|
Post by Josh on Jul 8, 2012 15:30:18 GMT -8
We haven't had this convo on the forums, but since it's come up in two threads recently, let's have at it.
Stevekimes, or others, do you care to present your case against the idea of Substitution, Jesus death as a sacrifice/ propitiation of sins, etc....? Or in what ways do you think the idea is seriously misunderstood?
|
|
|
Post by stevekimes on Jul 9, 2012 8:43:14 GMT -8
Here is an article I wrote about some of the problems that I have with Subtitutionary Atonement Theory (SAT). On my blog I also speak at length about what I do believe happened with the atonement and how I think the sacrificial system really worked. But this is plenty to chew on:
We have already shown (in previous articles) that Substitutionary Atonement Theory isn’t necessary to believe in. Also we have shown that there isn’t a single atonement theory that discusses all the significant biblical issues and themes that are related to Jesus’ death. In this section, I want to be more direct. There are significant theological issues that are problematic with Substitutionary Atonement Theory (SAT) as it is presented by evangelicals today. These problems are not obvious, on the surface, but given some thought these problems actually limit God’s sovereignty, justice and His mercy.
I am going to bring up some serious issues. I am not saying that proponents of SAT can't possibly answer most of these problems. Nor am I saying that to hold to SAT is opposed to the truth of God. What I am pointing out is that SAT has some very difficult problems that need to be addressed. To simply deny these problems are there only perpetuates the weakness of SAT. In light of these problems, I determined that it is better to discover a more biblical form of atonement theory. However, another theologian might determine to retain SAT, but deal with these issues head on. You decide how you will deal with them:
SAT claims that everyone is born in sin In the classic form of SAT, every person is born into sin, and thus punishment because of Adam’s sin. It is a sin nature that is passed on to every human being. Thus, each human is born headed toward hell. However, God’s word disagrees with this perspective. In Ezekiel 18 it clearly teaches that no one will be punished for the sins of one’s father, but only for his or her own sins. Paul also teaches in Romans 2:8-10 that God does not punish a person in accordance with their race or birth, but only according to their own deeds. Thus, it is possible, for one who is born to the wrong parents to live a life so righteous as to be pleasing to God (Romans 2:14-15). To call a person a sinner from birth is simply unbiblical.
SAT claims that God forgives after punishment It says in Scripture again and again that God is merciful and forgiving, that forgiveness is a part of His nature. But SAT claims that in order for God to forgive in justice there must be an elaborate punishment and only after the punishment is God able to forgive. This claims that God is unable to forgive unless there is death. This also implies that there is a law of punishment that is greater than God’s forgiveness. Can God not forgive who He wills? If that is the case, then why have a sacrificial system that establishes a false punishment? Why is Jesus established as the scapegoat for all sin? Scripture is clear—God has authority to forgive those who He wills. Jesus’ death somehow helps humans receive God’s forgiveness, but it is not due to God’s inability to forgive. Rather, it must be about humans being made worthy to approach God.
SAT claims that God’s wrath can only be quenched by death SAT has a strange notion of sin that is anti-intuitive. It claims that every sin is to be punished by death, without regard to what kind of sin it is. Certainly Paul claims that anyone who is under the law and disobeys it is cursed, thus worthy of death (Galatians 3:10). But Galatians and Habakkuk both claim that life can be gained by one who lives by faith, regardless of the law. But what about those not under the Mosaic law? Are they under the curse of death for a single sin of childish rebellion? What about a sin that is repented of? Rather, it seems that the kingdom of God is excluded to those who have a character of evil, especially unrepented evil whether one is in Jesus or not. But a single sin here or there can be repented of and forgiven. (I Cor. 6:9-10, Heb. 10:26-30; I John 8-10). God’s wrath is not so severe that eternal torture is the just penalty for each and every sin.
SAT seems to claim that God accepts human sacrifice SAT is based on the idea that all OT sacrifices were temporary, a sign pointing to the perfect sacrifice which is Jesus. If sacrifice is substitutionary, then it would seem to indicate that sacrifice was imperfect until a completely innocent human being is sacrificed to appease all of God’s wrath on humanity. There are a number of theological problems with this. First, it seems to indicate that God, although declaring in the past that human sacrifice is unacceptable (Exodus 13), in reality, it was okay as long as the sacrifice was completely without sin. Hebrews 2:24 indicates that Jesus being a human was significant, and SAT implies that it is because God really desired a human sacrifice.
SAT claims that the Innocent can be punished for the guilty Also, it is important that the sacrifice be innocent. For substitutionary atonement to take effect, a guiltless human being must be sacrificed to appease God’s wrath. Thus, instead of Jesus, could each family have a scapegoat human whom they could kill, which would be the perfect sacrifice for their sins? Of course not, this is wicked thinking. But why then is Jesus considered a perfect sacrifice for humanity’s sin, and him being a human and innocent. This brings a question about God’s justice in general: is it ever just for an innocent person to be punished for a guilty party? Certainly an innocent person can pay bail, but can they pay with their own jail time or their own execution? Is there a single court that would find it just to kill an innocent person in the place of a guilty one? Is God’s justice so separate from human justice that this makes sense? Is this the practice of a merciful God?
SAT claims that punishment is irrevocable SAT has the idea of God that it doesn’t matter who is punished, only that punishment is meted out. The punishment must be done, death must be accomplished. But who dies isn’t so important. We can trade an innocent person for a guilty one. We can trade the Son of God for all humanity. All of that is insignificant. The important thing is that someone is punished and the punishment is torturous enough.
Again, all of this is opposed to Scripture. God is just, and He sees clearly all men. Thus, God punishes individuals for their sin, or, more specific, their character. Jesus’ death is not some magic or ritual. God rejected ritual sacrifice many times in the Old Testament (Psalm 51:16-17; Isaiah 1:11-17; Isa. 66:2-3; Jeremiah 6:19-20; Amos 5:21-28), saying that what He really wanted was a contrite heart and repentance. Jesus came declaring repentance, not a substitutionary sacrifice. Thus it is repentance that God seeks, not any sacrifice. Jesus, yes, was the perfect sacrifice, but not because of some ancient law or spiritual code. Rather it is because Jesus’ death and resurrection leads us to repentance.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jul 9, 2012 8:52:36 GMT -8
Thanks. I figured you had something ready-made I look forward to digging into it when I have time. I'm curious to hear others' thoughts as well.
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Jul 10, 2012 19:29:14 GMT -8
Well written and thought out Steve.
I agree with this sentiment 100%. I'm yet to hear a single theory that satisfactorily deals with all the biblical data and therefore I'm led to believe that it's either a combination of all of them, or something beyond what God has chosen to reveal at this point.
Still, there are passages that seem to indicate the necessity for death, like Hebrews 9 for instance.
|
|
|
Post by stevekimes on Jul 10, 2012 22:50:52 GMT -8
I'd be happy to share my atonement theory, but that would probably require another thread.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jul 11, 2012 9:23:08 GMT -8
please do, but first I want to find some quality time to respond on this thread.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jul 16, 2012 9:21:08 GMT -8
steve,
I'd like to work through these objections bit by bit, so here's for #1:
I agree that this is a problem for those who hold that particular view of the fall/ sin nature. My view, while still retaining belief of Jesus as a substitutionary atonement, doesn't hold that we are born with the guilt of another's (Adam's) sin. I simply think we are born with an inclination toward sins that quickly leads to a ratification/ reenaction of the fall in all of our own lives. So, I don't think this objection is a concern for me*, but maybe you still do. If so, let me know.
*nor is the concern of a contradiciton with Ezekiel 18, as far as mere humans are concerned. However, I think we'll see that I do believe that Jesus is an exception to the rule, but I'm sure we'll get to that later.
|
|
|
Post by stevekimes on Jul 17, 2012 20:02:32 GMT -8
I would agree that there is an inclination to sin due to Adam's (and our ancestors') sins, and also that such inclination creates a system that encourages sin-- e.g. a capitalistic system that rewards greed.
But I would just see your view, Josh, as indicating that you are more inclined to have an alternative view of the atonement, since the majority viewpoint holds to the doctrine of original sin as all of us born in guilt, worthy of punishment.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jul 18, 2012 8:17:19 GMT -8
Granted, my view on the subject only changed recently (in the last couple years), but I guess I don't see a necessarily link between the two (though perhaps a correlation). But, you did start off your thread with an admission of as much.
I hope to respond to your other points after I get back from camping.
|
|
|
Post by stevekimes on Jul 18, 2012 21:27:26 GMT -8
Yes, they are not necessarily connected.
Have fun camping!
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Aug 9, 2012 14:55:26 GMT -8
My thoughts on this:
It shouldn't surprise us that God creates rules by which He volunteers to operate by, even rules that limit Him in some way. He does so with free will, doesn't he? If he wants to say that forgiveness of sin requires innocent blood, He can without any contradiction (regardless of our feelings about it)
I think Scripture is clear that "without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sin", but it doesn't follow that this means that there could be no forgiveness chronologically before Jesus died on the cross. Since, as I believe, God is transcendant to time itself, there is a sense in which Jesus' atonement through death works not only chronologically (from our perspective) forward, but also backward in time.
I believe this is what Revelation 13:8 is getting at when it says that Jesus was "slain from the foundation of the world".
If Jesus did not need to die on the cross in order to bring about our forgiveness, then it seems a bit sadistic of the Father to ask Him to do so. Although it seems you have another way that the cross brings forgiveness in mind.
|
|
|
Post by stevekimes on Aug 10, 2012 20:42:30 GMT -8
What doesn't make sense to me is that He does set up rules for forgiveness and then he has different rules for forgiveness somewhere else.
I do believe that crucifixion was necessary for salvation, but that it works differently. Again, I'll cover that somewhere else. But I don't think that "God requires blood" gets at the idea in Hebrews. But I can't read over Hebrews again right now to get at that. I'll come back and try to explain.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Aug 13, 2012 9:19:45 GMT -8
What doesn't make sense to me is that He does set up rules for forgiveness and then he has different rules for forgiveness somewhere else. . Can you give an example?
|
|
|
Post by stevekimes on Aug 13, 2012 23:19:40 GMT -8
For example, Ezekiel 18 or II Sam 14 or Jonah 4. If a person or people respond to a prophet's message and repent from their sin, they live. In Ps 51 it says that it isn't sacrifices the Lord wants, but a changed heart. This doesn't mean that God is displeased with the sacrifices, but they do not seem to do anything with washing away guilt. Repentance does. Psalm 31 as well.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Aug 14, 2012 7:47:42 GMT -8
I would see every instance of God offering forgiveness in conjunction with repentance (both before and after the first century AD) as being made possible by Jesus' sacrificial death.
|
|
|
Post by stevekimes on Aug 21, 2012 19:11:28 GMT -8
Where would you find that in Scripture? Especially before Jesus...
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Aug 21, 2012 20:59:15 GMT -8
Off the cuff, I'd point to passages like Rev. 13:8's reference to Jesus being "slain from the foundation of the world" or
Ephesians 1:3-7
3 Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing in Christ. 4 For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love 5 he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will-- 6 to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves. 7 In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God's grace
Here we see we were also chosen to be forgiven by his blood before the creation of the world.
Or
2 Timothy 1:8b-9
But join with me in suffering for the gospel, by the power of God, 9 who has saved us and called us to a holy life--not because of anything we have done but because of his own purpose and grace. This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time, 10 but it has now been revealed through the appearing of our Savior, Christ Jesus, who has destroyed death and has brought life and immortality to light through the gospel.
Here we are told that this salvation/grace (due to his death) was made available to us before the beginning of time, but only revealed to us clearly after the fact.
For this reason, there aren't going to be a lot of OT references directly making this point, although I would say the whole sacrificial system pointed to it.
Also, there's Hebrews 10:10-12
10 And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. 11 Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12 But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God.
Who are "the all"? Well, everyone who ever lived, because he emphasizes "for all time".
Do you disagree that no one has ever been forgiven apart from the fact of Jesus' redemptive death? (regardless of your particular theory on how the atonement actually works)
|
|