Atonement

[claude]

Atonement, often misunderstood in that people erroneously believe we can make atone for our sins. I maintain we are not able to atone for our sins but that we receive atonement for our sins. As such, I offer this to explain why I believe that.

Atonement; to cover, to placate, to cancel

The Pattern throughout the bible is that the offender offer a sin offering to the priest, and the priest makes the atonement,

(Leviticus 5:6) "And he shall bring his trespass offering unto the LORD for his sin which he hath sinned, a female from the flock, a lamb or a kid of the goats, for a sin offering; and the priest shall make an atonement for him concerning his sin."

(Leviticus 7:7) "As the sin offering is, so is the trespass offering: there is one law for them: the priest that maketh atonement therewith shall have it."

Today, Christ is our High Priest, the propitiation for our sins,

(1 John 2:1-2) "My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: {2} And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world."

(Romans 5:10-11) "For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life. {11} And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement."

(1 John 4:9-10) "In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him. {10} Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins."

Christ is our High Priest, Christ provided the sin offering, it is Christ that makes atonement, we are recipients of these acts through confession, repentance, and faith, which of the three faith is the mover and shaker. Confession, or repentance without faith is empty.

[buckwheatpaul]

From my Bible Study we have discussed this to some degree....grain offering, burnt offering and sin offerings went out when Jesus went to the cross for us. He atoned for our sins with His crucifixion. I have a tendency to believe that but am open to others thoughts on this subject. Paul

[Char-Gar]

There are at least several traditional theories of The Atonement/at-one-ment (being made at one with God through Christ). It seems that every few years, a new spin or wrinkle is put on The Atonement. People discuss, argue and other cast others into the neither regions due a different understanding.

I once heard Norman Pittinger challenged by a bunch of budding theologians for his less than orthodox stand on several issues, related to the Atonement. Pittinger went to the board, took about 45 minutes to lay out the most common theories of the Atonement with their strong and weak points, including copious Bible references.

When was through, he turned to the gather students and said; "I went through all of this, so you will know that I know and understand the various approaches to understanding the Atonement. In the end, it is not terribly important that you understand the Atonement. It is however terrible important that you experience it and that you proclaim it. " That did it for me. Further this affiant sayeth not.

[Blackwater]

The blood of Jesus is, in my reading at least, THE one thing that COULD atone for all our sins, compiled together. And yet, when one comes to Christ, and recognizes the mistakes and sins and errors of his past, and he encounters those who he has wronged, it is just a simple outgrowth of his new being that he feels compelled to ask them for forgiveness. Either they'll accept our apology, or they won't, but the only really important thing, is that we DID ask. I think Christ expects us to do things like that - simply evidence the change that's taken place within us.

That's my view, and I am anxious to hear more from others on the matter. I've heard many ideas on this, and the one I carry now is mostly self-adopted on the basis of what I've read of the Word. Coming to Christ really DOES change a person, if it's really real. We are literally a "new man." And praise God for it!

[Char-Gar]

Two major Atonement streams each with many rivulets going off.

1. Substitutionary blood Atonement. This is a favorite with the right wing. This is an OT Temple based model where God demands blood to be shed for the sins of the people. Jesus became our substitute and was killed in our place. This satisfied the judicial nature of God. This gives rise to numerous other theological theories to prop it up. At the core is a very ancient God that demands blood to pay for sin.

2. The Moral Influence theory of Atonement. We humans comprehend the depth of God's love, where he sent his son knowing he would be rejected and killed. When humans understand this, our hearts are broken by the magnificent display of God's love and grace in Jesus.

We are living in a time, when we can see what believers in a blood seeking god can do in his name. Just how much would it take for these Christians to go over the line and start spilling blood for God and in his name. It has happened before, so don't say it can't happen. If it happens, just how much daylight is their between God and Allah?

Me, I tend to lean toward the moral influence wing of things, with some qualifications of course. But let there be no misunderstanding, I do agree with the OP that man can't do this on his own. It requires the action of God to get us home to him. Mankind is to depraved to find his/her way back on their own hook.

[Thundarstick]

God didn't seek blood, he required it! There is a huge difference in God requiring blood for atonement and Christians thinking they should shed blood in his name! Mat 26:39
He went on a little farther and bowed with his face to the ground, praying, “My Father! If it is possible, let this cup of suffering be taken away from me. Yet I want your will to be done, not mine.”

If it where possible without Jesus blood being freely given as atonement the crucifixion would not have happened! Thanks be to God almighty that through Jesus sacrifice we are saved! Amen!

[Char-Gar]

God didn't seek blood, he required it! There is a huge difference in God requiring blood for atonement and Christians thinking they should shed blood in his name! Mat 26:39
He went on a little farther and bowed with his face to the ground, praying, “My Father! If it is possible, let this cup of suffering be taken away from me. Yet I want your will to be done, not mine.”

If it where possible without Jesus blood being freely given as atonement the crucifixion would not have happened! Thanks be to God almighty that through Jesus sacrifice we are saved! Amen!

OK...I will accept "requires" blood in place of "seeks" blood. In any case according to your thinking, God requires blood to be shed to forgive. Do I have that right?

You seem to be saying that it was God who crucified Jesus and not the corrupt Jewish leaders in cahoots with the Romans. Is that right also? If that is right, then why should the corrupt Jews and Romans bear any responsibility for the killing of Jesus as they were just playing their part in divine blood sacrifice. They were nothing more than a combined high priest, killing Jesus to satisfy the requirement of God for blood.

You seem to hold a very primitive notion about God. Am I to love a God like that? At any rate you seem to be expressing a classic substitutionary blood atonement theory as mention in my above post. It is a theory I don't favor.

[shoot-n-lead]

You seem to be saying that it was God who crucified Jesus and not the corrupt Jewish leaders in cahoots with the Romans. Is that right also? If that is right, then why should the corrupt Jews and Romans bear any responsibility for the killing of Jesus as they were just playing their part in divine blood sacrifice. They were nothing more than a combined high priest, killing Jesus to satisfy the requirement of God for blood.


Seems to reek of semantics.

[Char-Gar]

Seems to reek of semantics.

Yes it does. No much of a difference between blood seeking and blood requiring. But the latter seems to make Thunderstuck more happy.

At any rate words have meanings, unless you are the Chesshire Cat.

I have an image in my mind of the Crusaders killing every Muslim man, woman and child in the cities they conquered. They were just killing infidels. You could put those boys and ISIS in a sack, shake it up and see which one falls out first. These things happen when you have a god that require/seeks blood to be shed in order to forgive. Murder most foul becomes a Christian duty.

[Wayne Smith]

No, Char-gar. The blood of Christ once and for all atones. No other atonement is needed or required. There is absolutely nothing in the atonement through the blood of Christ that has anything to do with a continuing need for blood or death. That is the foulest heresy.

[Thundarstick]

Im beginning to see that there are no bounds to the way the scriptures can be twisted and convoluted to meet anyone's cushy belief! If you think for one moment God's requirement of blood to cover sin instructs us to kill others, you are mistaken! The blood that is required is OURS, the sinner, the transgressors! Jesus payed that price for US!

You know you twist what I said to imply that our God and the god (allah) have any thing in common! You are not to accept a God like that! But you must accept that the wages, payment, for sin is death, or do you deny that as well?

[Ickisrulz]

Hebrews chapters 9 and 10 have an awful lot to say about the need for a sacrifice to satisfy the penalty for sin.

"But when this priest (Jesus) had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God..."

There's nothing in the NT that suggests Jesus' death was meant only to elicit an emotional response in order to turn us from sin. Our salvation is based on emotions?! Time and time again we are told Jesus paid our penalty.

This isn't a primitive view of God. This is Jesus' plainly stated idea, "the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” Was Jesus' mistaken?

There are dozens of other passages, but what use is it posting them? I don't understand all these theological gymnastics to make doctrine match one's views.

AND why are things like this not posted in the theological discussion area?

[claude]

Ickisrulz, thank you.

This was never posted to be a debate, that is why it was not posted in the theological discussion thread. Through the unfortunate attempts of one to enforce their opinion upon the rest, and defend it at all cost, it became bloated. This often happens when theory as proposed by men rather than fact as given us by the Father is expounded to cloud an issue.

I my opinion, we have been treated to a shining example of the leaven of the Pharisees, who were unable to tip the boot upside down and read the bottom line, Mark 8:14-21. How is it indeed?

[Markopolo]

I agree with Wayne.. Christ blood is the atonement once and for all... and love covers a multitude of sin. ����

[Ickisrulz]

Ickisrulz, thank you.

This was never posted to be a debate, that is why it was not posted in the theological discussion thread. Through the unfortunate attempts of one to enforce their opinion upon the rest, and defend it at all cost, it became bloated. This often happens when theory as proposed by men rather than fact as given us by the Father is expounded to cloud an issue.

I my opinion, we have been treated to a shining example of the leaven of the Pharisees, who were unable to tip the boot upside down and read the bottom line, Mark 8:14-21. How is it indeed?


Anything that gets posted can and will be commented on. So I think it best if we only post prayer requests and praise reports in the chapel. Any insights, questions and thoughts should go in the theological discussion area. I thought that that was the idea anyway when the new section was made.

[claude]

Enjoy your day sir.

[Thundarstick]

When something is posted. I believe, I explain, I maintain opens a thread to theological discussion, does it not? :confused:

[claude]

Perhaps if you hit the little triangle at the bottom left of your post, the report post icon, and ask Jim, he will move it to the theological discussion page for you. As stated above it wasn't meant to be a discussion, and discussion won't change the message, God atones, we receive that atonement. Pretty simple brother.

Because I have been as clear as I know how to be, this matter is finished. Should you decide that I have been cloudy, or fuzzy in my answers, feel free to send a PM.

[Char-Gar]

No, Char-gar. The blood of Christ once and for all atones. No other atonement is needed or required. There is absolutely nothing in the atonement through the blood of Christ that has anything to do with a continuing need for blood or death. That is the foulest heresy.

Again we would agree. That said, when somebody insists that God requires blood for atonement, that calls for some probing about the implications of that statement.

I came to faith in Christ later than most and did not grow up in a blood saturated faith. When it comes to all the temple sacrifice it was a bloody affair. On the day of Atonement, there was so much blood poured on the altar that there was a special drain to carry it out of the temple.

What I know about the Temple sacrifices leades me to believe it was the religion of a primitive people not unlike others of the time. When we conflate the religion of Israel with the revelation of God, and enforce that on the New Testament, we come up a pretty gruesome version of Christianity. It is understandable that the early Christians who were Jews, shoe horned Jesus into the only model they knew. Christians who are "flat book", "verbal dictation", "Biblical literalist" naturally pick up the ancient model and carry it forward. Any attempts to step back from the ancient Temple model and see Jesus and his atonement in any other way, is met with argument and often rejection. Independent though is most often met with talking points and boiler plate.

Whatever we choose to believe or not believe, should be able to withstand some probing and questioning. Reason and faith and not enemies. One should complement and enlarge the other. Blanket statement like "God requires blood", deserves some questions and probing to find and define the outer limits of the statement. An unquestioned faith is an inherited faith that was never truly ours.

Claude...I never understood your original post to be a sermon. I understood it to be a position open to comment, debate and explorations. It you don't want comment, debate and exploration than please state that very clearly in your post. I will respect your wishes and will have nothing more to say on the subject. Preach on if you wish. You have the floor all to yourself.

[Ickisrulz]

Christians who are "flat book", "verbal dictation", "Biblical literalist" naturally pick up the ancient model and carry it forward. Any attempts to step back from the ancient Temple model and see Jesus and his atonement in any other way, is met with argument and often rejection. Independent though is most often met with talking points and boiler plate.

Surely you are aware that as a proponent of a liberal interpretation of the Bible you are in the minority here and you will get plenty of push back.

I grew up in a United Methodist Church, but haven't attended one in many years. I had forgotten many within the denomination share your approach to Scripture. Our pastor was an Evangelical. When she died, the replacement the church got did not share the same views. It made a mess with many left looking for another church. Eventually the church shut down. I have often wondered about the consistency among the clergy.

[Char-Gar]

No, Char-gar. The blood of Christ once and for all atones. No other atonement is needed or required. There is absolutely nothing in the atonement through the blood of Christ that has anything to do with a continuing need for blood or death. That is the foulest heresy.

Again we would agree. That said, when somebody insists that God requires blood for atonement, that calls for some probing about the implications of that statement.

I came to faith in Christ later than most and did not grow up in a blood saturated faith. When it comes to all the temple sacrifice it was a bloody affair. On the day of Atonement, there was so much blood poured on the altar that there was a special drain to carry it out of the temple.

What I know about the Temple sacrifices leades me to believe it was the religion of a primitive people not unlike others of the time. When we conflate the religion of Israel with the revelation of God, and enforce that on the New Testament, we come up a pretty gruesome version of Christianity. It is understandable that the early Christians who were Jews, shoe horned Jesus into the only model they knew. Christians who are "flat book", "verbal dictation", "Biblical literalist" naturally pick up the ancient model and carry it forward. Any attempts to step back from the ancient Temple model and see Jesus and his atonement in any other way, is met with argument and often rejection.

Whatever we choose to believe or not believe, should be able to withstand some probing and questioning. Reason and faith and not enemies. One should complement and enlarge the other. Blanket statement like "God requires blood", deserves some questions and probing to find and define the outer limits of the statement. An unquestioned faith is an inherited faith that was never truly ours.

Claude...I never understood your original post to be a sermon. I understood it to be a position open to comment, debate and explorations. It you don't want comment, debate and exploration than please state that very clearly in your post. I will respect your wishes and will have nothing more to say on the subject. Preach on if you wish. You have the floor all to yourself.

[Char-Gar]

Surely you are aware that as a proponent of a liberal interpretation of the Bible you are in the minority here and you will get plenty of push back.

I grew up in a United Methodist Church, but haven't attended one in many years. I had forgotten many within the denomination share your approach to Scripture. Our pastor was an Evangelical. When she died, the replacement the church got did not share the same views. It made a mess with many left looking for another church. Eventually the church shut down. I have often wondered about the consistency among the clergy.

I don't believe there is anybody in the UMC that shares my approach to scripture or anything else. I am far from the liberal social justice bunch. Neither am I in the fundamentalist wing of the church. Most folks tend to place me well into the Evangelical box although many Evangelicals are not real comfortable with me either.

I am not adverse to debate or push back. I get my fair share of it from both the far right and the far left wings of the church. Neither of the major theological camps are happy with me as i ask questions that can't answer or don't want to answer.

I had very successful pastorates and always left the church larger and strong than when I found it. Even though the clergy in the various camps were unhappy with me, the lay people were not. The laypeople like me because I gave the answers and logic, not talking points and rote soundbites they had heard over and over again. I challenged them to think out of the box and apply the Christian faith to their lives.

It is easy to dismiss me as just one of those liberals, but in doing so you would be wrong and might miss something along the way. I know I am not comfortable to deal with but my job has never been to make people comfortable.

[Ickisrulz]

I don't believe there is anybody in the UMC that shares my approach to scripture or anything else. I am far from the liberal social justice bunch. Neither am I in the fundamentalist wing of the church. Most folks tend to place me well into the Evangelical box although many Evangelicals are not real comfortable with me either.

I am not adverse to debate or push back. I get my fair share of it from both the far right and the far left wings of the church. Neither of the major theological camps are happy with me as i ask questions that can't answer or don't want to answer.

I had very successful pastorates and always left the church larger and strong than when I found it. Even though the clergy in the various camps were unhappy with me, the lay people were not. The laypeople like me because I gave the answers and logic, not talking points and rote soundbites they had heard over and over again. I challenged them to think out of the box and apply the Christian faith to their lives.

It is easy to dismiss me as just one of those liberals, but in doing so you would be wrong and might miss something along the way. I know I am not comfortable to deal with but my job has never been to make people comfortable.

There's no doubt you have a lot to offer and have accomplished much. I may have dismissed some of the things you have said, but have not dismissed you. Maybe my terms are wrong. I have always considered any non-literal interpretation of the Bible to be liberal.

[Wayne Smith]

There are many areas of the Bible where a literal interpretation is not even appropriate. Many of Jesus' parables have an interpretation following them - to take the parable literally is outside of what Jesus said. Even in English, is poetry to be taken literally? Usually not, but sometimes. Same in Hebrew and Greek - and Psalms is poetry. Prophesy has multiple interpretations - currently, future, and long term future frequently.

To understand the Bible we need to know the intent of the passage - some are to be taken literally, some not. An intelligent reading of Scripture demands this approach.

[Thundarstick]

I agree with intent being needed, but in so many instances it's used as a way to twist and turn passages to fit ones doctrine out of convenience. If there twisted enough, nothing is required of us and everyone will be saved on judgment day!

[Ickisrulz]

There are many areas of the Bible where a literal interpretation is not even appropriate. Many of Jesus' parables have an interpretation following them - to take the parable literally is outside of what Jesus said. Even in English, is poetry to be taken literally? Usually not, but sometimes. Same in Hebrew and Greek - and Psalms is poetry. Prophesy has multiple interpretations - currently, future, and long term future frequently.

To understand the Bible we need to know the intent of the passage - some are to be taken literally, some not. An intelligent reading of Scripture demands this approach.

Yes, I know all that and assumed it was a given when I made my post. I take biblical records of history and narrative as fully inspired, mostly literal and 100% accurate rather than written from the authors' flawed, biased and ignorant perspective.