Atonement? - Page 2

Scott Hutchinson · #11 10-02-2009, 05:52 PM

My friend I haven't forgotten about this I am studying this out,and I'm learning new things,you have provoked to study,and I thank you for it.

Scott Hutchinson · #12 10-02-2009, 07:12 PM

In OT. primarily sacrifice for sins,means atonement for people because of their sins rather than atonement on behalf of their sins.Most of the OT. passages on atonement,are for the people of Israel either as individuals or collectively.
Atonement is clearly a work of God and not man.

Primarily the objects of atonement in the OT.are a people of God,but the means of atonement vary Goats,sheep,birds were used as well as ransom money were used.
Leviticus 16 is a interesting chapter to read on the subject.

An imperfect High priest cannot offer a true sacrifice,the blood of bulls and goats cannot pay truly for the offensive of human sin or substitue for the shedding of human blood.

Scott Hutchinson · #13 10-02-2009, 07:13 PM

I'll try to have some more later.

Scott Hutchinson · #14 10-02-2009, 07:47 PM

This is of interest to this topic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmvU1TeV1-M

jfrog · #15 10-02-2009, 11:22 PM

Very interesting Scott. That was one of the better teachings of the governmental theory of atonement that I have heard. Though, I never have been very impressed with the idea. But it is a large step forward from claiming that Christ atoned by paying our price. In fact, it seems to eliminate most if not all of the dilemmas I proposed about Christ paying our price by taking that out of the picture and nicely reconciling the idea of him dying in our place as a type of substitution and sacrifice which actively brought about forgiveness of sin. In short, this idea should be all that I'm looking for, but for some reason it still doesn't sit right with me. Give me some time to get back to you on exactly why that is though.

Scott Hutchinson · #16 10-07-2009, 10:14 AM

The blood of bulls and goats could never take away sin,Jesus came to give His life as a ransom for many.
Jesus brought God to men and men to God through His vicarious sacrifice and in reconcilation.
Christ came to be a propitation or an appeasement of God's wrath through His sacrifice as a sin offering.

jfrog · #17 10-07-2009, 08:24 PM

Scott, The video you posted earlier actually said that Christ's sufferings were vicarious but not in the sense of appeasing God's wrath. It said they were vicarious in that it was him instead of us, but instead of wrath it was explained that some punishment had to be enacted because God's law was broke. So, by Christ taking on himself the pain and suffering of the crucifixion, this allowed God to show that there were consequences for breaking his laws and because this had been shown, then the punishment for sin could be pardoned. Notice how there is no wrath here. Notice how Christ did not take eternal punishment as we would have for breaking the law, but instead took a different punishment in place of us. Notice how this is still Christ dying in place of us. That is what the video you posted was saying.

As I said the other day, I still have issues with this idea, those issues are with the idea of vicarious sacrifice. Every time that I read Ezekiel 18 I see God's forgiveness. Whether that chapter means he forgave without sacrifices in the old covenant or not I'm not entirely sure. But even if it was with sacrifices, the forgiveness of God was still present. So, to me what Christ's sacrifice accomplished that the blood of bulls and goats could not, was the putting away of sin; not the forgiveness of it, but literally freeing us from sinning.

So the question must be asked, Did the blood of bulls and goats and the blood of Christ both act vicariously? That is, was it really those sacrifices in place of us? Or was it more of them for us? I'll have to think more on this question, it is the one I am still struggling with. If you have any thoughts though, feel free to let me know.

Scott Hutchinson · #18 10-07-2009, 08:29 PM

Friend you have me looking into this subject myself,of course if one lived prior to calvary the OT. testament sacrifical plan of sins being rolled ahead to the following year was the best thing they had going,but now we have a once for all sacrifice this side of the cross.

There is no more sacrifice to come,because the blood of Christ is an all sufficient sacrifice.

Scott Hutchinson · #19 10-07-2009, 08:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfrog

Scott, The video you posted earlier actually said that Christ's sufferings were vicarious but not in the sense of appeasing God's wrath. It said they were vicarious in that it was him instead of us, but instead of wrath it was explained that some punishment had to be enacted because God's law was broke. So, by Christ taking on himself the pain and suffering of the crucifixion, this allowed God to show that there were consequences for breaking his laws and because this had been shown, then the punishment for sin could be pardoned. Notice how there is no wrath here. Notice how Christ did not take eternal punishment as we would have for breaking the law, but instead took a different punishment in place of us. Notice how this is still Christ dying in place of us. That is what the video you posted was saying.

As I said the other day, I still have issues with this idea, those issues are with the idea of vicarious sacrifice. Every time that I read Ezekiel 18 I see God's forgiveness. Whether that chapter means he forgave without sacrifices in the old covenant or not I'm not entirely sure. But even if it was with sacrifices, the forgiveness of God was still present. So, to me what Christ's sacrifice accomplished that the blood of bulls and goats could not, was the putting away of sin; not the forgiveness of it, but literally freeing us from sinning.

So the question must be asked, Did the blood of bulls and goats and the blood of Christ both act vicariously? That is, was it really those sacrifices in place of us? Or was it more of them for us? I'll have to think more on this question, it is the one I am still struggling with. If you have any thoughts though, feel free to let me know.

Either way you look at it,without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sin,if one is not in a justified state before God,they are considered a sinner and the wages of sin is death.
If one is in a unregenerate state before God they are lost,and there is a punishment for the wicked.

jfrog · #20 10-07-2009, 08:53 PM

Hebrews 9:25 - 10:4 says that the sacrifices of bulls and goats could not make anyone perfect, but that the sacrifice of Christ could because it took away sin. That is the sacrifice of Christ made us free from sin, that is why it only needed offered once. The blood of bulls and goats could never make us free from sin so they were offered continually. At least that's how I'm reading that passage.

As far as the shedding of blood being necessary for forgiveness... i'll have to think on that verse some more.