Atonement model?

Christian ethics and theology with an Anabaptist perspective
KingdomBuilder
Posts: 1482
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2016 9:00 pm
Affiliation: church of Christ

Re: Atonement model?

Post by KingdomBuilder »

A separate discussion on OT sacrifice, it's significance, and it's relation to the NT/Gospel would be interesting.

I haven't the means to facilitate it fully. Just thinking aloud.
0 x
Ponder anew what the Almighty can do
Adam
Posts: 168
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2017 10:35 pm
Location: Papua New Guinea
Affiliation: Kingdom Christian

Re: Atonement model?

Post by Adam »

lesterb wrote:
silentreader wrote:
Josh wrote:I know some theologians who are not dogmatic and they are very refreshing to talk to and discuss ideas and research with.

Of course, you'll have to deal with unvarnished truth when talking to them - which often is at odds with the Protestant gospel. Sacred cows get burnt up.
And I'm fine with theology as the unvarnished Scripture. But too often modern theology will pick and choose which Scripture to focus on at the expense of other Scripture that may have a slightly different perspective.

Re the Atonement subject, unvarnished Scripture says that there is no remission of sin without the shedding of blood.
It says in the OT at least that the atoning sacrifice had to be without spot or blemish.
What other unvarnished truth about the Atonement can we gather from Scripture in order to form our theology?
1. The wages of sin are death.
2. So someone had to die because of my sin.
3. Had Christ not paid that price, I would have needed to die.

Note that my death could not have atoned for my sin, but Christ's death did.
Another model:

1. The wages of sin are death.
2. I sinned and so I died spiritually and became a prisoner of sin and death.
3. Christ gave his life as a ransom for mine, and ensured my freedom by defeating death and Satan.
4. Christ's blood cleanses me from my sins so that I can be in the presence of a holy God.

People can take the "unvarnished truth" of Scripture and understand it in different ways. The one listed above by lesterb was not popular until the 11th Century nor does it require Jesus rising from the dead. The one I have listed above dates back to the early church and includes Jesus's resurrection.

However, I am not writing this to argue that the interpretation put forth by lesterb is necessarily right or wrong or that the interpretation I wrote above is right or wrong, but I do want to demonstrate that just trusting the "unvarnished truth" of Scripture is harder than it seems. We are all viewing the "unvarnished truth" of Scripture with a heavy layer of varnish on our eyes that was put there by the theological system we ascribe to whether knowingly or unknowingly. None of us come to the Bible with a completely fresh and unbiased perspective. We all are wearing blinders. Personally, that is why I think it is good to lean heavily on the early church because they followed directly in the teachings of the apostles.
0 x
Neto
Posts: 4578
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 5:43 pm
Location: Holmes County, Ohio
Affiliation: Gospel Haven

Re: Atonement model?

Post by Neto »

Adam wrote:....
People can take the "unvarnished truth" of Scripture and understand it in different ways. ... but I do want to demonstrate that just trusting the "unvarnished truth" of Scripture is harder than it seems. We are all viewing the "unvarnished truth" of Scripture with a heavy layer of varnish on our eyes that was put there by the theological system we ascribe to whether knowingly or unknowingly. None of us come to the Bible with a completely fresh and unbiased perspective. We all are wearing blinders. Personally, that is why I think it is good to lean heavily on the early church because they followed directly in the teachings of the apostles.
I suspect that Paul's hearers in the different pagan cities to which he & his companions brought the Gospel had their own distinctive "varnish" on their eyes as well. The people group with whom we lived were not analytical thinkers, nor "theologians", but they did look at all of this new truth through the grid of animism. I think I adequately understand their perspective so that I can say that they would probably tend to view the atonement in the same context as they did Jesus' power over the spirit world, with which they dealt daily. So one might say the following:

The Evil One (Satan) gained power over mankind through sin, and brought the curse of sickness & death.
Jesus had more power than sin & the Evil One.
Jesus broke the power of the Evil One & of sin by dying and returning in a new type body, one not vulnerable to the results of that first sin, such as sickness, aging, hunger, & death, which are the effects of the curses. (In this last part I am very probably going beyond their conceptual understanding of this, but I am expressing it this way because I think that their "theology" would be expected to develop along these lines, based on what I know of their belief system.)
Jesus gives us access to his own power, freeing us from the curse of these evil powers, just as he gives power over the evil spirits in the jungle.

I'm not sure at this point how they might express reconciliation with the Father (which I do feel is an important part of the atonement).
0 x
Congregation: Gospel Haven Mennonite Fellowship, Benton, Ohio (Holmes Co.) a split from Beachy-Amish Mennonite.
Personal heritage & general theological viewpoint: conservative Mennonite Brethren.
User avatar
Josh
Posts: 23823
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 6:23 pm
Location: 1000' ASL
Affiliation: The church of God

Re: Atonement model?

Post by Josh »

buckeyematt2 wrote:Hmmm. I agree the historical and cultural setting should be taken into account, and I think the OT is important. But does that mean Jews understand "exactly" what it signifies? Do they understand Isaiah 53? What about the messianic psalms?

If they don't accept Jesus as the Messiah, I doubt they understand the parts of the OT that point to Him - not only because they lack the illumination of the Spirit (1 Cor. 2), but because they have motivation to interpret it differently in order to rebut Christianity.
I think people who study classical Hebrew and its context are the people who can best understand what the text is actually saying; I have never had a conversation with such a person who tries to rebut Christianity. They say exactly what the system of sacrifices and so on actually meant in its day.

A lot of what I see with "Christian" interpretation of the OT force-fits it to some unbiblical, Western theology. For example, the Reformers claiming infant baptism was the same thing as circumcision.

Anyone versed in Jewish culture can easily explain what a miqvah is and also how needing to use one coincided with one became an adult.
0 x
KingdomBuilder
Posts: 1482
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2016 9:00 pm
Affiliation: church of Christ

Re: Atonement model?

Post by KingdomBuilder »

Awaketh, oh thread that sleeps-

I looked and don't think it was mentioned, but I'd say one of the most Biblically supported, yet under taught, atonement models is that of Jesus being the eternal, High Priest of God forever.
Id probably dub it the "High Priestly Atonement Model"
4 Jehovah hath sworn, and will not repent:
Thou art a priest for ever
After the [g]order of Melchizedek.
It takes much less "feel", much less heady mysticism than many models do. It is very simple, in fact, but just requires a bit of searching OT and NT parallels.
I think it's not taught much partly because people would have to wrangle it with Nicene-established orthodoxy regarding the "trinity".. Somewhat difficult to have Jesus as High Priest between God and man when Jesus is equal to Jehovah Almighty. Sorry for the micro bunny trail.
0 x
Ponder anew what the Almighty can do
Neto
Posts: 4578
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 5:43 pm
Location: Holmes County, Ohio
Affiliation: Gospel Haven

Re: Atonement model?

Post by Neto »

KingdomBuilder wrote:Awaketh, oh thread that sleeps-

I looked and don't think it was mentioned, but I'd say one of the most Biblically supported, yet under taught, atonement models is that of Jesus being the eternal, High Priest of God forever.
Id probably dub it the "High Priestly Atonement Model"
4 Jehovah hath sworn, and will not repent:
Thou art a priest for ever
After the [g]order of Melchizedek.
It takes much less "feel", much less heady mysticism than many models do. It is very simple, in fact, but just requires a bit of searching OT and NT parallels.
I think it's not taught much partly because people would have to wrangle it with Nicene-established orthodoxy regarding the "trinity".. Somewhat difficult to have Jesus as High Priest between God and man when Jesus is equal to Jehovah Almighty. Sorry for the micro bunny trail.
At the risk of creating a major 'trinity' bunny trail, I will agree that the priesthood of Jesus IS in the Bible, and say that the doctrine of the trinity is not.
0 x
Congregation: Gospel Haven Mennonite Fellowship, Benton, Ohio (Holmes Co.) a split from Beachy-Amish Mennonite.
Personal heritage & general theological viewpoint: conservative Mennonite Brethren.
Fidelio
Posts: 620
Joined: Fri Aug 23, 2019 9:57 pm
Location: Near Detroit MI
Affiliation: ACCA Friend

Re: Atonement model?

Post by Fidelio »

Not sure exactly what my church teaches on this but right now I go with this:

Jesus is the sacrifical lamb who died for our sins. He did not suffer punishment in our place. Rather, his sacrifice provides the remission of sins through his blood. We are washed in the blood of the Lamb.

I reject the penal theory because it does not make sense and does not seem to have any clear support in the Scriptures. I had been taught the penal theory and so my pastor years ago told me that the only sin that damns is unbelief. I puzzled over that for a couple decades until I realized that the Lutherans were teaching a thing called universal objective justification (UOJ) wherein they claimed that when Jesus died on the cross, God declared the entire world not guilty. That seems to be the logical conclusion of the penal atonement theory, universalism. But the Lutherans are not universalists, so they claim that while a person is already justified, they don't know it, so it does them no good until they grasp it by faith. But then that would mean there are people in Hell who were declared righteous. It just gets very messy with the UOJ doctrine. Frankly, I think Calvin, though dead wrong, had a much cleaner solution to the penal atonement. He decided that since not all people are saved, then it must be a limited atonement only for those who are truly saved.

Ransom? To whom? God does not owe the Devil anything. In fact, he trod upon the devil (crushed his head).
0 x
Convert to Anabaptist truth early 2019; now associated (friend) with the Apostolic Christian Church of America.
Neto
Posts: 4578
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 5:43 pm
Location: Holmes County, Ohio
Affiliation: Gospel Haven

Re: Atonement model?

Post by Neto »

Fidelio wrote:... my pastor years ago told me that the only sin that damns is unbelief. I puzzled over that for a couple decades until I realized that the Lutherans were teaching a thing called universal objective justification (UOJ) wherein they claimed that when Jesus died on the cross, God declared the entire world not guilty. That seems to be the logical conclusion of the penal atonement theory, universalism. But the Lutherans are not universalists, so they claim that while a person is already justified, they don't know it, so it does them no good until they grasp it by faith. But then that would mean there are people in Hell who were declared righteous. It just gets very messy with the UOJ doctrine. Frankly, I think Calvin, though dead wrong, had a much cleaner solution to the penal atonement. He decided that since not all people are saved, then it must be a limited atonement only for those who are truly saved.
I would find this rather puzzling as well, because I would think that if the Lutherans believed that way, they would not also practice infant baptism. My understanding of this sort of 'blanket forgiveness of sin' is that it is correct when applied to what some call 'original sin'. That is, we are 'born in sin', but no one will suffer (in terms of eternal punishment) for sin they did not themselves commit. So children do not need to be 'saved' until they reach an age at which they realize their own rebellion against God (commonly referred to as the 'age of accountability'). The early anabaptists (and if one wants to refer to the Dutch as a separate group, the 'baptism-minded') clearly based their belief of "believer's baptism" on this understanding of Scripture. (I understand Romans 5 in this vein.) (A fellow Bible translator believes that the children of 'pagans' are NOT saved if they die in childhood, only the children of believers, because of the text that talks about the children being sanctified by their parents. But I do not understand it this way personally. None the less, it is imperative that those of us who know the way to God tell those who have never heard.)
0 x
Congregation: Gospel Haven Mennonite Fellowship, Benton, Ohio (Holmes Co.) a split from Beachy-Amish Mennonite.
Personal heritage & general theological viewpoint: conservative Mennonite Brethren.
GaryK
Posts: 2280
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2016 6:24 pm
Location: Georgia
Affiliation: Unaffiliated

Re: Atonement model?

Post by GaryK »

Neto wrote:
Fidelio wrote:... my pastor years ago told me that the only sin that damns is unbelief. I puzzled over that for a couple decades until I realized that the Lutherans were teaching a thing called universal objective justification (UOJ) wherein they claimed that when Jesus died on the cross, God declared the entire world not guilty. That seems to be the logical conclusion of the penal atonement theory, universalism. But the Lutherans are not universalists, so they claim that while a person is already justified, they don't know it, so it does them no good until they grasp it by faith. But then that would mean there are people in Hell who were declared righteous. It just gets very messy with the UOJ doctrine. Frankly, I think Calvin, though dead wrong, had a much cleaner solution to the penal atonement. He decided that since not all people are saved, then it must be a limited atonement only for those who are truly saved.
I would find this rather puzzling as well, because I would think that if the Lutherans believed that way, they would not also practice infant baptism. My understanding of this sort of 'blanket forgiveness of sin' is that it is correct when applied to what some call 'original sin'. That is, we are 'born in sin', but no one will suffer (in terms of eternal punishment) for sin they did not themselves commit. So children do not need to be 'saved' until they reach an age at which they realize their own rebellion against God (commonly referred to as the 'age of accountability'). The early anabaptists (and if one wants to refer to the Dutch as a separate group, the 'baptism-minded') clearly based their belief of "believer's baptism" on this understanding of Scripture. (I understand Romans 5 in this vein.) (A fellow Bible translator believes that the children of 'pagans' are NOT saved if they die in childhood, only the children of believers, because of the text that talks about the children being sanctified by their parents. But I do not understand it this way personally. None the less, it is imperative that those of us who know the way to God tell those who have never heard.)
I come out at pretty much the same place as it relates to children not needing to be saved until they reach the 'age of accountability'. But, a question I always come up against when carrying this thinking a bit further is - what about adults who have never heard of Jesus or have never comprehended their own rebellion against God? Have they reached the 'age of accountability'? And if they haven't, why bother to tell them about Jesus?
0 x
Neto
Posts: 4578
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 5:43 pm
Location: Holmes County, Ohio
Affiliation: Gospel Haven

Re: Atonement model?

Post by Neto »

GaryK wrote:
Neto wrote:
Fidelio wrote:... my pastor years ago told me that the only sin that damns is unbelief. I puzzled over that for a couple decades until I realized that the Lutherans were teaching a thing called universal objective justification (UOJ) wherein they claimed that when Jesus died on the cross, God declared the entire world not guilty. That seems to be the logical conclusion of the penal atonement theory, universalism. But the Lutherans are not universalists, so they claim that while a person is already justified, they don't know it, so it does them no good until they grasp it by faith. But then that would mean there are people in Hell who were declared righteous. It just gets very messy with the UOJ doctrine. Frankly, I think Calvin, though dead wrong, had a much cleaner solution to the penal atonement. He decided that since not all people are saved, then it must be a limited atonement only for those who are truly saved.
I would find this rather puzzling as well, because I would think that if the Lutherans believed that way, they would not also practice infant baptism. My understanding of this sort of 'blanket forgiveness of sin' is that it is correct when applied to what some call 'original sin'. That is, we are 'born in sin', but no one will suffer (in terms of eternal punishment) for sin they did not themselves commit. So children do not need to be 'saved' until they reach an age at which they realize their own rebellion against God (commonly referred to as the 'age of accountability'). The early anabaptists (and if one wants to refer to the Dutch as a separate group, the 'baptism-minded') clearly based their belief of "believer's baptism" on this understanding of Scripture. (I understand Romans 5 in this vein.) (A fellow Bible translator believes that the children of 'pagans' are NOT saved if they die in childhood, only the children of believers, because of the text that talks about the children being sanctified by their parents. But I do not understand it this way personally. None the less, it is imperative that those of us who know the way to God tell those who have never heard.)
I come out at pretty much the same place as it relates to children not needing to be saved until they reach the 'age of accountability'. But, a question I always come up against when carrying this thinking a bit further is - what about adults who have never heard of Jesus or have never comprehended their own rebellion against God? Have they reached the 'age of accountability'? And if they haven't, why bother to tell them about Jesus?
This is a good question. Does missionary work condemn some to hell, or of those who still reject salvation after hearing the message of the Gospel in an understandable way (in their language and in culturally significant context), does it possibly send them to a more severe punishment than they would have endured if they had never heard? To the latter, I would say yes, it does. Their greater knowledge makes them more culpable.
I'm not sure if you have the mentally limited person in mind - that is where this question also often comes up. What does the 'age of accountability' mean in that case? I'm glad that God is the one to decide this, but I have noticed that people with this limitation seem to exhibit the same kind of response to God as we see in children as 'child-like faith'. But regarding those who are mentally capable of understanding, I would say that while a person MUST know about Jesus the Christ in order to have saving faith, he or she does not need to know specifically about God or Jesus in order to realize his or her own sinfulness. An illustration of consciousness of sin in the pre-Christian beliefs of the Banawa (the Amazon tribe with whom we lived) is the strict rules their culture had in place to protect marriage - men not being allowed to look at or speak to women not closely related to them. This type of morality is common in the cultures of the world. I think it is evidence of the law of God written on the human 'heart', or as the Banawa put it, the 'inner part of the voice', which we back-translate as 'innermost'. (It is the seat of emotion and thought.)
0 x
Congregation: Gospel Haven Mennonite Fellowship, Benton, Ohio (Holmes Co.) a split from Beachy-Amish Mennonite.
Personal heritage & general theological viewpoint: conservative Mennonite Brethren.
Post Reply