- This topic is empty.
- Posts
In Forum » SKEPTICS PLACE » About Faith » The insanity of atonement I had an interesting conversation with Stu about atonement and the various understandings about what various Christian religious establishments teach about it. I told him my current hypothesis.
I wrote:
Quote Jesus sacrificed himself that believed in him should receive the Spirit of God. He stated as much when he told his students if he did not go then the Spirit of God would not come to them.
Those that live by the Spirit of God will not sin thus fulfilling the condition that leads to forgiveness.
Atonement most likely means “To reconcile or harmonize” which is an obsolete definition according to thefreedictionary.com since you cannot give anything that was not his due in the first place.
Thus one who lives by the spirit atones for their sins.
Stu wrote:
Quote My Concise Oxford has a specific term “the Atonement” which it defines as “the expiation by Christ of mankind's sin”. In turn, “expiate” means “to pay the penalty for”.
However, I do understand there are many different ways of interpreting a word that literally means “at-one-ness”.
All the following copied from the relevant Wikipedia pages:
Moral influence theory of atonement
The moral influence view of the atonement teaches that the purpose and work of Jesus Christ was to bring positive moral change to humanity. This moral change came through the teachings and example of Jesus, the Christian movement he founded, and the inspiring effect of his martyrdom and resurrection.
Recapitulation atonement
In the recapitulation view of the atonement, Christ is seen as the new Adam who succeeds where Adam failed. Christ undoes the wrong that Adam did and, because of his union with humanity, leads humankind on to eternal life (including morality).
Substitutionary atonement
The term Christus Victor refers to a Christian understanding of the atonement which views Christ's death as the means by which the powers of evil, which held humankind under their dominion, were defeated.
Drawing primarily from the works of Anselm of Canterbury, the satisfaction theory teaches that Christ suffered as a substitute on behalf of humankind satisfying the demands of God's honor by his infinite merit
[Ransom theory] claimed that Adam and Eve sold humanity over to the Devil at the time of the Fall; hence, justice required that grace pay the Devil a ransom to free us from the Devil's clutches. God, however, tricked the Devil into accepting Christ's death as a ransom, for the Devil did not realize that Christ could not be held in the bonds of death. Once the Devil accepted Christ's death as a ransom, this theory concluded, justice was satisfied and God was able to free us from Satan's grip.
Penal substitution is a theory of the atonement within Christian theology, developed with the Reformed tradition. It argues that Christ, by his own sacrificial choice, was punished (penalised) in the place of sinners (substitution), thus satisfying the demands of justice so God can justly forgive the sins.
Governmental theory of atonement
The governmental theory teaches that Christ suffered for humankind so that God could forgive humans apart from punishment while still maintaining divine justice.
Limited / unlimited atonement
Limited atonement states that Jesus Christ's substitutionary atonement on the cross is limited in scope to those who are predestined unto salvation and its primary benefits are not given to all of humanity but rather just believers.
Unlimited atonement states that Jesus died as a propitiation for the benefit of mankind without exception.
I think it reasonable to say that Dawkins has not misrepresented christianity, but rather there are christians like yourself who dissent from the interpretation he claims is immoral. He is probably criticising the Anglican view of his youth, and fair enough given it is the established church of his country, and a significant denomination of the US where his book is popular. And I’m sure there are trinitarians who would argue that you and others here are Arian or Adventist in their views, and could quote scripture that they claim negates those views. Indeed scripture is dangerously ambiguous. Just look at the trinity thread: did you ever see a forum thread run to over 10,000 posts?
So I learn about your position, sounding as it does like “Jesus paved the way”, perhaps most similar to moral influence and recapitulation views above. Is that fair?
But I think it contradicts:
Matthew 20:28 Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.
Matthew 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
John 1:29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.
1 Timothy 2:3-6 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.
Hebrews 9:13-15For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh: How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.
1 John 2:2And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.
(Propitiation unquestionably being “appeasement”)Please note that when I wrote “The one who lives by the spirit atones for their sins” I should have probably wrote the context, which I assumed was self-evident, since my hearer may not have the same understanding. The context is that one is reconciled to God through the self-sacrifice of Jesus the Anointed and his resurrection from the grave. It is in this way one receive the Spirit of God. At this point you have a choice to accept the reconciliation or refuse it by either living by the Spirit or not.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
