Apologetics about Substitutionary Atonement

[RedFan]

Please read my post above. I appreciate your explanation on why Jews did not built sanctuaries to perform animal sacrifices, if "without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sin".

If I may . . . that's an easy one. The sacrifice at the Temple in Jerusalem, presided over by the High Priest, was deemed representational for all Jews. No need for separate, disparate mini-sacrifices throughout the Diaspora.

 

[Johann]

Is David appealing to a substitute? How sure is David that God can blot out his transgressions by asking Him to do it with a "broken and contrite heart"?

Context and Historical Background
Old Testament Sacrificial System:

In the Old Testament, particularly in Leviticus and Exodus, God instituted a sacrificial system where animal sacrifices were offered for the forgiveness of sins (Leviticus 17:11).
Blood represented life (Leviticus 17:14) and was considered necessary for making atonement for sins (Leviticus 16:11).
Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur):

On this annual Jewish holiday, the high priest would enter the Most Holy Place and sprinkle blood on the mercy seat to atone for the sins of the people (Leviticus 16:15-16).
New Testament Fulfillment
Jesus as the Ultimate Sacrifice:

Hebrews 9:11-14: This passage explains that Christ, as the high priest of a new covenant, entered the Most Holy Place once for all by His own blood, securing eternal redemption.
Jesus' sacrificial death on the cross is presented as the fulfillment and completion of the Old Testament sacrificial system (Hebrews 9:23-28).
Theological Implications:

Atonement: Jesus' shedding of blood on the cross serves as the ultimate atonement for sin, satisfying God's justice and reconciling humanity to God (Romans 5:8-11).
Forgiveness: Through His blood, Jesus provides forgiveness of sins for all who believe in Him (Ephesians 1:7, Colossians 1:14).
Exegetical Insight
Literal Meaning:

The statement "without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sin" emphasizes the necessity of a sacrificial offering to atone for sin, as established in the Old Testament and fulfilled in Christ.
Christological Focus:

The shedding of Jesus' blood signifies His sacrificial death as the Lamb of God (John 1:29), fulfilling the requirement for forgiveness and redemption (Hebrews 10:10).
Continued Relevance:

This principle underscores the foundational importance of Christ's atoning work on the cross in Christian theology, highlighting the centrality of His sacrifice for salvation (1 Peter 1:18-19).

The phrase "without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sin" encapsulates both the historical context of the Old Testament sacrificial system and its fulfillment in the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ. It underscores the theological principle that forgiveness and atonement require a perfect sacrifice, pointing ultimately to the redemptive work of Christ on the cross for the forgiveness of sins and reconciliation with God. This understanding forms a cornerstone of Christian doctrine regarding salvation through faith in Jesus Christ.

You have it backward.

 

[GTW27]

Jesus didn't teach that sort of prayer.
He taught us to say
And forgive us our debts,
as we forgive our debtors.

Blessings Pancho! I pray The Lord's prayer as well. But there are many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. John 21 vs25. Sometimes the things that I write do not make sense at the time they are written. Now look back at the analogy of the man standing outside the city of the great King. Also look back at the man standing between the two trees. Truly I tell you the tree on the lefts side has the imitation fruit of every kind. This is the enemies doing as after all it is a battle for souls. Even the faith that is behind your faith is an imitation. Picture yourself for a moment as a young shepherd boy in a cave. And there appears to you an Angel. He gives you words that are amazing. And you believe he is the Angel sent from God. He then tells you to write them down. His words are music to your ears and taste like honey to your lips. I tell you truly these same words will become bitter to you soul. The Bible says to be careful as even satan can appear as an angel of light. And thus the reason for your challenge.
Yes Jesus shed His Blood for you and me for the forgiveness of sins. He took our place and the punishment that we deserve. This will not be taken out of The bible. As He has said, heaven and earth may pass away, but My Words will never pass away.

 

[RedFan]

The statement "without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sin" emphasizes the necessity of a sacrificial offering to atone for sin, as established in the Old Testament and fulfilled in Christ.

When considering other paths to forgiveness of sin in the OT, including Exodus 30:11-16 (paying money), Leviticus 5:11-13 (burning flour by the poor), or more generally, 2 Chronicles 7:14, Psalm 40:6, Psalm 51:16-17, Isaiah 1:11, and similar verses suggesting that the Lord does not delight in burnt offerings, there are several possible ways to react. One is, of course, to conclude that the author of Hebrews 9:22 just got it wrong. Another is to strain to reinterpret the verse. And a third is to contextualize the OT “exceptions” as non-exceptions due to special circumstances, express or implied.

This doesn't work with NT teachings on forgiveness without the shedding of blood. The obvious leading candidate is in the Sermon on the Mount, right at the end of the Lord’s Prayer, where Jesus is quoted as saying “For if you forgive others their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you” (Matt. 6:14).

 

[Matthias]

“… our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.”

(1 Peter 3:15-16, LSB)

@Pancho Frijoles this will be a hard pill for you to swallow. From what you’ve said, I think it’s gotten to the point where you are so entrenched in your non-Christian thesis that you’ll spit it out.

Peter is giving his brothers in Messiah instruction. He is warning his fellow Christians - those living in his day and those living beyond his day - about what Baha’i (but not only Baha’i) do.

When you say to the Christian that he doesn’t understand the Bible you are saying to the Christian that - because it it contains some things which are hard - he has misunderstood, he is untaught and unstable, that he is (unintentionally and unknowingly) twisting the scriptures, and you (the taught and stable one) will teach him what the correct understanding of scripture is.

Your novelty, apparently, is that you don’t see their mishandling (from your perspective) of scripture as leading to their (ultimate) destruction.

 

[CadyandZoe]

I open this thread after consultation with @Angelina.
The purpose is to provide my Christian brothers and sisters an opportunity to rehearse a defense of the doctrine of substitutionary atonement.

I will be presenting the following thesis:

God does not need a substitutionary atonement to forgive sins.
God used the concept and practices of substitutionary atonement as a didactic tool to meet specific ends at specific times. This is why it appears in the Bible.

It will be important to stick to the topic. Let's remember that by Forum policy we cannot discuss the Trinity or deity of Jesus. Otherwise the posts or the thread will be deleted (please see full policy in the sticky thread).
Whatever our understanding of the nature of God and Jesus, the topic here is whether God needs a substitutionary atonement to forgive our sins.

I support my proposition in these arguments

A. Jews don't believe and never believed that God needed animal sacrifices in order to forgive their sins.

A1. In the Old Testament, there are clear instances in which God forgives sins without requiring animal sacrifices, or even talking against the value of animal sacrifices.​

A2. Human beings commit sins almost every day. However, before Christ, the Jews never bothered to build sanctuaries in every village or city they lived in, especially those far from Jerusalem, in which animal sacrifices could be made.​

A3. Human beings commit sins almost every day. However, after the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD, Jews never bothered about building any other sanctuary with the same purpose. Today, Jews don't believe that animal sacrifices are needed to be forgiven.​

B. Although Jesus main mission was to save men, He didn't present substitutionary atonement as a requirement for salvation.

B1. Less than 0.001% of the verses of the Gospels, whose content was selected to believe in Christ and be saved, contain any reference to substitutionary atonement. In the 3 verses that refer to it, it is not presented as a required belief to have sins forgiven.​

B2. There are several clear declarations of Jesus on the topic of how God forgive sins. None of them presents substitutionary atonement.​

B3. There is no single instance in which Jesus requires such belief to a person who comes to Him to be healed or forgiven.​

B4. In none of the accounts of direct interaction between Jesus and his apostles after crucifixion and before ascending to heaven, Jesus asks them to teach substitutionary atonement to enable the remission of sins.​

B5. After Pentecost, the apostles do not preach substitutionary atonement as a requirement for the remission of sins.​

C. Once Paul enters into history, references to substitutionary atonement intend to keep united the church in the face of the Judaizing issue.

C1. Judaizing converts wanted new converts from Gentile background to make the trip to Jerusalem, among other practices.​

C2. By believing that Jesus occupies the place of the ancient lambs, both groups of converts unite around the love of Christ. So, an old symbol (which was external and divisive) is replaced by a new symbol (which is internal and unifying). A similar thing happens around at least two other symbols: circumcision and Sabbath keeping.​

​

​

​

I agree with your thesis. Would you like to discuss the specifics of your argument also?

 

[CadyandZoe]

God does not just forgive people

His justice demands a payment for sin, Its why he sent his son

Why payment?

 

[CadyandZoe]

I'm confused. I thought these forums were for Christians only- that's what it says.

Not all Christians affirm the substitution theory of The Atonement.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Once Paul is introduced, accepted and acknowledged as teaching substitutionary atonement, the case is made that Jesus teaches substitutionary atonement. It is essential to salvation. Case closed.

But where in Paul's teachings do we find the concept of substitutionary atonement? This is a question that remains open for further exploration and discussion.

 

[RedFan]

But where in Paul's teachings do we find the concept of substitutionary atonement? This is a question that remains open for further exploration and discussion.

Paul’s letters present Christ’s death as representative rather than substitutional (precisely what we would expect from a rabbi steeped in the sacrificial tradition of Israel). 2 Cor. 5:14’s “one has died for all, therefore all have died” (as opposed to “therefore all did not need to die”) suggests this view. Rom. 8:3’s “sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the just requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us (as opposed to “might be fulfilled for us”) who walk not by the flesh but by the spirit” suggests it. Gal. 2:20’s “I am crucified with Christ” (as opposed to “Christ is crucified in my stead”) suggests it.

I have no doubt that when Paul wrote “For I delivered to you first of all what I myself received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures” (1 Cor. 15:3), he was relating the teachings of Christ then in currency. Similar teachings were eventually recorded in Matt. 20:28 and Mark 10:45: “The Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many” – but the gospels’ use of the preposition ἀντὶ (translated as “for”) has the connotation “instead of.” By contrast, 1 Cor. 15:3 uses ὑπὲρ (also translated as “for”) – which has the connotation “on behalf of.” Even 1 Tim. 2:6, the only other instance of a “ransom” analogy anywhere in Paul’s letters, uses ὑπὲρ. Never once does Paul use ἀντὶ.

The subtle difference between substitutional atonement (“Christ took my place, so I didn’t have to die”) and representational atonement (“Christ died, and I died with him”) does not get us all the way home. But it's a start.

 

[Matthias]

But where in Paul's teachings do we find the concept of substitutionary atonement? This is a question that remains open for further exploration and discussion.

The point was conceded by the OP. His thesis is that it was only taught (by the church?) to protect the church from the Judaizers.

He is presenting a Baha’i perspective.

 

[Matthias]

Not all Christians affirm the substitution theory of The Atonement.

Christianity is fractured.

 

[GodsGrace]

Christianity is fractured.

I'm Christian and don't know about you since you don't specify.
But I'll have to agree with you on this.
And I do not wish to derail....

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Why payment?

Sun comes at a cost. The price must be payed. That’s redemption

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

If I may . . . that's an easy one. The sacrifice at the Temple in Jerusalem, presided over by the High Priest, was deemed representational for all Jews. No need for separate, disparate mini-sacrifices throughout the Diaspora.

I find your answer brilliant. You hit the nail on the head.
The sacrifices were not destined to forgive individual sins. They were representational of a relation between God and a specific nation, Israel. That's why Jonah didn't ask Ninevites to go (or send a delegation to) the Temple in Jerusalem to offer animal sacrifices.
The Jews (at least most of them) understood that rituals were not required for God to forgive human beings, and were part of the special relationship between YHWH and them as a nation.

Every single Jewish man and women committed sins every day, and they needed to repent and get forgiveness from God.
Yet, they didn't go to bed in panic, thinking God would not have forgiven them until they did the representational act at the far away city of Jerusalem. They understood that God didn't need those sacrifices to forgive them.

If the sacrifices at the Temple were representational of all Jews as a nation, the sacrifice of Jesus in the cross is representational of all humankind. In Christ, Jews and Gentiles are united. They can search God without resorting to a symbol of national/ethnic identity.

 

[PS95]

@Pancho Frijoles do you see a connection between the bodily resurrection of Jesus (which you reject) and substitutionary atonement (which you reject)? If so, will you be including that in your argument against substitutionary atonement? If not, are you planning to start a separate thread against the bodily resurrection of Jesus in the Christian Apologetics Forum?

In other words, will you be appealing to the Gnostic Christians in your argument?

This Bahai religion sounds a lot like the Jehovahs witness religion. Why does that not surprise me?!

New World Order sort of stuff.

 

[GodsGrace]

This Bahai religion sounds a lot like the Jehovahs witness religion. Why does that not surprise me?!

New World Order sort of stuff.

The Bah'ai religion is not like the JWs.
It has nothing to do with World Order.

It happens to be a very nice religion but I can't remember too much about it.

Seems to me that they don't put God in a box like we Christians love to do.
They practice what they preach more than we do.
And, they even LIKE us Christians!
As they do most religions that worship God Father - the Creator of the universe and God of all.

 

[GodsGrace]

The second parable told by Jesus explicitly to address God's forgiveness is the Prodigal Son.
As we know very well the story, this time I will introduce a change in how the parable ends... I would like you to see how the parable would have looked like if Jesus had wanted to teach that God needs a substitutionary payment in order to forgive.

When he came to himself, he said, ‘How many of my father’s hired servants have an abundance of bread, and here I am perishing with hunger! I will arise and go to my father, and I will say to him, “Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you. 19 I am no longer worthy to be called your son. Make me like one of your hired servants.” ’ So he arose and came to his father.

“But while he was yet far away, his father saw him and closed the door of the house, because he was angry as his young son had squandered the estate that He had given.

You haven't replied to at least 2 of my posts to you so it's difficult for me to know what you believe....
your reply would have helped me.

However,
your change in the Prodigal Son parable refers to the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement.

You're referring to a different theory which I'm not sure you've identified.

The older son was in the field, and when he saw his Father angry, He approched Him and said: "Father ,why don't you receive my brother" and the Father said "There is a debt that your brother must pay. That is what justice requires. The estate he squandered was my creation."
Upon hearing this, the older son said to his father: "Please open the door to my young brother. I will work every single day to earn back the value of the estate he squandered. Treat me as if I was your servant."

The questions here are

Why does the Father accept the prodigal son without asking for any repair, any payment? Actually, why does Jesus presents the Father throwing a party, which implies further expense from the Father, rather than some recovery of what is due?
Why doesn't Jesus present someone (the older son, for example) as offering his life to pay the price? Indeed, why does Jesus present the older son as disappointed with his Father attitude towards his brother?

The answer to the above is because the Prodigal Son was saved BEFORE.
Jesus said the Prodigal Son has been found AGAIN....
This means he was saved
lost
saved again.

Anyway, another human cannot pay for anyone's sins.
The Lamb of God had to be unblemished such as the lamb in Exodus 12.

 

[PS95]

The Bah'ai religion is not like the JWs.
It has nothing to do with World Order.

It happens to be a very nice religion but I can't remember too much about it.

Seems to me that they don't put God in a box like we Christians love to do.
They practice what they preach more than we do.
And, they even LIKE us Christians!
As they do most religions that worship God Father - the Creator of the universe and God of all.

Sorry. That wasn't clear to me. You don't know much about Bahai, but they are a nice religion?
They definitely have some gnostic teachings like Jws do. That was my point.

 

[GodsGrace]

Sorry. That wasn't clear to me. You don't know much about Bahai, but they are a nice religion?
They definitely have some gnostic teachings like Jws do. That was my point.

I can't know everything about every religion!
But I know that theirs is a good religion.
They're able to take the best from each one and appreciate each one for the good in it,
we tend to debate about doctrine all day long and forget about the big picture:
That God is a big God and cannot be 100% understood, but only what He has revealed of Himself.

The Bah'ai believe that God has revealed Himself in different ways to different peoples and at different times in history.
This makes a lot of sense to me.

I don't know of any gnostic teachings of the JWs.
If you do, it would be interesting to know.

I surely don't believe the Bah'ai have gnostic beliefs.
Mabye they're just more accepting of a very big God...and how He reveals Himself.