The Atonement is the important part - Not the Crusifixion

[joeboonda]

How could He not? Do you not believe that He was fully human and fully Divine? Do you not believe He is the one Mediator between man and God (yes both of these are clear from Scripture, even should you wish to ditch the rest of Holy Tradition).

As for your ludicrous demand that I engage in some idiotic proof-texting - in a word, no. Unlike the sola scripturalist I do not deify Scripture and have no desire whatsoever to engage in a pathetic exchange of verses ripped out of context and presented in a fashion heedless of the Tradition in which they were composed.

James

What I am asking is how, that is by what means, did Christ reconcile us to our Creator? (I know he did it, I am asking HOW.) 'Ludicrous demand' and 'idiotic proof- texting'; I don't talk to you like that, please be kind. Let me clarify that I do not deify or worship scripture and have nothing against the teachings, sacraments and traditions of any church so long as they are in keeping with scripture. Be certain, I do not use scriptures out of context, they fit perfectly the context I use them in. I DO try to use as MANY scriptures that have clear, plain meaning as I can, to back up my beliefs. If I say, "The cow jumped over the moon." then I better be able to back it up with the authority of scripture. (can't back that one up) If I say that we are reconciled to God by the death of Christ I should be able to back it up with scripture. (here we are: Romans 5:10For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son..Ephesians 2:16And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross...Colossians 1:20And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself...yet now hath he reconciled 22In the body of his flesh through death...)

So, here, I provide scripture to back up my belief that "we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, by the cross, through the blood of the cross, in the body of his flesh through death." And there is so much more scripture that says that, actually, it is a theme throughout the entire Bible. There is nothing wrong with using scripture to back up one's beliefs and everything right about it. So,again, I would like to know, how do YOU say we are reconciled to our Creator?

 

[sojourner]

These scriptures say something, do you know what? Or can you give scriptures that show otherwise? Or are you just gonna say we cannot understand them and offer no explanation as to what they mean? I suppose you believe they are just all out of context and mean nothing since they are from different places. Go to those places and look at the context, they mean exactly what they mean: WE WERE RECONCILED TO GOD BY THE DEATH OF HIS SON. It says it over and over throughout the Bible. Prove otherwise USING SCRIPTURE.

Romans 10
10For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life. 11And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.


Romans 5:10...we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son...
Ephesians 2:16
And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross...
Colossians 1:20
And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself...
Isaiah 53:12
...because he hath poured out his soul unto death...and he bare the sin of many...
Hebrews 2:14
...that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;
Hebrews 9:15
And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, thatby means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.
Hebrews 9:16
For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
1 Peter 3:18
For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh...
Romans 5:6
For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.
Romans 5:8
But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
1 Corinthians 15:3
For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how thatChrist died for our sins according to the scriptures;

Here we go. If I had to choose scripture, it would be the following:

After all, God sent this son into the world not to condemn the world but to rescue the world through him.

Arise, shine, for your light has come and the glory of the Lord has dawned upon you.

These both (as well as others) speak to the coming of Christ into the world to bring us reconciliation. It is that coming among us -- in all Christ's being and actions -- that has reconciled us -- not a specific act within the Incarnation.

 

[sojourner]

What I am asking is how, that is by what means, did Christ reconcile us to our Creator? (I know he did it, I am asking HOW.) 'Ludicrous demand' and 'idiotic proof- texting'; I don't talk to you like that, please be kind. Let me clarify that I do not deify or worship scripture and have nothing against the teachings, sacraments and traditions of any church so long as they are in keeping with scripture. Be certain, I do not use scriptures out of context, they fit perfectly the context I use them in. I DO try to use as MANY scriptures that have clear, plain meaning as I can, to back up my beliefs. If I say, "The cow jumped over the moon." then I better be able to back it up with the authority of scripture. (can't back that one up) If I say that we are reconciled to God by the death of Christ I should be able to back it up with scripture. (here we are: Romans 5:10For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son..Ephesians 2:16And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross...Colossians 1:20And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself...yet now hath he reconciled 22In the body of his flesh through death...)

So, here, I provide scripture to back up my belief that "we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, by the cross, through the blood of the cross, in the body of his flesh through death." And there is so much more scripture that says that, actually, it is a theme throughout the entire Bible. There is nothing wrong with using scripture to back up one's beliefs and everything right about it. So,again, I would like to know, how do YOU say we are reconciled to our Creator?

OK. This emboldened text is called "proof-texting." It is eisegetical in nature -- using scripture to back up a belief. You are taking scripture out of context. "In context" refers to the context of the scripture itself, not to your agenda for the scripture. When you lift out various pieces of scripture, you are taking it out of it's context to support a pre-existing belief. you are engaging in the very acts you deny. It doesn't work. :redcard:

What is needed is exegesis: reading out of the scripture what is there, not reading into it your belief.

 

[nutshell]

No, the important part isn't 'the Atonement', it's the Incarnation - all of it from the Annunciation to the Ascension, not just anyone one moment/moments within the period. The important thing is that Christ was, and is, fully human and full Divine and thus, through Himself, reconciles Creator and creation and becomes in a very real sense the one Mediator between man and God - not mediator simply in the sense of an intercessor or messenger, but in the sense of His being the restoration of the bridge between God and humanity that was destroyed in the Fall.

James

He is the Great Mediator because of the Atonement. It qualified him, I suppose.

 

[sojourner]

He is the Great Mediator because of the Atonement. It qualified him, I suppose.

What was he before the "atonement?" Chopped Hummus?

 

[nutshell]

What was he before the "atonement?" Chopped Hummus?

Chopped Hummus?

Why have you become disrespectful?

 

[sojourner]

Not disrespectful. I simply want to know what Jesus was before the "atonement?" If the "atonement" is the "important part" of Christ's appearance, why should we revere the "unimportant" parts? Why celebrate his birth? Why talk about his ministry? If all that's really important is the "act of atonement," why bother to talk about the rest of it?

If Christ were not Incarnate (all of the Incarnation -- birth, ministry, passion, death, resurrection, appearances, ascension) as the Mediator, why even bother to show up?

Your statement appears to state that Christ was "something else" before the "atonement." What was it?

 

[joeboonda]

Here we go. If I had to choose scripture, it would be the following:

After all, God sent this son into the world not to condemn the world but to rescue the world through him.

Arise, shine, for your light has come and the glory of the Lord has dawned upon you.

These both (as well as others) speak to the coming of Christ into the world to bring us reconciliation. It is that coming among us -- in all Christ's being and actions -- that has reconciled us -- not a specific act within the Incarnation.

Very good, and thanks for using scripture! Now, according to scripture exactly by what means did Christ reconcile us to God?

 

[joeboonda]

OK. This emboldened text is called "proof-texting." It is eisegetical in nature -- using scripture to back up a belief. You are taking scripture out of context. "In context" refers to the context of the scripture itself, not to your agenda for the scripture. When you lift out various pieces of scripture, you are taking it out of it's context to support a pre-existing belief. you are engaging in the very acts you deny. It doesn't work. :redcard:

What is needed is exegesis: reading out of the scripture what is there, not reading into it your belief.

No, the emboldened text is the emphasis on what aspect of it I am trying to convey. I normally, when it works, have the scripture verse where you can click on it and LOOK at the context to see if I am twisting it. I believe some folks are guilty of reading into scripture their belief, and it is not me. Trust me, some things are hard to accept in scripture, although they are quite plain, and everyone is tempted to try to get it to mean something different than it means at times, but I simply will not do that. As much as I am repulsed at the thought of an eternal Hell, it is clearly taught in scripture. Just like those with too much pride who will not admit they are sinners in need of a Saviour who paid for their sins by death on the cross to reconcile us to God.

 

[sojourner]

Very good, and thanks for using scripture! Now, according to scripture exactly by what means did Christ reconcile us to God?

In the beginning there was the divine word and wisdom. The divine word and wisdom was there with God, and it was what God was. It was there with God from the beginning. Everything came to be by means of it; nothing that exists came to be without its agency. In it was life, and this life was the light of humanity...Genuine light -- the kind that provides light for everyone -- was coming into the world...The divine word and wisdom became human and made itself at home among us.

When God's divine word and wisdom become human, humanity becomes reconciled to God.

 

[nutshell]

Not disrespectful. I simply want to know what Jesus was before the "atonement?" If the "atonement" is the "important part" of Christ's appearance, why should we revere the "unimportant" parts? Why celebrate his birth? Why talk about his ministry? If all that's really important is the "act of atonement," why bother to talk about the rest of it?

If Christ were not Incarnate (all of the Incarnation -- birth, ministry, passion, death, resurrection, appearances, ascension) as the Mediator, why even bother to show up?

Your statement appears to state that Christ was "something else" before the "atonement." What was it?

Who said the Atonement was the only important thing? Without the Atonement we can't return to God, but Christ's life is a perfect example for us - it's certainly important too.

 

[joeboonda]

In the beginning there was the divine word and wisdom. The divine word and wisdom was there with God, and it was what God was. It was there with God from the beginning. Everything came to be by means of it; nothing that exists came to be without its agency. In it was life, and this life was the light of humanity...Genuine light -- the kind that provides light for everyone -- was coming into the world...The divine word and wisdom became human and made itself at home among us.

When God's divine word and wisdom become human, humanity becomes reconciled to God.

Thank-you for scripture. I see from this that Christ, who made everything did become human and dwelt among us. But is that exactly what reconciled us to God?
What does the following say people did when Jesus came? (He was rejected) And what else? (he was wounded for our transgressions, bruised for our iniquities, and the Lord laid on him the iniquity of us all, he will be made an offering for sin, and shall bear our iniquities.)

Isaiah 53

2For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.
3He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
4Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.
5But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. 6All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.
10Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.
11He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.

John 1

9That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.
10He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
11He came unto his own, and his own received him not. 12But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

Here we see he came into the world but his own did not receive him. Only those who receive him become sons of God, even those who only believe on his name.

John 3

18He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
19And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

Why are people not reconciled to God even though he came into the world ?(incarnation). They would not believe in him. The light came into the world, but men loved darkness because their deeds were evil. So, did God reconcile us by his incarnation, or does God reconcile us when we believe in him to have reconciled us to him by the death of his Son as Romans 5 says? : "when we were God's enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son". "He that believeth on him is not condemned."

 

[sojourner]

So, did God reconcile us by his incarnation, or does God reconcile us when we believe in him to have reconciled us to him by the death of his Son as Romans 5 says? : "when we were God's enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son". "He that believeth on him is not condemned."

We were reconciled to God through the Incarnation -- the entire Christ Event. Reconciliation is not predicated upon belief. Our unbelief may keep us from realizing that reconciation, but it is there, nonetheless.

 

[sojourner]

Who said the Atonement was the only important thing? Without the Atonement we can't return to God, but Christ's life is a perfect example for us - it's certainly important too.

But you said that Christ became the Great mediator only upon the "atonement." That begs the question, "What was Christ before that?" I argue that mediation is not predicated upon atonement.

 

[logician]

I would liek to takea minute to point out a fact that alot of christians seem to misplace or take for granted.

The Atonement of Jesus Christ.

Jesus Christ was martyred for the sins of the world. He did not take upon the sins of the world on the cross. The way he died is basically irrelevant to the glory of the plan of salvation. He could have been martyred any other way and still performed this great act of sacrifice.

The moment he actually atoned for our sins was the time he suffered in the Garden of Gethsemene. We can not begin to understand the torment and pain that would cause a person to bleed from every pore in thier body. To take upon all the sins of the world at that moment is something that is incomprehensible to me, but for which i am exceedingly greatful.

Alot of people believe they are "Saved by the Cross." this is a false statement. they are truely saved through the great Atonement and Repentance.

One interesting question about passages in the bible which record events that happened when JESUS WAS BY HIMSELF, like in Gethsemene, and a number of other places. Who was there recording those events?

 

[joeboonda]

We were reconciled to God through the Incarnation -- the entire Christ Event. Reconciliation is not predicated upon belief. Our unbelief may keep us from realizing that reconciation, but it is there, nonetheless.

How, in light of what you say do you interpret the following:

John 3

18He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
19And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

And especially:

36He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

 

[madhatter85]

Who said the Atonement was the only important thing? Without the Atonement we can't return to God, but Christ's life is a perfect example for us - it's certainly important too.

It's all important of course it is, but they seem to be completely missing the point i made loud and clear,

it just goes to prove people only listen to what they want, and twist things around in thier own head so they don't have to feel bad.

 

[James the Persian]

In the beginning there was the divine word and wisdom. The divine word and wisdom was there with God, and it was what God was. It was there with God from the beginning. Everything came to be by means of it; nothing that exists came to be without its agency. In it was life, and this life was the light of humanity...Genuine light -- the kind that provides light for everyone -- was coming into the world...The divine word and wisdom became human and made itself at home among us.

When God's divine word and wisdom become human, humanity becomes reconciled to God.

Here here. Christ is consubstantial with the Father in His Divinity and with us in His humanity. His death and Resurrection were important, no doubt, for by them He 'trampled down death by death' and in so doing destroyed death's hold on humanity, but to take any one point, from the Word emptying Himself to become Incarnate through to the risen Christ ascending to the right hand of the Father and single it out as the point, is to completely miss the point and to substitute late, western, legalistic 'atonement theory', for the much earlier and far more universal Incarnational soteriology of the Fathers.

And Joeboonda, proof-texting is idiotic and requires ripping verses out of context, both textual and traditional, which is why I do not engage in it. I could just as easily provide verses to 'prove' what we say but then you'd say I'm misinterpreting them just as I say you are - there's no such thing as the 'plain meaning' of a text. Context is everything. You were rude by shouting at me to give you Scripture (all caps is shouting, in case you aren't aware) and hence I was uninclined to be gentle in my refusal. I will not proof-text no matter what you want because it is utterly pointless. You simply seem to be unable to grasp that your interpretation rests on a tradition much more recent than the Holy Tradition that mine does. As we are, then, in efect arguing as to which tradition is correct and both accept the self-same Scripture, where's the profit in arguing Scripture? There is none.

James

 

[joeboonda]

Say what you will, James, If you cannot back your beliefs up with scripture then you have no solid ground for those beliefs. I will ALWAYS back my beliefs up with scripture. If my beliefs differ from plain Bible teaching, then I expect to be shown with scripture where I err. I know the rules of interpretation and would gladly study any verses from the Bible people provide for me. It is not my intent to be rude, I emphasize different words to emphasize those words so my point will be perfectly clear. My "interpretation" is in keeping with the Bible, the apostles, and the epistles written thereby. I have no tolerance for legalism of any sort and I do see profit in discussing the meaning of scripture. Where the meaning is clear it is clear. When the Bible says:
Ephesians 2:16
And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:
Ephesians 2:15-17 (in Context) Ephesians 2 (Whole Chapter)
Colossians 1:20
And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.
Colossians 1:19-21 (in Context) Colossians 1 (Whole Chapter)
Romans 5:10
For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son...

And this is only 3 verses, there are many more, that say we are reconciled by the blood of his cross, by the death of his Son, I must conclude that: Heb 9:15 by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

See here, I am not shouting, I am underlining and emboldening words to make a point. What is the Gospel exactly? Is it not:

I Cor. 15:3-4
3For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

It does not say that Christ was born in Bethlehem for our sins, although that is wonderful and important, the means of reconciliation repeated many times, is that "Christ died for our sins according to scripture". What is there to disagree with? Am I not making my point clear enough? If there is disagreement, it is with the Bible and not my "interpretation" thereof. The central teaching of the Bible is that Christ died for our sins so that all who trust in Him are reconciled to God. It just doesn't get much plainer than that. Even a child can understand that. I know I did when I was 8 years old and trusted Christ.

 

[sojourner]

How, in light of what you say do you interpret the following:

John 3

18He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
19And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

And especially:

36He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

The gift is there, whether we see it or not, whether we can read the tag, or not, whether we open it or not. Grace is not dependent upon what we do. Grace is an impulse of God. When we finally open the gift, we realize it's been ours all along for the taking. I believe the judgment we will experience will not be the judgment of an angry God, begrudgingly doling out salvation to those "deserving." I believe the judgment will be our own wrath at not having discovered and claimed the gift sooner.