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

[TagliatelliMonster]

I recall we were talking about Jesus. I don't know how my God got to be the subject. Jesus Christ was not all powerful...

Surely you are aware that a lot of christians disagree with that.

 

[Terry Sampson]

unusual

Unusual, but not strange to me. In my early years, I was introduced to Christianity through the Southern Baptists; then the Nazarenes, next, Pentecostal Holiness, followed by the Assembly of God; and finally, the Lutherans, all before I turned 12. Continued with the latter until I was 23 or so, and found my into the Catholics via the Charismatic Renewal, and converted to Catholic to ease my way into my wife's Mexican Catholic family.

 

[sooda]

If you begin with the idea that Jesus' flesh was not like the rest of us, then you need to ask yourself, "How can that be?"

Then you might suggest that Mary's flesh was not like the rest of us either.

The only problem with that is that the Scripture never says Mary's flesh was changed.

Nothing to do with changing her physical body.. We're talking about when she was born. When she was conceived.

In Christian theology, the Immaculate Conception is the conception of the Virgin Mary free from original sin by virtue of the merits of her son Jesus. The Catholic Church teaches that God acted upon Mary in the first moment of her conception, keeping her "immaculate".

 

[LightofTruth]

Nothing to do with changing her physical body.. We're talking about when she was born. When she was conceived.

In Christian theology, the Immaculate Conception is the conception of the Virgin Mary free from original sin by virtue of the merits of her son Jesus. The Catholic Church teaches that God acted upon Mary in the first moment of her conception, keeping her "immaculate".

Which amounts to her flesh not being "flesh of sin". Which means her flesh was not the same as the rest of us. But Jesus' flesh was the same as his brethren.

 

[sooda]

Which amounts to her flesh not being "flesh of sin". Which means her flesh was not the same as the rest of us. But Jesus' flesh was the same as his brethren.

I think it spiritual...

 

[exchemist]

Which amounts to her flesh not being "flesh of sin". Which means her flesh was not the same as the rest of us. But Jesus' flesh was the same as his brethren.

Wrong. It means nothing of the kind.

 

[LightofTruth]

I think it spiritual...

As I understand, sin begins in the flesh of man.That's why the flesh is said to be "flesh of sin" and "sin in the flesh".

If Jesus did not have "flesh of sin" then God could not have "condemned sin in the flesh" by the sacrifice of Jesus.

 

[LightofTruth]

Wrong. It means nothing of the kind.

Have you ever read the Bible? What does it say about the flesh of man?

 

[exchemist]

Have you ever read the Bible? What does it say about the flesh of man?

Yes. Tell me what passages you are relying on. Pound to a penny, it will be nothing that Christ said.

 

[exchemist]

As I understand, sin begins in the flesh of man.That's why the flesh is said to be "flesh of sin" and "sin in the flesh".

If Jesus did not have "flesh of sin" then God could not have "condemned sin in the flesh" by the sacrifice of Jesus.

This is creepy, guilt-inducing nonsense, in my view. Original sin is man's innate tendency to choose evil in spite of his moral awareness. Nothing to do with "flesh" in any way at all.

 

[Iymus]

In Christian theology, the Immaculate Conception is the conception of the Virgin Mary free from original sin by virtue of the merits of her son Jesus. The Catholic Church teaches that God acted upon Mary in the first moment of her conception, keeping her "immaculate".

This may or may not be relevant but according to certain mythology Zeus acted upon the mother of Hercules.

In regards to an immaculate conception it seems problematic based off the overall theme of the New Testament. You would have to castaway certain words and wisdom of Paul.

 

[pearl]

I have always shared your suspicion of the scapegoat idea of the Atonement.:

As did others including another great philosopher and theologian, Franciscan John Duns Scotus (1266-1308), who disagreed with Thomas's emphasis on sin. Indeed, Duns Scotus boldly proclaimed and defended the primacy of the Incarnation. He based his view on the Scriptures and early theologians and on logic. He argued, for example, that God's supreme work, the Incarnation, had to be first and foremost in God's mind. It could not be dependent on or occasioned by any action of humans, especially sin.
Even more than logic, Duns Scotus emphasized divine love. God is love and created all life in order to communicate to creatures the fullness of divine love. The Incarnate Word is the foundation of the creative plan of God, the very reason for the existence of all creation. This emphasis on Christ as the center and cornerstone of all creation has become an essential dimension of Franciscan life and ministry.
First, the perspective of creation-for-Incarnation highlights the rich meaning of Jesus. He is not Plan B, sent simply to make up for sin. As Duns Scotus emphasized so well, God's masterpiece must result from something much greater and more positive (God's desire to share life and love).
Second, the focus on the Word made flesh helps us to appreciate the depth of our humanness and the importance of our actions. Rahner's marvelous musings on our life in a world of grace give us renewed understanding of the biblical phrase "created in God's image"—along with many implications for how we treat all our sisters and brothers in the human family.
Third and most important, this offers a new and transformed image of God. Many people suspect that the dominant perspective of God demanding the suffering and death of the Son as atonement somehow missed the mark.
The emphasis on Jesus as the first thought can free us from those images and allow us to focus on God's overflowing love. This love is the very life of the Trinity and spills over into creation, grace, Incarnation and final flourishing and fulfillment.

What a difference for our relationship with God! We are invited into this divine dance. Life and love, not suffering and death, become the core of our spirituality and our morality.

 

[exchemist]

As did others including another great philosopher and theologian, Franciscan John Duns Scotus (1266-1308), who disagreed with Thomas's emphasis on sin. Indeed, Duns Scotus boldly proclaimed and defended the primacy of the Incarnation. He based his view on the Scriptures and early theologians and on logic. He argued, for example, that God's supreme work, the Incarnation, had to be first and foremost in God's mind. It could not be dependent on or occasioned by any action of humans, especially sin.
Even more than logic, Duns Scotus emphasized divine love. God is love and created all life in order to communicate to creatures the fullness of divine love. The Incarnate Word is the foundation of the creative plan of God, the very reason for the existence of all creation. This emphasis on Christ as the center and cornerstone of all creation has become an essential dimension of Franciscan life and ministry.
First, the perspective of creation-for-Incarnation highlights the rich meaning of Jesus. He is not Plan B, sent simply to make up for sin. As Duns Scotus emphasized so well, God's masterpiece must result from something much greater and more positive (God's desire to share life and love).
Second, the focus on the Word made flesh helps us to appreciate the depth of our humanness and the importance of our actions. Rahner's marvelous musings on our life in a world of grace give us renewed understanding of the biblical phrase "created in God's image"—along with many implications for how we treat all our sisters and brothers in the human family.
Third and most important, this offers a new and transformed image of God. Many people suspect that the dominant perspective of God demanding the suffering and death of the Son as atonement somehow missed the mark.
The emphasis on Jesus as the first thought can free us from those images and allow us to focus on God's overflowing love. This love is the very life of the Trinity and spills over into creation, grace, Incarnation and final flourishing and fulfillment.

What a difference for our relationship with God! We are invited into this divine dance. Life and love, not suffering and death, become the core of our spirituality and our morality.

Hmm, yes, but how does this address the means by which Christ has become our saviour, and the role of the crucifixion? Is Duns Scotus also a follower of the moral influence view - from what you have written it seems he could be - or did he have another view of this?

 

[1213]

1) if Jesus paid the absolute debt for my sins then why must I ask for forgiveness? If my sins truly have been paid for then I shouldn't need to ask for forgiveness.

No one must ask forgiveness. Person who understands he has done wrongly, want to ask forgiveness, because he regrets and is sorry. If you ask forgiveness because you are forced, it is worth nothing.

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?

In this case I think it would be good to look what Bible actually says. According to the Bible, reason why Jesus died was this:

For to this end Christ died, rose, and lived again, that he might be Lord of both the dead and the living.
Romans 14:9

Reason why Jesus came on earth is this:

"The Spirit of the Lord is on me, Because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to heal the brokenhearted, To proclaim release to the captives, Recovering of sight to the blind, To deliver those who are crushed, And to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord."
Luke 4:18-19

3) How is it just for an innocent person to pay for the sins of a guilty person? Justice demands that the guilty pay for their own crimes... if an innocent person does so then it's not justice since the person guilty of the crime is not facing the requisite punishment for their actions.

I think that is wrong understanding of what the Bible tells. Forgiveness was possible before Jesus died. That is why his death was not required for that. Jesus used his life for us, to teach us and was killed because of that. That is why it can be said he sacrificed his life for us. But it is like in the case of soldier who sacrifices his life for his country.

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

I think that is also something that is not really form the Bible.

 

[nPeace]

Surely you are aware that a lot of christians disagree with that.

Surely your assumption is wrong. I am not aware of that.
If it were that Jesus taught to the contrary, even then, your assumption would be wrong, because Christians agree with what Jesus taught. "Christians" on the other hand, not so much.
So, if you had said, "A lot of "Christians" disagree with me." Surely.

 

[pearl]

Hmm, yes, but how does this address the means by which Christ has become our saviour,

John's meditation on God's supreme act of love in the Incarnation (also see 3:16) has led some theologians to consider that this event alone was sufficient to save the world. Indeed, John's Gospel does not see Jesus' death as a ransom (unlike the synoptic Gospels, for example, Mark 10:45), nor does it use the language of sacrifice or atonement. There is, instead, emphasis on friendship, intimacy, mutuality, service, faithful love—revealing God's desire and gift for the full flourishing of humanity, or in other words, salvation (see the Farewell Address, John 13:1—17:26).

Is Duns Scotus also a follower of the moral influence view

You will have to explain this concept further.

 

[james bond]

Can Jesus really save anyone? The more I think of the Christian idea of substitutionary atonement the less I'm convinced that Jesus can actually save anyone.

Only you can repent which means to change your mind. Anyway, this vid explains pretty clearly what the Bible says will happen during the last days and second coming of Jesus. I like it because it doesn't pull any punches and tells it like it is. Jesus will be fighting the Mooooooslims. More evidence for Jesus is the atheists for some reason like to support the Muslims.

 

[exchemist]

John's meditation on God's supreme act of love in the Incarnation (also see 3:16) has led some theologians to consider that this event alone was sufficient to save the world. Indeed, John's Gospel does not see Jesus' death as a ransom (unlike the synoptic Gospels, for example, Mark 10:45), nor does it use the language of sacrifice or atonement. There is, instead, emphasis on friendship, intimacy, mutuality, service, faithful love—revealing God's desire and gift for the full flourishing of humanity, or in other words, salvation (see the Farewell Address, John 13:1—17:26).



You will have to explain this concept further.

Thanks for the insight into St John's Gospel on this question. Indeed, "God so loved the world....." etc. does not mention sacrifice and nor do the Farewell Discourses.

I'm not an expert on the views of atonement but as I understand it, the "moral influence" view of Abelard was that Jesus redeemed humanity by his teaching and the example he set, culminating in the manner of his arrest and death on the cross. This seems consistent with the passages you refer to in St John's Gospel.

St John's Gospel was written later than the synoptic gospels and seems to have a lot of theological teaching in it which is absent from the others. So it presumably indicates the thinking of the nascent Christian church on these issues.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Surely your assumption is wrong. I am not aware of that.
If it were that Jesus taught to the contrary, even then, your assumption would be wrong, because Christians agree with what Jesus taught. "Christians" on the other hand, not so much.
So, if you had said, "A lot of "Christians" disagree with me." Surely.

yes, I was indeed hinting towards your inevitable no-true scottsman.

 

[pearl]

Thanks for the insight into St John's Gospel on this question. Indeed, "God so loved the world....." etc. does not mention sacrifice and nor do the Farewell Discourses.

Maybe due to the split after the Jewish Christians were expelled from the synagogue which occurred before John wrote which might explain the anti-Semitism in the Gospel.

I'm not an expert on the views of atonement but as I understand it, the "moral influence" view of Abelard was that Jesus redeemed humanity by his teaching and the example he set, culminating in the manner of his arrest and death on the cross. This seems consistent with the passages you refer to in St John's Gospel.

Makes sense. I find it curious that the Duns Scotus model is a hidden gem and the preferred model is one of scapegoat. His model, 'Incarnation the reason for Creation', was not considered heresy since Dun Scotus was elevated to Blessed and Doctor of the Church.

St John's Gospel was written later than the synoptic gospels and seems to have a lot of theological teaching in it which is absent from the others. So it presumably indicates the thinking of the nascent Christian church on these issues.

There is a theology specific to the time and needs of the particular writer for his community throughout the synoptics as well. By human standards Jesus was a failure, executed as a criminal, his movement dead and his followers disperse. What we find in the Gospels and Epistles is the post resurrection faith of the nascent church.