Nature of the Atonement

God, Christ, & The Holy Spirit
Post Reply
User avatar
look2jesus
Posts: 180
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2008 10:18 pm
Location: Mesa, Arizona

Re: Nature of the Atonement

Post by look2jesus » Tue Oct 12, 2010 2:07 pm

Homer,
You wrote:And this is not even considering sins of ignorance. There are situations where we do not truly know God's will for us and fail to meet His expectations. This too is sin.
I agree with most of what I see you posting but I just came across this statement today and it struck me as untrue. I know that the High Priest would offer sacrifices for the sins of the people committed in ignorance, but I'm thinking that might be applicable only in the Old Covenant context. I'm thinking of the scripture that says, something to this effect: "For him who knows to do good and doesn't do it, to him it is sin." Just curious if you have someway of backing that up. Sorry for throwing this out there...didn't mean to interrupt the main thread going on here. Thanks,

l2j
And it is my prayer that your love may abound more and more, with knowlege and discernment...Philippians 1:9 ESV

User avatar
Homer
Posts: 2995
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: Nature of the Atonement

Post by Homer » Tue Oct 12, 2010 5:45 pm

Hi l2j,
"There are two causes of sin. Either we don't know what we ought to
do or we refuse to do what we know we should. The first cause is
ignorance. The second is weakness" (Augustine of Hippo).
You are certainly correct that the Law made explicit that sinful actions are sin even though done in ignorance:

Leviticus 5:17-18 (New King James Version)
17. “If a person sins, and commits any of these things which are forbidden to be done by the commandments of the LORD, though he does not know it, yet he is guilty and shall bear his iniquity. 18. And he shall bring to the priest a ram without blemish from the flock, with your valuation, as a trespass offering. So the priest shall make atonement for him regarding his ignorance in which he erred and did not know it, and it shall be forgiven him.


And to me the clear implication of what Paul wrote to the Colossians says that there are sins of ignorance under the Law of Christ:

Colossians 1:9-10 (New King James Version)

9. For this reason we also, since the day we heard it, do not cease to pray for you, and to ask that you may be filled with the knowledge of His will in all wisdom and spiritual understanding; 10. that you may walk worthy of the Lord, fully pleasing Him, being fruitful in every good work and increasing in the knowledge of God;



Perhaps you misunderstand me when I say that we sin in ignorance and you are thinking that God will hold us accountable for these sins. Under the Law when a person became aware of his sin(s) committed in ignorance, he was required to bring an animal to the priest to sacrifice for his sin. As I understand it, when we sin in ignorance we are covered by Jesus' sacrifice - it has already been done. "There is no condemnation for those in Christ Jesus". That does not mean when we become enlightened and recognize our ignorance, that we do not need to admit our mistake and repent of it.

I will give you a rather common example of a sin of ignorance. Gossip is a sin, and a very destructive sin at that. How many of us can say that we have not committed this sin in ignorance, before we truly understood what it meant, or even after, in a careless moment that we forgot? I know I have. In the past I was unaware of what gossip really is. Dallas Willard has defined it as saying something about someone not present which causes the person you are talking to to have a lower opinion of the person you are talking about. I think Willard is correct, and how many Christians can say they are not guilty of this? Their ignorance does not make it not sinful. If we define for ourselves what is sin by what we know, then we determine what is sin, not God.

My apologies if I misunderstand what it is about my statement that strikes you as untrue.

God bless, Homer
Last edited by Homer on Tue Oct 12, 2010 8:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: Nature of the Atonement

Post by Paidion » Tue Oct 12, 2010 6:14 pm

Homer wrote:According to my theological dictionary, in classical and OT Greek lutron denotes the means or money for a ransom.
Did you ever consider that this might have been a derived meaning, or a later meaning? As we know, language evolves. We see the English language evolving significantly right before our eyes and ears. For example, throughout my life, "unique" meant "one of a kind". Indeed, virtually every English dictionary still gives this meaning. But how many times have you heard people say "very unique" or "more unique than" or "somewhat unique". Obviously, that which means "one of a kind" cannot be qualified. But so many peoples' qualification of the word, seems to make it a synonym for "unusual".

I say, that word which are derived from other words by reason of the same root, carry that roots meaning in some way. Though an author may use the later altered meaning, he may also use the word in its original sense as well. Another example in Greek is the word "ἀφιημι". One of the basic meanings of the word is "to depart" or "to leave". It can also mean "to send away". However, it evolved to mean "forgive", perhaps with the thought of responding to repentance by sending away or allowing to depart any requirement of the part of the offender to atone or make up for his sin. Indeed, I think in some cases when the NT writers used the word in connection with sin, they meant "forsaking" or "leaving" sin, rather than "forgiving" sin. Certainly not in all cases. They clearly used it as forgiving sin as well.

When one one pays a ransom, one is using money to loose a person from being held, or perhaps a person who is in slavery. It is easy to see how the word came to be used in this way. But does it follow that it is always used in this sense?

When we read that Christ "gave His life as a "λυτρον" in the context of his serving others rather than in the context of his death, the writer may well be using "λυτρον" in the sense of "loosing", since this sense makes sense. How could giving His life in that way be a ransom?

Even in 1 Timothy 2:6, where the translation "ransom" would make sense, one can still see it as "a means of loosing".
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

Apollos
Posts: 164
Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2009 10:52 pm

Re: Nature of the Atonement

Post by Apollos » Tue Oct 12, 2010 7:12 pm

Homer wrote: According to my theological dictionary, in classical and OT Greek lutron denotes the means or money for a ransom. Are you saying that by dying for us Jesus performed no service for us?
Yes, I can't find any example where the word doesn't convey the idea of a payment.
Last edited by Apollos on Thu Dec 08, 2011 11:26 am, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: Nature of the Atonement

Post by Paidion » Tue Oct 12, 2010 9:43 pm

According to Abbott-Smith's Manual Lexicon of the New Testament, the verbal form "λυτροω" means "to release on receipt of ransom". However, the authors also point out that this verb is used in the general sense of "deliver". (May I suggest the synonym "loose"?) They refer to Exodus 6:6, Psalm 68(69):18 and Luke 24:21 as examples of this general sense.
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

User avatar
look2jesus
Posts: 180
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2008 10:18 pm
Location: Mesa, Arizona

Re: Nature of the Atonement

Post by look2jesus » Tue Oct 12, 2010 10:59 pm

Homer,

I agree with everything you said in your response. I guess it seemed that there might be a difference between sinful actions, such as gossiping, as you mentioned, that one might be ignorant of and failing to fulfill God's will because you are ignorant of what that is. Of course, if we are ignorant about God's will, it's certainly possible that that would equate to a failing on our part to do what is necessary to discern his will for us, but I don't know. That's the part of your statement that I was questioning. Thanks for your answer, however.

l2j
And it is my prayer that your love may abound more and more, with knowlege and discernment...Philippians 1:9 ESV

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: Nature of the Atonement

Post by Paidion » Sat Oct 16, 2010 10:38 am

In another thread, someone wrote:
In the October 15 entry of My Utmost for His Highest, Oswald Chambers speaks of the propitiation of Christ Jesus - that is, "His sacrifice for us that completely satisfied the wrath of God."
A child in Sunday School heard such words nearly every Sunday. Finally, he spoke out:
Okay! Now I get it. Jesus died to save us from God!
Most proponents of this view of the atonement wouldn't put it that way, but doesn't the child's comment somehow reveal the flaw in the propitiation view? Doesn't that view depict the character of God as that of a cruel ogre who would send every sinner to eternal torture if it were not for the fact that Christ appeased Him through His sacrifice and thereby satisfied God's wrath? Is God's character really like this? Will his anger against injustice be averted by watching wicked men torturing His beloved Son to death?

However, I suppose we shouldn't be surprised that this concept persists. That the wrath of an angry God or gods or evil spirits can be averted by the sacrifice of animals or people, has been the belief of most cultures throughout the thousands of years that mankind has populated the earth.
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

steve7150
Posts: 2597
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 7:44 am

Re: Nature of the Atonement

Post by steve7150 » Sat Oct 16, 2010 3:30 pm

satisfied God's wrath? Is God's character really like this? Will his anger against injustice be averted by watching wicked men torturing His beloved Son to death?



Re "wrath" does'nt scripture say God's anger is temporal?

"For his anger endures but a moment" Palm 30.5
"I am merciful says the Lord, and i will not keep anger forever" Jer 3.12
"He retains not his anger forever because he delights in mercy" Micah 7.18

So the atonement "propitiation" is not for satifying his "wrath" as far as i see but it is for satifying something else, justice IMHO.

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: Nature of the Atonement

Post by Paidion » Sat Oct 16, 2010 6:17 pm

So the atonement "propitiation" is not for satifying his "wrath" as far as i see but it is for satifying something else, justice IMHO.
Okay, let's consider your humble opinion as it might apply to a human situation. Suppose you are a man with two teen-ages sons. You have house rules for which there are consequences ---- unpleasant consequences if they break them. One son always follows the rules. But your other son just broke a rule big time. The curfew rule is 11 P.M., and he didn't come home until 4 A.M. It would certainly be "just" to punish him big time. But then your good son says, "Please punish me instead and let my brother off." If you do that, would your sense of "justice" in the situation be satisfied. One aspect of "justice", perhaps the most basic aspect is "fairness". Would punishing your good son in place of the other be just and fair? If you did it, would you feel that justice had been done?
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

steve7150
Posts: 2597
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 7:44 am

Re: Nature of the Atonement

Post by steve7150 » Sat Oct 16, 2010 6:35 pm

Would punishing your good son in place of the other be just and fair? If you did it, would you feel that justice had been done?






Obviously not unless the good son had somehow been responsible for the disobedient son's behavior, that would be the only exception.
I think Isaiah 53 explicitly says Jesus died for our sins yet it says Jesus was a "righteous servant" so why would he take our punishment?
As i've mentioned before since Jesus is a part of God at least IMO, the result is God sacrificed a part of himself to himself to pay for our sin debt therefore the only reason i can imagine for this scenerio is because God is in part responsible for man's sin because God created man to be spiritually weak from the beginning and He meant for man to fall. In fact if Adam had passed the test God may have tested him again and again.
The reason i believe is because we must experience evil to get where God wants us to go.

Post Reply

Return to “Theology Proper, Christology, Pneumatology”