|
Post by logic on Sept 30, 2010 19:42:42 GMT -5
I would like some help in my study. I am refuting substitutionary (vicarious) Atonement. My view is that the Atonement is "Representary"; in that Christ did not die "in our place as us", but He died as a symbol of our judgment; He died so we dont have to. Just as the bronze serpent on the pole which Moses lifted up in the wilderness, when we look upon Jesus as Israel looked upon that serpent we acknowledge the death which He suffered as what we deserve because we are worthy of such judgment; condemning ourselves before God, it is as we are justifying God in His judgment concerning us. God enforced His law with the atonement without the need for justice. John 3:14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up. Looking upon the serpent in the wilderness is actually admitting ones own sin, confessing to be worthy of & accepting the just punishment. To look upon Jesus is equivalent.
If God truly forgives us, then He cannot make Jesus our substitute, otherwise He would be getting what He is owed & receiving His due justice which is contrary to what forgiveness is.
My question so far is: What is the Old Testiment sacrifices pupose? What does "he bore our sin" mean? (sin cannot be transfered)
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Oct 1, 2010 17:27:27 GMT -5
I think we could say figuratively that Christ died in our place and figuratively bore our sin. Sin said "God doesn't matter, neighbor doesn't matter, only I matter" - so God needed to provide a counteracting influence to this destructive lie. Eternity in hell says "Jokes on you. God does matter, neighbor does matter." So we ought to suffer in hell as a counteractive influence against our sins. But God gave Jesus up to suffering as the counteractive influence instead of us. His suffering is not identical to what our suffering should have been. But he suffered instead of us. He bore the suffering needed to counteract the lie of sin when we deserve to bear that suffering.
If God was not obligated to provide this counteractive influence then it seems like he would just pardon everyone because he is so merciful. I think God would be willing to lay down his own honor to pardon all sinners. But if God doesn't provide a counteracting influence against sin then it would make it seem like he said "ok, I don't matter, your neighbor doesn't matter, just be selfish, whatever" - I don't think God is concerned about getting his payment or whatever. He is just ruling with mercy and justice. Justice because he provided the counteracting influence to sin. Mercy because he provided the influence at his own expense.
Does that fit with your understanding at all?
I've been wondering about the OT sacrifices also. Ministry of condemnation. Reminder of sins. Could not forgive sins. Purifying of the flesh (not conscience). Shadow. Tutor.
Some sacrifices were for post-partem bleeding and stuff like that right? It's not even a sin.
|
|
|
Post by sandra386 on Oct 5, 2010 20:55:10 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by tjcxjonz on Dec 29, 2010 11:54:22 GMT -5
"It is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. Rom. 2:13 A law has been added to the law after the fact of Jesus' crucifixion that has increased the sin of his crucifixion, illegally taking his life by bloodshed, to the level of unilateral accountability. Therefore righteousness is only imputed to the individual that correctly obeys the law that has been added to the law. "The law was added (after the fact of Jesus' crucifixion) so that the trespass (of his crucifixion as a sin) might increase." Rom. 5:20 Also note: " For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law. " Heb. 7:12 I think this is enough to refute the lie of substitutionary atonement and all of its variants. The crucifixion of Jesus is the sin of murder caused by bloodshed and since it is a sin it cannot be a direct benefit for anyone.
|
|