Especially since that doctrine is more based on St. Augustine’s reliance on a Vulgate mistranslation of a key passage in Romans than it is on what Paul actually wrote. Deep and venerable pedigree to go back that far, to be sure. But a falsehood is still a falsehood no matter what fancy robes get draped around it.
2 Likes
Throughout Christian history, there has been no clear agreement on the meaning of the atonement phrase, “Jesus died for our sins.” At least a dozen theological interpretations have developed over time to explain how atonement works, and many theologians including C.S Lewis affirm that no one interpretation has been singled out as the only valid viewpoint.
During the middle ages, one perspective originated by Anselm of Canterbury in 1099 AD did become predominant and is still doctrine in many churches today. It is often referred to as the Substitution Atonement Theory. Substitution Atonement is the proposal that Jesus stood in our place to bear God’s Wrath toward us because we are sinners. Through the sacrifice of Jesus, God’s sense of honor is preserved and therefore God can forgive our sins. This theory was later modified by replacing the idea of God’s “honor” with the concept of God’s “holiness” and “justice”.
Therefore, within the medieval code of honor and shame, power and retribution, it was determined that because we sin, a price needed to be paid. This payment was to restore God’s honor, protect God’s holiness against our sin, and fulfill God’s punitive demands of the Law. This price needed to be paid by Jesus because he was a sinless unblemished sacrifice.
Unfortunately, Anselm and others didn’t consider the harsh implications of this theory. Substitution Atonement presents an image of God the Father who is only interested in sin, and reduces salvation to a one-time legal transaction based on a physical sacrifice of Jesus, the Son. It also implies that God is petty, offended by human nature, and unable to love and forgive without payment and retribution. Frankly, who wants to spend eternity with a god like that?
The image of God presented in the Substitution Theory differs sharply with the image of Jesus as Emanuel or “God with us”. Jesus, himself, does not teach that his mission was to receive in our place the wrath of God who is angry about our sin. Jesus showed compassion for sinners and was only displeased with people who did not think they were sinners. Jesus even healed people through the forgiveness of their sin. This theory also contrasts with God’s grace as revealed through Jesus. Authentic forgiveness does not need to be bought or paid for. This is a form of works and not Faith. Only forgiveness through Grace can accomplish deeply transformative healing.
Sacrifice expressed religious energy and was fundamental to ancient Near Eastern religious expression. It is understandable why New testament writers were drawn to the theme of sacrifice in their efforts to convey meaning to the death of Jesus on the cross. There are many references to blood (at least 18 verses) in reference to Jesus. The New Testament is filled with metaphors regarding the concept that “Jesus died for our sins” such as: atonement, a ransom being paid, a defendant going free, a battle won, a final sacrifice being offered, and others. These descriptions use common legal and Temple sacrificial symbolism that would have made sense to Jewish audiences at the time they were written. Most of this scripture is a means to express that Jesus now embodies and fulfills the Law and the functions of the Temple, including the Temple sacrifices.
The Bible is clear that God is full of grace and does not need sacrifices. Throughout the Bible there are numerous texts where God establishes his disinterest in sacrifices when compared to the desire for love, justice, and for us to abide humbly within the will of God.
Scripture describing atonement achieved through sacrifices which emphasizes the importance of the Temple come from the Priestly source of writers. However, blood is not the only way ancient Israel achieved forgiveness. In Deuteronomy and the Prophets, importance is not placed on sacrifice but “repentance”; from the Hebrew root sh-u-v, “to turn, return” to God. So, repairing a relationship with God is possible through repentance; turning away from sin and towards a right relationship with God. This understanding of achieving through atonement through repentance continues after the Temple’s destruction in 70 AD.
The concept of an animal’s life replacing a human life for punishment is not evident in the Bible. The text closest to describing this is Leviticus 17:11, “and the precise meaning and translation of the verse are uncertain” (Zvi Bettler). This verse, as explained in The Torah published by the Union for Reform Judaism, “The sacrificial blood has expiatory power.” Expiation is the act of making amends and extinguishing the guilt incurred by something; not a punishment. To the Hebrews, this is achieved through blood because of its special power. “The soul resides in the blood.” and “Blood was a powerful and dangerous agent, endowed with uncanny, super-natural potencies.” (The Torah, Union for Reform Judaism). This is why blood is used in a ritual context, but forbidden to be consumed.
The purpose of the Jewish sacrifices was not to appease an angry God. Appeasement of the gods is a pagan concept. The purpose of the Temple sacrifices was to provide a way for people to spiritually relate to God through a physical and tangible act. The intention of the people in having the sacrifices performed was to draw themselves closer to God. The Hebrew word translated as “sacrifice” is “Korban”. The root “karev” means to "draw close”.
The word “atonement” comes from the Hebrew word kaphar which means “to cover over”. Through atonement sacrifices, sin and impurity are covered and cleansed. In offering a sacrifice, an offender’s sin is covered and cleansed allowing for their relationship with God to be renewed as with a clean slate. In other words, forgiveness is achieved.
Today, Christians as well as Jews accomplish forgiveness through prayer and repentance rather than animal sacrifice. Atonement is given particular attention through our Christian Prayer of Confession each week during our Sunday worship service. As Christians, we believe that what was once accomplished through the Temple is now achieved through Jesus, and therefore we are now forgiven and drawn closer to God through Jesus as the Christ. Sin is defined as anything that separates us from God. Because Jesus as the Christ brings us to unity with God, sin is defeated.
5 Likes
Welcome to the forum, Robert. What a good summary of the work done by Jesus on the cross! I would agree that no one metaphor is adequate to describe it, and our understanding is finite and limited.
Wait, you don’t believe there’s an eternal punishment for the lost, a Lake of Fire for those not written in the Book of Life?
Why is that? Haven’t you read James 2? Have you never ever heard in church someone say along these lines, “Yeah, my sister says she’s a ‘Christian,’ this is what she SAYS, but she (1) rejects the deity of Christ (2) rejects she’s a sinner (3) is a universalist, etc. etc…please pray for her, I believe she’s lost, I’m concerned for her soul…” You never ever heard people in a church express concern for loved ones who CLAIM they are Christians, but have the wrong beliefs?
When the Lord Jesus quoted Scripture to the Pharisees, did He not assume they would take it as literal?
Or, is it the more correct belief HIs position was, “Oh yeah! Sorry fella’s! That bit about the virgin birth, and Noah’s ark, and references to God’s Wrath, and that the Messiah would be God himself - yeah, that was meant to be a metaphor! Why are you folks taking these SOOOooo literal? I mean, really now? What’s wrong with you guys?”
When the Lord Jesus quoted Scripture, did He quote these as literal, or not?
And thanks for the links to his testimony. I read the one and listened to the other.
So…there was no specifics.
Did Dr. Collins, perhaps, “ask Jesus into his heart”? Did he weep over his sin and say “Thank you, Lord that I was baptized as an infant, and it was there…”?
Did he, as he was walking through a forest, and noticed the birds and the animals, say to himself, “My, what a beautiful, sunny day! I think today would be a good day to be a Christian…yeah! That’s a good idea…I’m… a Christian now!”
Or did he bow the knee, and over great concern that he was headed toward God’s Wrath, said “Lord, I know I’m a sinner! There is nothing, NOTHING, I could ever do to be meritious in Your sight! And that Jesus died for me!! He took my place, He sacrificed Himself on my behalf - Lord, I trust in Him as my Savior!!”
Just wondering. He said he was “converted,” but didn’t mention what happened.
Was wondering if that’s available.
Perhaps one day he’ll graciously say what happened.
I think you’ve misunderstood what I wrote. There’s no evidence Dr. Collins is like Ravi Zacharias, or that there was a comparison between the two.
However, my concern is that Dr. Collins is placed on a pedestal - by others - just like Zacharias was.
I say this, because already people have demonstrated their offense when I ask “Can anyone tell me Dr. Collins’ conversion story?”
Their answer, in a nutshell, is, “How dare you even ask!”
See what I mean? Although thank you for clarifying that ‘no one is afraid of Dr. Collins.’ Seems like a likeable fellow, I’d like to meet him, but I reject the premise “Yes, you can meet him, but you dare not ask him any questions!”
The issue isn’t Dr. Collins, its those who go nuts when I ask what he believes.
Of course not. Why would I? I believe Jesus does what He says on the tin. That he is the Elect. Messiah. Christ. Chosen. Who saves. All. In His faithfulness, not our placist broken feeble work of faith. In whom we all died on the cross and were all resurrected and all ascended to the Father in Heaven.
So, some answers here.
The Holy Spirit through Paul talks about those who have The Law (the law of Moses) written in their hearts even though they never read or heard of it. This is what condemns them (Romans 2:12-16)
But, where there is no law, there is no violation (Romans 4:15).
Even for Gentiles, who did not have law, have a conscience, and is a law into itself. But sin is not imputed where there is no law (Romans 5:13), however death did reign from Adam (a’hem)…from Adam (a’hem)…to Moses (Romans 5:14).
So, for a clarification, and thanks for the question because I have to fine-tune what I write with better precision, but people are Born Sinners (thanks to Adam), but God’s wrath does abide on them since sin is imputed to them.
Although babies are born sinners, “where there is no law, there is no imputation of sin,” since they don’t have a conscience. They will, eventually, however.
And David did say, concerning his and Bathsheba’s first son, “He cannot come to me, but I will go to him.” David knew he would see is dead son in Paradise.
Hope this helps in understanding. If you think I’m wrong, please let me know.
Who? Where? Two of us have given you three instances.
Wait, then you believe Jesus was in error, was mistaken, or perhaps purposely lied?
What do you think of these Bible passages?:
John 3:36, “He who believes in the Son has eternal life, but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but THE WRATH OF GOD abides on him,”
Luke 3:7, “You brood of vipers, who warned you to flee the WRATH to come?”
…is it your belief that someone added to these Greek text here, presuming that Jesus didn’t lie and made stuff up?
Do you believe it possible, possibly, that this is a scribal error, or that Jesus never said this, that the Bible is Not God’s word, or…how would you answer these passages?
I think, in fact I know, that those are utterly inadequate translations. What do you think? And know?
So its your understanding that a Neanderthal family had the first human male, and another Neanderthal family had the first human female, and apparently they lived really close to each other on planet Earth since the first two humans somehow met?
But “God did not reach out to them (the Neanderthals)” - they didn’t have The Law written in their hearts as per Romans 2:14?
Do you have a Bible verse to show that God “did not reach out” to these Neanderthals? Or that it was Adam & Eve who had The Law written in their heart when the Neanderthals did not?
Please explain, what do you mean by “God did not reach out to them”? Is there a verse for this? Can you back this up with Scripture?
And thanks for your patience!
Revelation 20:15 says “Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of Fire. This is the second death, the lake of Fire.”
Also, Revelation 20:10 says “And the devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of Fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are also, and they will be tormented day and night…forever and ever.”
So, you believe there is a literal lake of Fire, for the false prophet, the Antichrist and also the devil? Where they will remain for the rest of eternity?
I see. So, how would you interpret these verses?
Psalm 58:3; The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray from birth, speaking lies.
Romans 5:12; Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned
Romans 5:19; For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were MADE sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous.
Psalm 51:5; Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.
Thanks ahead of time!
Two of you had given instances who took offense you mean? Or links to his conversion?
I think you meant the latter.
But I communicate on youtube also, people have taken offsense when I asked about Dr. Collins conversion story.
So when the Lord Jesus referred to the “wrath of God” - these were improperly translated?
You mean the Greek was wrong, or the Greek was right but the translation was wrong?
Is there a better translation of John 3:36, and Luke 3:7?
Of course there are. How can the Greek be wrong? Apart from the whole problem of who wrote it when. I’m more than happy to deal with the process English translation of the Greek translation of Jesus’ Aramaic speech; give the text the benefit of all doubt.
Please help me understand your position here, Dayrc. So, those Jews who come to faith in the Lord Jesus, in that He died for sins, are saved from their sins, since they’ve entered into union with Him and receive even the glory of Christ? (2 Thess 2:14).
Well now - looks like we’re on the same page!
But is the original autographa, the Greek text - God breathed? The Holy Spirit is the final Author of the Greek as Paul and the other writers wrote the Scriptures?
Here is the Greek wording of John 3:36, tail end;
“ouk opsetai zoen all he orge tou Theou menei ep auton”
(rendition: “not will see life but the wrath the of God abides on him”)
Greek wording of Luke 3L7, tail end;
“phygein apo tes mellouses orges”
(rendition: “to flee from the coming wrath”)
Well, there’s the Greek. If you’d be willing to give a better English rendering, I’ll take a read.
Thanks for your patience!
You did not make that clear, you appeared to be saying that was happening here. It wasn’t. I fundamentally disagree with Dr. Collins and hold him in the highest regard as a man who answers according to faith. There is no risk that I could put him on a pedestal. He and BioLogos in his image are worthy, honourable interlocutors who allow me to express my disagreement. I push back here hard and expect ‘them’ to do the same. We - that’s better - are united in a dialectical, phenomenological enterprise here. I need ‘them’ and they need the likes of me. We need us. So OK, I put ‘them’ on a pedestal level with my own. We are on the same level. Yours seems to be a tad higher.