Atonement model?

Christian ethics and theology with an Anabaptist perspective
Fidelio
Posts: 620
Joined: Fri Aug 23, 2019 9:57 pm
Location: Near Detroit MI
Affiliation: ACCA Friend

Re: Atonement model?

Post by Fidelio »

Neto wrote:
GaryK wrote:
Neto wrote:
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.)
For infant baptism, the UOJ doesn't count because they say one has to grasp it, so by baptizing the baby they believe God gives the baby faith and so now the baby would become a member of the church (just like the Catholics say) and would have faith. They even have a ceremony where the sponsors or parents give testimony and renounce the Devil on the baby's behalf. Strange.

I figure those who are mentally retarded simply never reach the age of accountability and so are considered with the children. Those who are believing adults, if they get brain damage and can no longer understand, I would think that God would judge them based on their state before they were mentally incapacitated. As for adults who have not specifically heard the Gospel, seems that they have no excuse as Romans 1:20 says, "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse."
0 x
Convert to Anabaptist truth early 2019; now associated (friend) with the Apostolic Christian Church of America.
Sudsy
Posts: 5928
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2017 3:32 pm
Affiliation: Salvation Army

Re: Atonement model?

Post by Sudsy »

Fidelio wrote: As for adults who have not specifically heard the Gospel, seems that they have no excuse as Romans 1:20 says, "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse."
I've often heard this text as the main or perhaps only text used for those who have never heard the Gospel.

And what do Christians actually think this is saying ? Is it that a simple recognizing that there is a creator God by observing creation, they will be saved ? For them, it isn't Romans 10:9-10 or John 3:16 ?

And also those who have never heard the Gospel as explained in the NT, would include all the OT folk. This is often explained using Romans 4 that faith in God is what saved them. All people who are saved are only saved if they are 'credited by righteousness', the righteousness of Jesus. I have heard this - 'OT saints were aware of the promised Redeemer, and they were saved by faith in that Savior, the same way people are saved today.' And this is often referred to by a statement of Job.

I have my thoughts on this but since this Romans 1:20 was brought up, I would be interested in other's thoughts here and also wonder if it has a negative affect on evangelism ? In other words, even if I don't share the Gospel of the NT, people are still able to be saved by recognizing the creator God.
0 x
Pursuing a Kingdom life in the Spirit
Neto
Posts: 4641
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 5:43 pm
Location: Holmes County, Ohio
Affiliation: Gospel Haven

Re: Atonement model?

Post by Neto »

Fidelio wrote: Ransom? To whom? God does not owe the Devil anything. In fact, he trod upon the devil (crushed his head).
I have always felt that there is some deep-seated ‘something’ wrong with the idea that God was somehow buying us back from the Satan when he sent his only Son to die as a sacrifice on the cross.

Something about that just dawned on me as I was walking home for lunch to day. Now I have always been a proponent of using the whole Bible, not just the New Testament, but if you all are NT-Only (or even Red Letter Only) people, just please hear me out.

Jesus is portrayed in the Gospels and in the Epistles as The Lamb of God. That’s straight out of the Law. So relating that to the idea of being ‘ransomed’, should we be thinking of the ransom paid – a pure lamb – to ‘redeem’ a first born son? ‘Redemption’ is another way of saying ‘buy back’. But back to the deal about the Satan. There is absolutely nothing in the Law that even remotely suggests any kind of sacrifice that relates in any way to the Satan. Nothing. But both Jesus & the Apostles (including Paul, whom some would like to throw out) consistently used the Law & the Prophets to teach and illustrate the truth about Jesus. Why did Jesus himself use the ‘Scriptures’ to teach the two on the road to Emmaus about himself – He who is Truth ‘Itself’?

But another sort of sacrifice (other than that of a first born son) came to mind as well – the cases where God told the people to ‘utterly destroy’ a city or people. This was a special kind sacrifice to God, and there was absolutely no provision for ANYTHING or ANYONE to be redeemed out of it. Condemned to utter destruction. That is how it is with us, in our sin & sinfulness. We are doomed, condemned to utter destruction. But perhaps God diverged from the Law on this, that he made a way for us, who, I again repeat, are doomed to utter destruction, a way for us to be ransomed. The sacrifice of His Own Son to redeem the unredeemable. (I don’t know if I’m right or wrong on this, but I’m in tears here folks.)
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 »

Perhaps the ransom part has to do with delivering us from under the burden of the law:

"But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons." Galatians 4:4-5

"But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter." Romans 7:6
0 x
Convert to Anabaptist truth early 2019; now associated (friend) with the Apostolic Christian Church of America.
Sudsy
Posts: 5928
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2017 3:32 pm
Affiliation: Salvation Army

Re: Atonement model?

Post by Sudsy »

Being redeemed to me is a picture of us in a state of slavery to sin. God bought us back or paid a ransom to get us out of this slavery state, not to buy us from satan but out of a state where we couldn't buy our own way out. He gave us choice to accept this gift He paid for us. We in turn chose to become slaves again but this time slaves to righteousness. Being a slave is not a bad state when you are as Paul said 'slaves of Christ' and paradoxically we are free.
0 x
Pursuing a Kingdom life in the Spirit
Fidelio
Posts: 620
Joined: Fri Aug 23, 2019 9:57 pm
Location: Near Detroit MI
Affiliation: ACCA Friend

Re: Atonement model?

Post by Fidelio »

One thing that has been on my mind of late is the Penal Atonement Theory in the form that says that Jesus, when he was on the cross, suffered all the eternal punishment in Hellfire for all mankind. Here is an example from the national website of the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (of which I was a member since about 1988):
SOURCE: https://wels.net/faq/the-saving-works-of-jesus/

"Because we also deserved punishment from God for not living perfectly as he demands, Jesus suffered that punishment in our place (Galatians 3:10-13).

"On the cross, Jesus suffered what amounts to hell: he was punished for sin and forsaken by God (Matthew 27:46). Rather than suffering eternally, the eternal punishment all people deserved was compressed into a few hours of suffering on the cross."


Now where did they get that "compressed eternal punishment" from? None of the verses they cite for these statements provide support for their statements. I find this very common throughout their catechism too.

So I have a proposition for anyone who wishes to respond:

Show me where the Bible says that Jesus suffered eternal punishment in Hellfire for all mankind.

Frankly, I don't think there is any Bible text to support this. But I do find the Bible full of statements that the blood of Jesus Christ cleanses us from all sin. As for me, I am sticking with the blood.

”In forgiveness, God turns from His wrath. Forgiveness is not the satisfaction of His wrath. ”
Source (I did not watch their video, so do not endorse the webpage):
https://bjorkbloggen.com/2013/03/15/the ... of-christ/
0 x
Convert to Anabaptist truth early 2019; now associated (friend) with the Apostolic Christian Church of America.
AnthonyMartin
Posts: 1191
Joined: Thu Jun 13, 2019 8:52 pm
Affiliation: LMC

Re: Atonement model?

Post by AnthonyMartin »

Here's a take on "made to be sin" that I found meaningful. Seemed to have some applicability to this discussion.

Full disclosure, this is my blood brother.

[video][/video]
0 x
Judas Maccabeus
Posts: 4027
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2016 11:13 am
Location: Maryland
Affiliation: Con. Menno.

Re: Atonement model?

Post by Judas Maccabeus »

joshuabgood wrote:What is "true theology?"

Is it Piper and Mohler's reformed theology?
Not even close. I am a bit surprised you didn’t name Wayne Grudem here, as he is the reformed theologian these guys would go to.

When they start spouting things like limited atonement and regeneration prior to faith you have lost me, throughly unbiblical, yet totally necessary for their system to work. All systematic theology is not like this.

J.M.
0 x
:hug:
silentreader
Posts: 2514
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2016 9:41 pm
Affiliation: MidWest Fellowship

Re: Atonement model?

Post by silentreader »

Judas Maccabeus wrote:
joshuabgood wrote:What is "true theology?"

Is it Piper and Mohler's reformed theology?
Not even close. I am a bit surprised you didn’t name Wayne Grudem here, as he is the reformed theologian these guys would go to.

When they start spouting things like limited atonement and regeneration prior to faith you have lost me, throughly unbiblical, yet totally necessary for their system to work. All systematic theology is not like this.

J.M.
https://www.internationalstandardbible. ... ology.html
0 x
Noah was a conspiracy theorist...and then it began to rain.~Unknown
Judas Maccabeus
Posts: 4027
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2016 11:13 am
Location: Maryland
Affiliation: Con. Menno.

Re: Atonement model?

Post by Judas Maccabeus »

silentreader wrote:
Judas Maccabeus wrote:
joshuabgood wrote:What is "true theology?"

Is it Piper and Mohler's reformed theology?
Not even close. I am a bit surprised you didn’t name Wayne Grudem here, as he is the reformed theologian these guys would go to.

When they start spouting things like limited atonement and regeneration prior to faith you have lost me, throughly unbiblical, yet totally necessary for their system to work. All systematic theology is not like this.

J.M.
https://www.internationalstandardbible. ... ology.html
Yes, I have seen this in print form. It is not reformed IMHO.

J.M.
0 x
:hug:
Post Reply