What is The Atonement?

There are some things that are hard to get the head around. Eternity is one, trinity is another. 3 distinct persons but 1 God. This is not the same as dualism plus another God. The Trinity is one God, but three persons. The best description I heard of it is ice/water/steam. Different but all the same. But still no one can truly comprehend it.God the Father sacrificed something in order to 'satisfy' his love, God the Son offered himself as the sacrifice, because of his love. God the Father required the sacrifice/ransom to 'satisfy' the fact that he is just and wrath. Sin must be judged and punished. God the Father recieved the ransomWe, "whomsoever shall believe" are the ones who are freed. The people freed are the people who come to realise (by Gods Spirit working to that effect) that they are in need of Gods solution to the problem of their sin. The law of Moses, the law of conscience, the law expanded (bar raised) by Jesus in his sermon on the mount ("if you so much as look at a woman lustfully you have committed adultery")The Law. The Legal Law that must be kept perfectly if one is to have a right to be declared righteous.Freed from that condemning, impossible to keep law and subject to the law of the Spirit (who comes to reside when a person is 'born again' 'born from above')"For I will write my law on their hearts" Only when Gods law is in your heart can you love it. The work of the Holy Spirit who moves in when a person is 'saved', is to make the person fit for heaven. A walk commences whereby the person who has now come to love Gods law is enabled to begin following it. To the point where the law will be no longer required. In heaven. This process is called Sanctification. The person is first Justified (declared legally and forensically righteous (ie: the recieve Jesus righteousness), Sanctified (made holier (or 'cleaner')) Glorified (perfected and brought into Gods presence)Note: that a Christian sinning carries no condemnation with it. "There is therefore now no condemnation for those that are in Christ Jesus" Read Romans 8:1 on to see the switch over and contrast between saved (in Christ) and unsaved (in Adam) in relation to the lawThis message has been edited by iano, 17-Oct-2005 01:02 PM

Where did I imply God is a cog in a machine which would indeed be blasphemy. God cannot do anything. God can do anything that is possible for him to do. God for example cannot ignore sin. He can only forgive it or punish it. But God cannot forgive any old way. God provided a way whereby sin could be forgiven which wouldn't conflict with who he is. There is only that way. Someone who does not accept Gods way for enabling him to forgive cannot be forgiven another way.Gods way of salvation is universally available not universally accepted. My standards don't matter. If your saying that God didn't punish our sin in Jesus then what was going on? Why did God punish Jesus? "My God my God why have you foresaken me?" God is the standard. In 'setting' it he is only describing himself. Thoroughly good, thoroughly holy. His law is a way to understand who he is. Because he is just and wrath sin must be convicted and punished. Because he is love he created a way whereby that love could be satisfied.In writing off his method you imply you understand the Trinity: Father, Son, Holy Spirit. I take my cap off God doesn't weight anything against us. Adam was the one who sinned. God didn't make him do it. You may ask why God set it up that way - that all this could happen. Well I can't see how you give a creature choice without including the potential that they won't do as you would like. This is something that not even God can do. Create a free-willed creature who will be a robot and obey you? If he said that then his love would be satisfied but his justness and wrath would be compromised. God has found a way whereby ALL his attributes are perfectly satisfied. One is not more important than the other. He is all these things. Not just love

No. I'm just making the passing comment as above.

Jesus is royalty. He is "Lord of all". He was punished instead of us - us being whoever believes in what he did for them. He is our Redeemer...or our Judge. Each man will experience him as one or the other - whether they think he exists or not.

Hi SL.The pain the Jesus suffered was spiritual separation from the Father with whom he had perfect communion. "My God, my God, why have you foresaken me"Ask any Christian what is the worst position they get themselves into and they will likely tell you when they distance themselves from God via their sin. And a Christian is only "looking through a glass now darkly" he doesn't know yet what it is like to see the Father first hand. Jesus had it perfect and was separated totally. That was the pain. That was the punishment.God-sized punishment of spirit is far greater than punishment of flesh (body). That's the horror of hell...

quote:

---

The Day of Atonement is set aside to ask forgivenes of god for 'sins' against god.

---

What sins are considered to be against God?

---

"The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France

I am familiar with the concept of the Trinity and I have no problem with it. One sacrifices something in order to 'satisfy' someone else. Similarly, one offers ransom to someone else.
Who did God the Father sacrifice to ? The doctrine of the Trinity relies on the fundamental concept that, although there is subordination in order amongst the 'persons' of the Trinity, there is no subordination in stature or will. In other words, Jesus cannot do or will for something that the Father doesn't will for and vice versa.Jesus offering himself as a sacrifice to the Father means that- the Son wanted something (e.g. free us of the law) that the Father didn't want ( subordination of will)or- the Father could do something (e.g. free us of the law) that the Son couldn't ( subordination of stature)Either way, God the Son offering himself as the sacrifice to God the Father, is incompatible with the Trinity doctrine. Since when does God need something to 'satisfy' his own nature ?. He either is just or he isn't.
A fact's a fact. It doesn't need any confirmation, especially in the case of God. But Jesus was sinless! This conflicts with the notion that God is just, as somone who was sinless was punished for sin! (unjust)Were the sinners judged and punished with Jesus' sacrifice ? If not, then the above law wasn't satisified with Jesus' sacrifice. This again contradicts both common sense (you don't pay a ransom to yourself) , the definition of the word 'ransom' and also the Trinity doctrine as I explained above.oh, and one more thing :what was *given up* by God the Father when he sacrificed his Son ?

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

God sacrificed his Son in order to 'satisfy' his (the Fathers) attribute, Love, because his (the Fathers) attribute, Justness and Wrath demanded, in order to be 'satisfied', that sin be convicted and punished. All attributes must be perfectly 'satisfied' I'm not sure that cannot is the right term. Jesus asked "if it were possible" to let this cup (the wrath to come on him from the Father) pass "but not my will but yours be done". Jesus, could have not done the will of the Father, but always chose to do so. This is not the same as 'cannot' They both wanted the same thing for the same reasons. Love.- the Father could do something (e.g. free us of the law) that the Son couldn't ( subordination of stature)They both wanted the same thing for the same reasons. Love. Remember that the Holy Spirit has a part to play too. The Holy Spirit is the one who convicts (or convinces) a person of their need for a saviour.Thus all three persons play a part that the other doesn't play. This doesn't indicate subordination of anything. 'Co-equality' doesn't mean 'exactly the same in every way' In what way, given the above comments.?

Do you have any references that support this alleged deficit in God's abilities?

Consider sin as illegal drugs. I have them. The cops are coming. Another takes the drugs from me and puts them in his own pocket. The person who is in possession of the drugs takes the hit. The law doesn't mind who has the drugs. All the law is going to do is punish the person in possession. "let he who is without (indicating possession) sin, cast the first stone"Whether YOU agree or not or think it just or not - matters not. As far as the Father was concerned, he could punish sin in someone who was capable of taking possession of it. The sinners aren't punished because they don't have sin in their possession. If I sin this minute, Jesus paid for it on the cross when he was crucified (God the Father knew in eternity that I would sin now and punished it in Jesus then) It was ransom paid by Love to Justness and Wrath. Ransom is a human word - don't get too hooked on it as befitting what goes on in eternity. Like, Hell won't be a place with a high temperature. The word Fire is something that is used as a picture of Hell in terms we (humans) can get some grip on. The same thing as the Son gave up: perfect communion between Father and Son. And for those inclinded to think "well the time between Jesus saying "My God, My God..." (separation) to "Father forgive.." (Reunion) was only an couple of hours - Big Deal" they don't know a} what it means to lose this relationship b) it happened in the spiritual - which is eternal. And who knows what that's like?This message has been edited by iano, 17-Oct-2005 04:41 PM

The Cross is about the best one I can think of. If God could ignore sin, what was he doing sacrificing a beloved Son?

So, the Father sacrifices his sinless son in order to 'satisfy' himself that sin is convicted and punished ?!
- why God needs to be satisified that his nature is as it is? Doesn't he know it already ?
- how punishing a sinless man 'satisfy' God that sin is convicted and punished ? Ok, I concur. Let me re-word it : "Jesus will not do or wish for something that the Father doesn't wish for and vice versa."
My point still stands. Yes, I agree. I said there is subordination in order (i.e. each person plays a different part) but not in will or stature.(i.e. each person is not submissive to the will or power of the other).So we agree that all three persons of the Trinity wanted to free mankind from something (the law as you claim), right ? According to the Trinity doctrine both the Son and the Father would have *wanted* and *could* set mankind free.When you sacrifice -or pay ransom- to someone you submit to their will and/or power. They set the terms (their will) and you pay what's required (you submit to their will). It also implies that they have some power over you otherwise you'd be able to get what you want without the need for sacrifice or ransom.It makes no sense for two persons of a Trinity to sacrifice something to each other in order to achieve something.To do so would imply that these persons had either different purpose or different status. It would mean that one of them didn't *want* to set us free as much as the other or that one *couldn't* set us free without the help of the other.Either way, God the Son offering himself as the sacrifice to God the Father, breaks the Trinity doctrine.If both *wanted* and *could* they could have set us free. No sacrifice is required!

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

Seems there is no *divine* loving-forgiveness (in scriptures) SANS sacrifice.

You go to a persons home for a meal. At the meal you have a bit too much to drink. In this state you stagger into a lampstand and knock over this ornate lamp which smashes into pieces on the ground. Horror! The owner say "It's okay Legend, it's okay - I forgive you. Now just give me the $6000 it takes to replace it"Is that forgiveness. You wouldn't think so. For the owner to forgive you, it's the owner who has to suffer, to pay the price. He's got to say "Legend, I forgive you"....period. That's what forgiveness is. For God to forgive you, God had to pay the price. And he did. He gave up the most precious thing he had. Jesus is the Light of the world. Your sin smashed him. God offers to forgive you for smashing him. His nature is as it is. And having sin in the world is contrary to his nature. Consider it an elastic band stretched. He has decided to tolerate this for this thing we call 'Time' (the period of dispensation) but a time comes when the elastic band is going to return to rest, to satisfaction. Sin is what must be dealt with Ask him when you see him
But like I said, Jesus takes possession of our sin if we accept his offer to take it from us. That is good enough for God. And that's all it has to be good enough for. Thank GodThis message has been edited by iano, 17-Oct-2005 06:03 PM

So do you think that punishing someone for a crime they didn't commmit is just ? Of course it matters! If the biblical words convey meaning different to that used by the vast majority of the people then what's the point of even reading the bible. If the bible says 'flower' when referring to fish, then we might as well bin the whole thing. 'Just' is just.Furthermore, Genesis says that I can judge good or evil like God does. So if I think something God did is unjust, then that means that either God is unjust or that Genesis is just an allegorical folk tale. Which is it ? So if the sinners don't have sin in their possession are they punished at all ? Ever ?Also, that confirms my initial statement that no sinners were judged and punished with Jesus' sacrifice. So, Love (Jesus) paid the ransom (Jesus) to Justness and Wrath (God the Father). So do you think that Jesus hasn't got the same Justness and Wrath as the Father, or that the Father lacks the love of Jesus ? In what way is the perfect communion between Father and Son lost ? Is Jesus not sitting to the right of the Father as we speak ?!

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."