rome.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

Fallingblood: Do you see the contradiction between "Christian" and "Agnostic Theist"?

 

[fallingblood]

That is what the atonement teaches though, that Jesus can die for the sins of all, when Ezekiel 18 says no one can die for anyone else's sin. It's not just about the consequence, it's about sin period. The part that says the righteousness of the righteous is upon him and the wickedness of the wicked is charged against him means just that.

That's not what Ezekiel is saying though. It says that the person who sins dies. The guilt isn't passed on. Christianity, with the atonement theology, isn't saying something different. If one reads Paul, he states that all have sinned. He also states that the punishment for sin is death. Thus we all die. Jesus dying doesn't mean he died in our place. We still die.

More so, we still have to own up for our own actions. We are still responsible for our deeds. The atonement idea doesn't state that our guilt is passed to another. We are still guilty for our actions.

So if we still die and our guilt isn't passed on to anyone else, and the idea of atonement doesn't suggest any of that anyway, then there is no reason to assume it stands opposed to Ezekiel.

Just one more point, even if the idea of atonement and Ezekiel disagreed, that doesn't make the idea of atonement impossible. It would just mean that there is a contradiction in the Bible. And it wouldn't be the first.

 

[fallingblood]

Fallingblood: Do you see the contradiction between "Christian" and "Agnostic Theist"?

There is no contradiction. Please don't try to define what I believe or that my beliefs are contradictory when you obviously don't know what they are.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

There is no contradiction. Please don't try to define what I believe or that my beliefs are contradictory when you obviously don't know what they are.

I'm not saying what you actually believe. All I'm saying is that the words you use have a meaning that contradicts each other. Agnostic theist refers to one that believes in an unknowable God. Christian refers to one who believes in a KNOWABLE God.

 

[fallingblood]

I'm not saying what you actually believe. All I'm saying is that the words you use have a meaning that contradicts each other. Agnostic theist refers to one that believes in an unknowable God. Christian refers to one who believes in a KNOWABLE God.

Nope. Both can be defined much more broadly and actually have to be as they are very general terms.