CadyandZoe
Well-Known Member
Original Sin teaches us that you and I are guilty of a sin that Adam committed. Romans 5:12 argues, to the contrary, that we are guilty of the sins we committed -- for everyone sinned.
Apologetics about Substitutionary Atonement
- Thread starter Pancho Frijoles
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Wrangler
Well-Known Member
If that were true, the experts would have known the Anointed one when they saw him.
Do you mean that God hadn't revealed to people how their sins would be forgiven and how they could live a righteous life?
What is the Old Testament all about, then?
Those who opposed Jesus did it because of their evil works. That is clear in the gospels.
Well, after the flood, your are right for sure!
But the issue is still there.
- People already knew for centuries before Christ that they could not meet the divine standard with their own power.
- Righteous people already existed, and no person can be declared righteous without the grace of God.
Therefore, God didn't need to await centuries to make us aware of that. The essence of salvation has always been known.
The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and a contrite heart, O God, You will not despise. (Psalms 51:17)
He forgave any Hebrew who came with a contrite heart, because that's what God does.
God mercy is eternal, according to Scriptures. So, God mercy existed during the captivity in Egypt, and before that, as long as humans had needed God's mercy.
Do you believe that God started to accept broken and contrite hearts only by the time Psalm 51 were written?
Very good observation, my brother.
The idea Jews had about afterlife was more a collective view, as a nation. They were more concerned about their descendants, the generations to come, more than in the fate of their individual soul in the Sehol.
Resurrection (and the fate of individual soul) started to be a concern or religious concept, after contact with Zoroastrianism during the exile in Babylon. That's why the book of Daniel contains that reference you mention. Jews who returned to Israel to rebuild Jerusalem brought with them ideas like heaven, hell, angels, demons, Satan, Final Judgement and Resurrection, as interpreted by Zoroastrian priests of the time plus their own adaptation of those concepts to Judaism. Then came the Greeks with their particular conceptions of soul.
By the time of Jesus, some Jews believed in a physical, literal resurrection (following the teachings of the Pharisees) and some not (following the teachings of the Saducees). The kind of resurrection that Pharisees believed in was so literal, it seems, that led to the question of who would "own" a woman who had been married to different men. They thought not only that people resurrected in flesh, but in mind and with all societal characteristics. To me, the wise answer of Jesus points out to the spiritual meaning of the resurrection, but that would perhaps be the subject of other thread.
Last edited:
Wrangler
Well-Known Member
The 10 Commandments only reveal your sin. It condemns you and offers no permanent means to address sin.
Wrangler
Well-Known Member
You keep saying this but it is not true. Being in open rebellion against God is hardly complying with requirements for salvation.
Wrangler
Well-Known Member
For sure, repentance is a requirement but you are prematurely ending the story there of blood required to cover the debt of sin:
- OT: sacrifice for each sin
- NT: one sacrifice for all time
Well, the psalmist is ending the story there.
Jesus is ending the story there, in 3 of his parables and in the Lord's prayer, when explicitly addressing the subject.
Jesus is ending the story there, when He forgives and heals people without asking any blood or belief in blood atonement.
So, I am not ending prematurely this story. The story ends there.
This is what mercy is all about. God forgives our debts, as we forgive our debtors.
We would forgive Dr Steinmann, the dentist that first deceived us into an unnecessary dental procedure to charge us more money. We would forgive him regardless of his religion. We would not prolong the story asking him what he believes about a substitutionary sacrifice. We would also end the story there.
Now, Does God forgive Dr Steinmann?
If so, how?
If not, are we more merciful than the All-Merciful?
Last edited:
I'm not referring to people with open rebellion against God, Wrangler.
I'm talking about those who came to God with broken, contrite heart.
You're right.
The purpose of the Ten Commandments is only to reveal our sin.
The purpose of repentance is to address sin, and there is no such a thing in the Bible like a "preliminary forgiveness" or "ad interim mercy".
The sinner is not put "on hold" until a sacrifice is made centuries later.
When God forgives, He forgives. Period.
Isaiah knew it very well, even after the chapter 53 had been written.
Gods speaks through Isaiah saying:
Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts; and let him return to the Lord, and He will have mercy upon him, and to our God, for He will abundantly pardon. (Isaiah 55:7)
Last edited:
Wrangler
Well-Known Member
No. You are ending the story there, taking it out of context.
Hebrews 9:22
English Standard Version
22 Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.
Israelites knew that the mercy of God did not require shedding of blood. The author of Hebrews, who you are quoting, knew it. He admits: "For it is not possible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins." (Hebrews 10:4)
If Israelites had believed that blood was literally required to forgive sins, they would have built hundreds if not thousands of sanctuaries not only in Israel but all over the world to perform animal sacrifices. Why didn't they do it?
Please reflect on the implications of what you are saying. If blood atonement is essential, then
- God forgot to mention such an important element in Genesis, upon the Fall of Man.
- God forgot to mention such an important element in several Psalms that address directly the issue of forgiveness.
- God forgot to demand Ninevites to shed blood of animals, or believe in a future substitute, so that He could forgive them.
- God forgot to ask Isaiah to slaughter a lamb, when forgave his sins in the temple by touching his lips with a live coal.
- God forgot to speak through Jesus in the Parable of the King and the debt of the servant, the Prodigal Son, and the Pharisee and the tax collector, which directly addressed the topic of forgiveness. Those were wonderful, and yet wasted opportunities to present substitutionary atonement.
- God forgot to inspire Jesus to include a clause of blood atonement in the only prayer that was going to be recorded for eternity
- God forgot to tell Jesus that, before healing or forgiving any sinner who approached Him, He had to remind him of the critical importance of shedding blood. So, all four gospels failed to record such an essential requirement when they had a chance to do it.
- God forgot that Jesus' reason to come to the world was not described in Isaiah 41, but in Isaiah 53, and that´s why He led Jesus to open the Book of Isaiah in the wrong place and then state that He had been sent to do what Isaiah 41 said.
- God forgot to tell the apostles during Pentecost, through his Holy Spirit, that they should ask the multitude not just to repent, but to rely on the substitutionary atonement of the Messiah they had just crucified.
- God forgot to inspire Paul, when addressing the people of Athens, to tell them they should believe in a blood atonement.
- God forgot to inspire Paul to include a still higher number of references to Sabbath, eating rituals and circumcision... so that centuries later, you would not be confused about the problem Paul was addressing with the Judaizing and their demands on Greeks.
- God forgot to warn us that we shouldn't forgive any person who does not believe in the blood atonement of Jesus (like our dentist Dr Steinmann), so that we don't end up showing more mercy than Him.
Last edited:
Nobody in this forum has even dared to address "The Paradox of the Jewish Dentist".
My friends:
A theology that can't address a scenario of the daily life, in a crucial matter, such as mercy and forgiveness, is a useless theology.
A theology that places man above God in his capacity to forgive, is a dangerous theology.
You, as Christians, can value the infinitely precious sacrifice of Jesus, and make it an example of obedience and love, without resorting to the doctrine of substitutionary blood atonement as requisite for forgiveness. Visualizing Jesus on the cross keeps inspiring you to become One with Christ and with your brothers.
My purpose in this thread has been to provide you an opportunity to rehearse your apologetics skills and in the process, realize that God is infinitely more merciful than we can imagine.
Your mercy, O Lord, is in the heavens, and Your faithfulness reaches to the clouds. (Psalms 36:5)
God bless us all.
My friends:
A theology that can't address a scenario of the daily life, in a crucial matter, such as mercy and forgiveness, is a useless theology.
A theology that places man above God in his capacity to forgive, is a dangerous theology.
You, as Christians, can value the infinitely precious sacrifice of Jesus, and make it an example of obedience and love, without resorting to the doctrine of substitutionary blood atonement as requisite for forgiveness. Visualizing Jesus on the cross keeps inspiring you to become One with Christ and with your brothers.
My purpose in this thread has been to provide you an opportunity to rehearse your apologetics skills and in the process, realize that God is infinitely more merciful than we can imagine.
Your mercy, O Lord, is in the heavens, and Your faithfulness reaches to the clouds. (Psalms 36:5)
God bless us all.
Last edited:
Similar threads
