Christians, change my mind: the more I think of substitutionary atonement, the less it makes sense.

[coconut theology]

then He should be dead forever

The wages of sin is death. Jesus died. The price was paid. The only way Jesus could live again, were if He could resurrect Himself. The only reason that people who die in their sins (in the 2nd death to come) cannot come back, is they have no life in themselves to be resurrected, otherwise if there were, they could live, for they had died (payed the
price for their sins, in death).

be separated from God forever or be in hell right now being tortured forever

Again, please see the previous video material. There is no eternal torture in all of scripture. It is a blasphemy against God to teach that a just, merciful and loving God would do such a thing. It has never entered into God's mind, and God tells us so in the word.

but supposedly He's not, so again, how exactly was my eternal punishment paid for?

Wages of sin is death. It is only eternal because you have no eternal life from which or by which to bring yourself back from.

3) How is it just for an innocent person to pay for the sins of a guilty person?

It is just, because Jesus willingly took our sins upon Himself, and willingly gave us His innocence in return. It was an exchange of record, and of life.

2Co_5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.​

Jesus was guilty of our sins by having voluntarily taken our sins upon Himself. The guilty died. The innocent lived. This is just.

Justice demands that the guilty pay for their own crimes.

This is true, in that the 'old man of sin' does not escape, and is killed by crucifixion, and is buried:

Gal_2:20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

Gal_5:24 And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.

Rom 6:1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?
Rom 6:2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?
Rom 6:3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
Rom 6:4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
Rom 6:5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:
Rom 6:6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.
Rom 6:7 For he that is dead is freed from sin.
Rom 6:8 Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him:​

The sinner never gets to go free. The sinner dies on death row by execution for high treason. The only person that walks free is Christ.

It is not that Jesus walks into the cell of the condemned and simply trades places. No. An entire change of Person/Character is done. I am to become like Christ (Ephesians 4:15), starting out as a babe and growing step by step, learning obedience in God's grace.

People who teach that Jesus just simply swaps places, and there is no complete change of characters, have not understood the first thing of the Everlasting Gospel, neither the power of the grace of God, nor of the price paid.

if an innocent person does so then it's not justice

Again, there was no innocent who died. It was the guilty that died.

since the person guilty of the crime is not facing the requisite punishment for their actions.

Yes, they do, as noted above.

4) If you're a trinitarian

I am not, as it is false theology (as commonly defined, see Trent), and incoherent logically. I am one who believes what scripture says of Godhead, in regards the Persons/Beings of the Father, of the Son and of the Holy Ghost/Spirit.

how is it that God through Christ can be separated from Himself

That is a confusion of the Two Persons/Beings. Jesus is Deity/God (by nature), but not the Person/Being of the Father, who is Deity/God (by nature). The Person/Being of the Son was separated from the Person/Being of the Father and was truly "alone":

Isa_63:3 I have trodden the winepress alone; and of the people there was none with me: for I will tread them in mine anger, and trample them in my fury; and their blood shall be sprinkled upon my garments, and I will stain all my raiment.

Heb_1:3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

Psa_22:1 To the chief Musician upon Aijeleth Shahar, A Psalm of David. My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? why art thou so far from helping me, and from the words of my roaring?

Mat_27:46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

Mar_15:34 And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?​

 

[coconut theology]

or die yet be alive at the same time

Deity (nature) cannot die, and is immortal, eternal, Life itself (1 Timothy 6:16; John 1:4, 5:39; 1 John 1:2). Mankind (nature) is not immortal and is subject (by sin) to death. That which died is humanity (nature), not Deity (nature).

Joh_10:17 Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again.
​

or face eternal torture yet not face eternal torture at the same time?

No such thing scripturally as eternal torment, see above evidence, and much more if needed.

Rom_6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.​

5) If substitutionary atonement is the only just way for sins for sins to be paid then why does God punish people for their own sins ...

Not all accept the gift offered in the Son. Those who have accepted the gift, suffer the consequences of their choices. God does not take away consequence of transgression of the Law. For instance, you decide to spurn God's warning and test/tempt God, and jump off a bridge and fall 100 feet and break your legs and back, that was your own fault, not God's. God corrects those who are God's children as a faithful Father. God is not hovering over us to pounce upon us when we sin. He allows us to experience the results of transgression that we might learn from those mistakes. God is always looking to save:

Joh_3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

Heb_12:8 But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bast.ards, and not sons.
​

and how can it be just for a person to pay for their own sins after they're judged by God when only an innocent person can pay for the sins of the guilty and the guilty can't pay for their own sins?

This is not true. The guilty can pay for their own sins (Leviticus 16:10; scapegoat is satan), but cannot live afterwards. The penalty for sin is death. If you want to pay this you can. Yet since you have no eternal life in you, you will remain dead forever (2nd death), though you will have paid for your own sins, having rejected the blood of Jesus who died to pay for them instead.

6) If the Fall actually happened ...

Look around you, do you really doubt that mankind is not fallen? Do you see anything getting better, or rather is it as scripture says, waxing worse and worse.

then haven't we all already faced our just punishment by being condemned to live on this fallen planet with all the suffering and evil that it has?

No, because the wages of sin is not living in misery. The wages of sin is death, with torment up to that time.

Why the double jeopardy of hell or everlasting death or separation from God in the afterlife if God already perfectly punished us for our sins in the Garden of Eden?

There is no double jeopardy here. You also have a confusion of the word "hell" as used by scripture, but never the less, the sinner who dies in the 2nd death will remain dead forever, oblivion. They refused the gift of the Son (Genesis 3:15). The thing of it is, it (the life of the Son) is called a "gift". A gift must be accepted, since God is love, and God cannot force it upon anyone. Though a ransom was found in the volunteering of the Son, and provided the escape, you must personally take that way of escape. For instance, in the days of Noah, God provided the plans and means to escape the judgment of the Flood - the Ark. So too, then in the greater reality did God provide the plans and means to escape the greater judgment in His Son - the Ark (Psalms 40:8).

7) How can Jesus have been fully human and fully God

No man on earth can explain the mystery of Godliness. It takes Deity to understand it. We can only accept it by faith in that what God told is true, and God cannot lie and promised.

Php 2:6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
Php 2:7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
Php 2:8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.​

... if being human entailed being a fallen being, with a sinful nature, who's guilty of sins and deserves eternal punishment when Jesus was supposedly a perfect being who was the complete opposite of that? How was Jesus even human at all?

Sin is not "being". Sin is the "transgression of the Law" (1 John 3:4). Jesus took upon himself the likeness (actuality) of sinful (fallen) flesh, but to have sinful (fallen) flesh is not to be a sinner. (anything else is the teaching of anti-Christ, 2 John 1:7). To be a sinner, one must have transgressed the Law of God. Jesus showed that by the Holy Ghost, it is possible to have fallen flesh and be sinless, and thus by His strength we too can be like He was in the flesh we have.

Rom_8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:​

Notice what scripture says:

Joh_3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.​

Jesus was born of the Holy Ghost/Spirit, but whose human flesh (law of flesh/heredity of nature) is of a fallen women and of the seed of David according to the flesh (see the Genealogical lines also in Matthew 1 and Luke 3):

Luk_1:35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

Gal_4:4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,

Rom_1:3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;​

Some of the questions may sound the same but they are not if you read them carefully... will be interested to hear responses, thank you.

I pray that these responses were helpful to you, and clarified that which you had questions about. Feel free to ask follow up questions.

Feel free to study more here:

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

2) How does spending three days in Hell or dead, whichever interpretation you hold to, pay for an eternal punishment of death, separation from God or torture? If Jesus were to pay for my sins and take my place, then He should be dead forever, be separated from God forever or be in hell right now being tortured forever but supposedly He's not, so again, how exactly was my eternal punishment paid for?

This idd never made any sense to me either.

When I asked christians (which I acknowledge isn't necessarily representative of all christian views), I got "explanations" like "he sacrificed his life".

But what did he really sacrifice? He's an immortal being... If I sacrifice something, then I'm giving something up and thus won't be getting it back. Otherwise it's just a "loan" or whatever.

"ow, he sacrificed his human body"
Ok, but he's all powerfull... couldn't he make a trillion more bodies with but a snap of his virtual fingers?

The whole thing is obvious nonsense.

3) How is it just for an innocent person to pay for the sins of a guilty person?

Uhu......

Imagine a courtroom and you get sentenced to life. The judge says "but you know what, I'll send my son instead, you can go free". Nobody would call that "justice".

5) If substitutionary atonement is the only just way for sins for sins to be paid then why does God punish people for their own sins and how can it be just for a person to pay for their own sins after they're judged by God when only an innocent person can pay for the sins of the guilty and the guilty can't pay for their own sins?

It gets worse... because even if you live a life "free of sin" and do literally everything correctly, then you're still guilty of "original sin". Which is to say, guilty from the crime of one of your very distant ancestors. The most distant one possible, actually (according to the creationist story).

So really, you're "guilty" of "being human".

The Hitch said about this "created sick and commanded to be well".



These are just some of the things that tell me that christianity is no more then a giant guilt trip. Psychological poison. Snake oil salesman tactics (first it tells you that you are sick without ever demonstrating it, and then it conventiently provides the only cure).

In other words: obvious nonsense.

 

[nPeace]

It's from meme culture, originally from Steven Crowder. That's all.

Yes. Sort of like following worldly philosophies, ideas, and trends, rather than the things of God, as taught through his son, and his word.
The spiritual man is not mistaken as a physical man, because the things of the world are foolishness to him, and he knows that those who are part of this world, and loving it, are certain to pass away with it. 1 John 2:15-17; John 17:15-17

I have noticed that the world demands accuracy from Christians, when the world promotes their ideologies. I think Christians stand their ground, when it comes to accurate knowledge.

There is a reason Jesus said what he did at Matthew 10:16.

 

[nPeace]

This idd never made any sense to me either.

When I asked christians (which I acknowledge isn't necessarily representative of all christian views), I got "explanations" like "he sacrificed his life".

But what did he really sacrifice? He's an immortal being... If I sacrifice something, then I'm giving something up and thus won't be getting it back. Otherwise it's just a "loan" or whatever.

"ow, he sacrificed his human body"
Ok, but he's all powerfull... couldn't he make a trillion more bodies with but a snap of his virtual fingers?

The whole thing is obvious nonsense.

He is all powerful... and immortal? From which Bible did you read that, please?

Uhu......

Imagine a courtroom and you get sentenced to life. The judge says "but you know what, I'll send my son instead, you can go free". Nobody would call that "justice".

Imagine a son of a kind man steals a chocolate bar, and the father offers to pay, for the bar. Would a reasonable judge accept that? I think so.
The situations are more equivalent, because what was lost can be restored. Unlike the case you presented.

It gets worse... because even if you live a life "free of sin" and do literally everything correctly, then you're still guilty of "original sin". Which is to say, guilty from the crime of one of your very distant ancestors. The most distant one possible, actually (according to the creationist story).

So really, you're "guilty" of "being human".

The Hitch said about this "created sick and commanded to be well".

Again, you must be reading a different Bible to the one I am reading. Would you mind sharing the version you use, and which text(s) say "you're still guilty of "original sin". "? Thanks.

These are just some of the things that tell me that christianity is no more then a giant guilt trip. Psychological poison. Snake oil salesman tactics (first it tells you that you are sick without ever demonstrating it, and then it conventiently provides the only cure).

In other words: obvious nonsense.

I certainly understand when someone doesn't understand something - even when they claim to, or think they do - it can seem like nonsense to them... or rather, they may declare that it is nonsense. Not realizing that what they are saying is not based on an accurate understanding... or knowledge.

 

[Jos]

He came to destroy sin in the flesh of His body. That work is undone when we keep on sinning. Because we bring sin back to life which He put to death. Jesus gives a fighting chance against evil.

Really? I thought God's love and forgiveness was greater than our sins? But I don't think you're understanding my point... my point is that if Jesus' atonement was a perfect payment for my sin debt, then my debt should be forever cleared and I shouldn't have to ask for forgiveness.

Incorrect to believe God created death. Sin made death and God hates death. If God gets rid of sin (by putting it to death on the cross) then you won't have to worry about dying.

That's a strawman. Nowhere in my original post did I blame God for anything, you're accusing me of something that I didn't do and also you didn't answer the question.

He puts our sin to death and because He rose from the dead free from sin and death forever. So if you are become like He is then you'll be the same way. You'll be dead to sin and live forever.

That doesn't actually answer the question as to how it's just for an innocent person to pay for the crimes of a guilty person.

Not trinitarian but Jesus was God. Everyone is body, soul and spirit. Jesus the same. His body could die; not His soul and Spirit.

Do you believe that the Father and the Holy Spirit are God?

They didn't repent.

OK they didn't repent but how is it just for an innocent person to pay for a guilty person's sins yet also just if the guilty person pays for their own sins?

That's why the suffering so you can change and grow spiritually. God wants people to be strong and brave. Suffering makes a man or woman. Look at a man who had it easy his whole life. As a consequence; he never really grew up. He's still a baby (as an adult) just as when he was born. He was never challenged.

Spiritually, God wants people to grow and to develop virtue and learn to hate evil.

First of all, you still didn't actually answer the question and second of all, you guys all believe that on the new earth or in heaven there will be no suffering or evil yet there will be spiritual growth so it is quite possible for a person to grow spiritually without experiencing suffering or evil.

 

[Jos]

Anyone seems eligible but Passover Lamb seems to be a gift that is conditional

Why? If it's conditional then Jesus didn't perfectly pay for everyone's sins.

Said to be God's promise.

Well it doesn't make a lot of sense.

. No longer after any such prior prophecies or proclamations.

But according to the New Testament Jesus did pay the price for everyone's sins even though He was innocent, so which is it? Is the Old testament or New Testament correct?

 

[Jos]

Just to note that penal substationary atonement is only one of a number of atonement theories present in Christianity, and not accepted by all.

Hmmm, yeah, I forgot but tbh, I'm really only focusing on penal substitution for now. What are the others that you know of?

 

[Galateasdream]

Sort of like following worldly philosophies, ideas, and trends, rather than the things of God, as taught through his son, and his word.

You think meme culture is like that ? Ok.

 

[Galateasdream]

Hmmm, yeah, I forgot but tbh, I'm really only focusing on penal substitution for now. What are the others that you know of?

From wiki:
in western Christian theology, describes beliefs that human beings can be reconciled to Godthrough Christ's sacrificial suffering and death.[6] Atonement refers to the forgiving or pardoning of sin in general and original sin in particular through the suffering, death and resurrection of Jesus,[7][8] Throughout the centuries, Christians have used different metaphors and given differing explanations of atonement to express how atonement might work. Churches and denominations may vary in which metaphor or explanation they consider most accurately fits into their theological perspective; however all Christians emphasize that Jesus is the Saviour of the world and through his death the sins of humanity have been forgiven.[9] enabling the reconciliation between God and his creation. Within Christianity there are, historically, three[10] or four[11] main theories for how such atonement might work:

• Ransom theory/ Christus Victor (which are different, but generally considered together as Patristic or "classical", to use Gustaf Aulén's nomenclature, theories, it being argued that these were the traditional understandings of the early Church Fathers);
• Satisfaction theory developed by Anselm of Canterbury (called by Aulén the "scholastic" view);
• Moral influence theory, a concept that had been developed by the time of Enlightenment, which Aulén called the "subjective" or "humanistic" view and considered to have been anticipated—as a critique of the satisfaction view—by Peter Abelard.
• Other theories include recapitulation theory, the "shared atonement" theory[12] and scapegoat theory.
• Additional views include the governmental view, penal substitution view, and substitutionary atonement

 

[Jos]

This is the second time I have heard this phrase "change my mind", so let me first suggest...
No one can change anyone's mind, but the person themselves. Only you can change your mind.

I disagree. I don't choose to change my mind... my mind becomes change due to the soundness of an argument or due to the validity of the evidence. It is not a choice on my part.

What Christians can do, is what the apostles did. For example, Paul began to be intensely occupied with the word, witnessing to the Jews to prove that Jesus is the Christ (Acts 18:5), and with great intensity he thoroughly proved the Jews to be wrong, showing them from the Scriptures that Jesus is the Christ (Acts 18:28). Also, Paul reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and proving by references .. . (Acts 17:2, 3)

If it can be proven that Jesus is the Messiah, then there wouldn't be a need for faith and also He clearly didn't prove to the Jews that they were wrong since many of them remained unconvinced.

Consider that "a man convinced against his will...Is of the same opinion still” - Dale Carnegie
So, whether one is convinced or not, is dependent... and oftentimes on volition.
I am not trying to be convincing... just honestly presenting the truth, as I know it.

Like I said before: I disagree. I don't choose to change my mind... my mind becomes change due to the soundness of an argument or due to the validity of the evidence. It is not a choice on my part.

This is a mistaken view of what Christ's death accomplished.
Our sins are covered by the sacrificial death of Jesus, in that, it allows us to gain forgiveness.
So, our past sins are blotted out, or wiped out, because they have been paid for. Any sin we commit after that, can be forgiven, on the basis of Christ's sacrificial blood.
God is the one doing the forgiving, not the blood.
We can see this from reading numerous scriptures.

I'd like to see those scriptures but if Jesus' payment was perfect then it should cover all my sins past, present and future.

(Matthew 12:31, 32) 31 “For this reason I say to you, every sort of sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the spirit will not be forgiven. 32 For example, whoever speaks a word against the Son of man, it will be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the holy spirit, it will not be forgiven him, no, not in this system of things nor in that to come

Well I guess that means that we're all screwed since I'm sure all of humanity is guilty of that sin and this scripture also shows that God isn't infinitely loving, merciful or forgiving and also it shows that Jesus' sacrifice wasn't a perfect sacrifice that satisfied all the requirements as a perfect mechanism for forgiving all sins, past, present and future. Even Paul disagrees that Jesus' sacrifice is conditional saying that He made "the ultimate sacrifice for all time." Not some time, but all time.

Jesus, the man, is dead... forever.

If Jesus was an actually man that means that we also condemned and imperfect and unworthy of being a pure sacrifice for all sins, which means that His sacrifice couldn't have meant anything.

You will have to provide proof that this is true. As far as I know, this is only true to a system that holds to this view

Your system holds to that view.

As explained above, past sins have been paid for. Present sins are forgiven on the basis of the sin atoning sacrifice. However, it is God who does the forgiving, and it is dependent on God's terms.

Check my response here: if that's the case then Jesus' sacrifice wasn't a perfect sacrifice that satisfied all the requirements as a perfect mechanism for forgiving all sins, past, present and future. Even Paul disagrees that Jesus' sacrifice is conditional saying that He made "the ultimate sacrifice for all time." Not some time, but all time.

The wages sin pays is death - everlasting, if God did not make a way out, by accepting the blood of atonement.
It is like a scientist saying to you, "Unless blood flows to your brain, you are dead. Blood must flow to your brain. Don't mind the suffering you face, with heart by pass, paralysis,

Right, according to the fall we were all already facing a just punishment by having to deal with spiritual and physical death, so why would God make a way of atonement if it's not necessary and we were all getting our just deserts?

 

[Jos]

I don't believe the Bible says, or teaches that Jesus was fully human and fully God. That's probably a Trinitarian question.
Jesus was human by being given life as a human. Just as God gave his first son life as a spirit... twice.
You can think of this, in the same way, a Christian sees resurrection. God is the source of life. He can give life in any form possible... a beetle; a lizard; a hippo; a human; a spirit.
So say a human you knew, died, and you went in the person's room, and saw this lizard on the bed, and went to get a net to catch it. As you are trying to catch this lizard, you keep hearing this squeaky voice going, "Jos. No. It's me, Joe."
Shocked, you stop, and stare at the lizard, as it faces you, and you see it's mouth moving, as you hear the words, "Jos, it's me, Joe."
Your jaw dropped to the floor, you ran out the room, and slammed the door, and go soak your head under the tap thinking to yourself, "That weird. I must be hallucinating."
If animal could talk, huh.
Just a little humor there, but what if instead of the lizard, you actually saw Joe, in the flesh?
All God did there, was, as the source of life, give the memories and personally of Joe, to the life to which he gives a body - whether it be a frog, or a man.

OK but if Jesus was a human then that means that he would have been imperfect and not capable of being a perfect sacrifice.

They weren't redundant , imo. Or perhaps only one was.
You are welcomed.

Thanks.

 

[Jos]

YES! I believe you are correct.

Jesus was not a substitute for anyone. He was a representative of everyone.

Could you elaborate? It sounds like the same thing.

 

[Jos]

Everyone is subject to change. A good fact that applies to one's sense of reason can change a mind.

To be non changeable is to perhaps forfeit reason and justification.

Life is a journey, and we are not ever in a position to be the finished product. Unless we close ourselves off. But that's like burying your head in the sand and saying there is nothing new to learn.

Well said.

 

[Jos]

One of the first questions I ask those who believe in substitutionary atonement is this: "If Jesus died in my place, doesn't that mean I don't have to die?"

So, the first question which needs to be answered is, "What does it mean to die?"

If that question can be answered correctly, then all the rest falls into place.

Good question, so what's the answer?

 

[Jos]

I have always shared your suspicion of the scapegoat idea of the Atonement. It seems primitive and barbaric for God to demand a blood sacrifice and absurdly mechanistic to argue that a sacrifice was somehow logically required. But there have been many views of the Atonement over the centuries. The view I find the most sympathetic is that of Abelard, the "moral influence" theory. The Wiki article on Salvation includes this description of it:

"The "moral influence theory of atonement" was developed, or most notably propagated, by Abelard (1079-1142),[105][106][note 23] as an alternative to Anselm's satisfaction theory.[105] Abelard not only "rejected the idea of Jesus' death as a ransom paid to the devil",[109][106] which turned the Devil into a rival god,[106] but also objected to the idea that Jesus' death was a "debt paid to God's honor".[109] He also objected to the emphasis on God's judgment, and the idea that God changed his mind after the sinner accepted Jesus' sacrificial death, which was not easily reconcilable with the idea of "the perfect, impassible God [who] does not change".[109][110] Abelard focused on changing man's perception of God as offended, harsh, and judgemental, but as loving.[109] According to Abelard, "Jesus died as the demonstration of God's love", a demonstration which can change the hearts and minds of the sinners, turning back to God.[109][111]

During the Protestant Reformation in Western Christianity, the majority of the Reformers strongly rejected the moral influence view of the atonement in favor of penal substitution, a highly forensic modification of the honor-oriented Anselmian satisfaction model. Fausto Sozzini's Socinian arm of the Reformation maintained a belief in the moral influence view of the atonement. Socinianism was an early form of Unitarianism, and the Unitarian Church today maintains a moral influence view of the atonement, as do many liberal Protestant theologians of the modern age.[112]

During the 18th century, versions of the moral influence view found overwhelming support among German theologians, most notably the Enlightenment philosopher Immanuel Kant.[113] In the 19th and 20th century, it has been popular among liberal Protestant thinkers in the Anglican, Methodist, Lutheran, and Presbyterian churches, including the Anglican theologian Hastings Rashdall. A number of English theological works in the last hundred years have advocated and popularized the moral influence theory of atonement.[114][115]

A strong division has remained since the Reformation between liberal Protestants (who typically adopt a moral influence view) and conservative Protestants (who typically adopt a penal substitutionary view). Both sides believe that their position is taught by the Bible.[114][116][note 24]"

Interesting stuff. Thanks for sharing.

 

[GoodbyeDave]

As one might expect, the attempted explanations are mostly based on quotations from the Bible — the authority of which the OP probably doesn't accept!

Try this for size. A man is sentenced to many years in prison for a serious crime. His mother stands up and asks the judge to send her to prison instead — she says that she's willing to sacrifice herself for her child. Would it be just for that offer to be accepted? Or is it not the case that the son committed the crime, and he must take the punishment? The atonement theory strikes me as the height of injustice, if one accepts the premises.

Of course, the whole concept of atonement is rejected by the Orthodox Church.

 

[Jos]

I understand that when Jesus was born of Mary he was of the same flesh and blood as his mother, his brothers and everyone else who knew him.
He was also of the same flesh and blood as Adam when Adam became a living soul.
God commanded Adam not to eat of the tree, Adam failed. Because Adam failed we all die, It is the flesh and blood nature that must die. In other words, if Adam had resisted the temptation to eat of the tree which brought his death God might have allowed Adam to eat of the other tree which would have given him eternal life.
Where Adam failed, Jesus succeeded. Jesus resisted all the temptations of the flesh and laid down his life as God had commanded him to do.
So, God has accepted the sacrifice of His son and whosoever believes and is baptized into him can escape the condemnation of Adam's sin.

You're forgetting that if Jesus became Adam then He becomes imperfect and therefore can't be a worthy or pure sacrifice.

 

[Jos]

That suggests to me that, previously, the less you thought about it, the more convinced you were that he could save somebody.

I guess so.

Seems odd to me that an Agnostic Theist would think about such things to begin with, or maybe you didn't start out as an Agnostic?

It's not odd if you consider that a theist isn't necessarily someone who believes in the God of classical theism or JudeoChristianity but I guess I was also uninformed.

 

[exchemist]

As one might expect, the attempted explanations are mostly based on quotations from the Bible — the authority of which the OP probably doesn't accept!

Try this for size. A man is sentenced to many years in prison for a serious crime. His mother stands up and asks the judge to send her to prison instead — she says that she's willing to sacrifice herself for her child. Would it be just for that offer to be accepted? Or is it not the case that the son committed the crime, and he must take the punishment? The atonement theory strikes me as the height of injustice, if one accepts the premises.

Of course, the whole concept of atonement is rejected by the Orthodox Church.

Not according to the Wiki article on Salvation in Christianity:-

"According to Eastern Christian theology, based upon their understanding of the atonement as put forward by Irenaeus recapitulation theory, Jesus' death is a ransom. This restores the relation with God, who is loving and reaches out to humanity, and offers the possibility of theosis c.q. divinization, becoming the kind of humans God wants us to be.

In Eastern Orthodoxy and Eastern Catholicism salvation is seen as participation in the renewal of human nature itself by way of the eternal Word of God assuming the human nature in its fullness. In contrast to Western branches of theology, Orthodox Christians tend to use the word "expiation" with regard to what is accomplished in the sacrificial act. In Orthodox theology, expiation is an act of offering that seeks to change the one making the offering. The Biblical Greek word which is translated both as "propitiation" and as "expiation" is hilasmos, which means "to make acceptable and enable one to draw close to God". Thus the Orthodox emphasis would be that Christ died, not to appease an angry and vindictive Father or to avert the wrath of God upon sinners, but to defeat and secure the destruction of sin and death, so that those who are fallen and in spiritual bondage may become divinely transfigured, and therefore fully human, as their Creator intended; that is to say, human creatures become God in his energies or operations but not in his essence or identity, conforming to the image of Christ and reacquiring the divine likeness (see theosis).[137]"

Perhaps you are thinking of one view of atonement in particular. There seem to be several within Christianity.