The Cross

[Yab Yum]

Hi all

Is there a UR understanding of Christ's atonement that is different from mainstream church's? I.e. is there substitutionary atonement in UR?

[Beloved Servant]

1. The difference is that "mainstream" Christians religions do not think that ALL MEN are washed in the blood of Christ.
2. I don't understand your term: Substitutionary atonement

If you mean that that the sacrifice of Jesus was in place of our own, than the answer is yes.
We could not possibly do what the Lord has done for us.

[jabcat]

Amen David.  Though some want to go down that path, I've looked at it, and IMO there's WAY too many scriptures that would have to be ignored or discounted.  There's one after the other that speak of Jesus as our sacrifice, our atonement, paying our price, taking our sin, on and on.  He wasn't just a good example to "show us love".  To me it's right at the very heart of the Gospel - the [sacrificial] Lamb slain.  That's how it speaks to me.

[Beloved Servant]

Right.
Slain for ALL of us.
And the carnal mind wants to take it personally, rightly so, perhaps, but in Truth — it was for ALL FLESH — for Christ is the Spirit that dwells in Creation.
The totality of what He has done has yet to be reckoned by creation itself and so it groans in travail, like a woman in labour for the promise to be set free of it's cords that bind it to destruction.

[jabcat]

I have very little idea why God did it that way, why that was His plan.  But that's what His Word says, and He's the Potter and has a right to do what He wants - He knows what's best - He loves us but we're still the clay.  It may not appeal to my flesh, but then my flesh is not what He's appealing to.  

[Beloved Servant]

James, there is now — no condemnation in Christ Jesus — and, we are no longer jars of clay for we are — Sons of God in whom He is well pleased!
Humble yes but we are not yoked with a false humility that is as untrue as a false pride.
We are His Pride and Joy and the masterpiece of His creation whose Light shines upon our face that shall no longer need to be hid, like Moses, but to be revealed with power and glory among the nations.
Jordan is crossed.

[jabcat]

Let me rephrase it in such a way that may be more palatable to you.  No, no need for false humility - only as/what He teaches and leads us into.  However, I personally struggle (and I see from other people as well) with some of the "difficult" teachings, such as the cross, God's dealings with people in the OT, etc.  Sometimes my mind/flesh wants to kick it out and "remake" it into my image.  So what I'm saying is, it's not up to me to question and rail against God on those things.  It's His call, even if I don't understand it or it doesn't "set well" with me.  I believe we both believe we need to take the Word, believe it, "eat it", and let it shape us rather than resisting...that's what I'm saying.  :thumbsup:

[SQ]

I have very little idea why God did it that way, why that was His plan.  But that's what His Word says, and He's the Potter and has a right to do what He wants - He knows what's best - He loves us but we're still the clay.  It may not appeal to my flesh, but then my flesh is not what He's appealing to.  

This is how I feel too, I struggle a lot seems I get one thing settled then something else.
I have no problem knowing all will be saved Wow that was such a relief to my spirit.
I know I am finished in the eyes of God, but I still have to wrestle with things now, I know it is for my good makes me a much more complete.
I sometimes feel like a cake half baked but know if I am in the oven long enough I will be finished...Lol  :laughing7:

[jabcat]

I have very little idea why God did it that way, why that was His plan.  But that's what His Word says, and He's the Potter and has a right to do what He wants - He knows what's best - He loves us but we're still the clay.  It may not appeal to my flesh, but then my flesh is not what He's appealing to.  

This is how I feel too, I struggle a lot seems I get one thing settled then something else.
I have no problem knowing all will be saved Wow that was such a relief to my spirit.
I know I am finished in the eyes of God, but I still have to wrestle with things now, I know it is for my good makes me a much more complete.
I sometimes feel like a cake half baked but know if I am in the oven long enough I will be finished...Lol  :laughing7:

:laughing7:  Gonna start calling you Duncan Hines.   :thumbsup:

[Beloved Servant]

SQ, "it is finished"
Which is why we must now identify with Christ and no longer with the soul that lies with the flesh.

[SQ]

SQ, "it is finished"
Which is why we must now identify with Christ and no longer with the soul that lies with the flesh.

Hey Thanks, that just hit me as I read your words.
I understand now!  :thumbsup:

[SQ]

I have very little idea why God did it that way, why that was His plan.  But that's what His Word says, and He's the Potter and has a right to do what He wants - He knows what's best - He loves us but we're still the clay.  It may not appeal to my flesh, but then my flesh is not what He's appealing to.  

This is how I feel too, I struggle a lot seems I get one thing settled then something else.
I have no problem knowing all will be saved Wow that was such a relief to my spirit.
I know I am finished in the eyes of God, but I still have to wrestle with things now, I know it is for my good makes me a much more complete.
I sometimes feel like a cake half baked but know if I am in the oven long enough I will be finished...Lol  :laughing7:

:laughing7:  Gonna start calling you Duncan Hines.   :thumbsup:

LOL

[Yab Yum]

Thanks all for your replies - so just so i understand UR still holds that there was a universal fall and that something had to be done to fix it finally, and that something was Christ's death on the cross in the place of all sinners.

I was just wondering if there was any question along these lines - if everyone ends up going to heaven anyway, why do we need a saving act that was so bloody and violent? but i think that question can be answered from within the context of UR.

[gky]

To Yab Yum - I appreciate your question a lot.

I continue to struggle with this question myself.
If Christ NEEDED to DIE in THAT MANNER (UR simply applies the atonement
as already having gone into effect for ALL),  I guess the dirty question -  is
God the Father violently vindictive?  And if God is violently vindictive, should that
raise a residue of doubt or inconsistency about "God's love" while considering UR?

The OT recordings only help to re-enforce the perception of God's wrath and
apparent need for violent revenge. Is that Who Christ's death appeased?  NT material
doesn't do much to lessen the implied principle of substitionary penal atonement.  1 John (our English tranlsations anyway) use the word propitiation.

Ultimately, the walk-off game winning home run seems to be Hebrews 9:22;
"And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission."   I know, that's the law if we were still required to fulfill it ourselves.
But Christ did fulfill it and because of us, was crucified violently.

Where I'm at now - back in the garden after the "fall" both Adam and Eve hid and
realized they were ... "naked".  But they were naked in the first place when all
was "good" .. before the "fall" and THE SIN.  God provided an animal (the skin/fur)
to ... "cover" them.  Something about the knowledge of good and evil now introduced
neurosis in man.

My rhetorical question - what was God's mood, motive, and reasoning behind His gesture/decision to provide a sacrifice, which shed blood?  Was He angry? 

Being that this was the first recorded application of .... sacrifice, I'm trying to understand God's motivation behind that act of "covering".  God couldn't have been bothered by their "nakedness".  Adam and Eve, now aware of their nakedness, are now
bothered, insecure, neurotic - nakedness suddenly became an issue. 
Maybe I'm reading into that too much, but was God just being loving and graceful by ... dare I say ... appeasing Adam and Eve, trying to soothe THEIR insecurity and sense of failure.  I'm not saying God wimped out and withheld discipline - far from it. He proceeded (seemingly immediatly) to pronounce the curses and kicked them out of the garden. 

So what was God's mind and heart behind His gesture of having an animal killed to provide that covering of "nakedness", nakedness not being a problem when all was initially created?  Maybe that might help with the understanding of sacrifice.
Maybe that might help to understand the motive behind Him letting His only
begotten Son be crushed so horribly and senselessly.

[WhiteWings]

I was just wondering if there was any question along these lines - if everyone ends up going to heaven anyway, why do we need a saving act that was so bloody and violent? but i think that question can be answered from within the context of UR.

YY,

It's not that we are saved and then Jesus got killed.
It's because Jesus was killed we are saved.

Why so voilently? I don't know. I'm sure Father could have done it in a billion other ways. But this is His plan. Why?????? I don't know.
Just as an example Jesus could have been a teacher that lived 3000 years. Or died in a quick way.
But imo that's not really related to UR. Take Calvinism. Calvinism teaches, say, 5% is elected before the world was created. But if those 5% are already saved why did Jesus have to die (that way)? It's equally painful to die for 5% as for 100%. And if it makes a difference then I guess 100% feels better because it feels as a greater success.

to fix it finally

This will sound rude but most certainly isn't meant that way.
Claiming that Father "fixed" something is an insult to Him.
Fixing means a plan B.
Plan B means plan A failed.
Plan A failed means Father isn't smart enough to do things right the first time.

[Yab Yum]

Thanks again all.

Re: "fix", yes I understand the point. Now, if the "cross" is not a "fix", but we retain substitutionary atonement, then it becomes strange to me within a UR context.

If Christ was substituted for us, that means that we were debtors under the law. So maybe what I'm really asking is how the Fall is understood in a UR context.

Re: animal covering yes that's a good analogy, I'll have to think about that a bit.

[WhiteWings]

Being that this was the first recorded application of .... sacrifice, I'm trying to understand God's motivation behind that act of "covering".  God couldn't have been bothered by their "nakedness".  Adam and Eve, now aware of their nakedness, are now bothered, insecure, neurotic - nakedness suddenly became an issue. 
............
So what was God's mind and heart behind His gesture of having an animal killed to provide that covering of "nakedness", nakedness not being a problem when all was initially created?

There is also a another way to look at it. Before Adam and Eve ate from the fruit they didn't have the knowledge of good and evil. So they didn't know nakedness was good or evil.
But when they ate the fruit they got that knowledge. And it seems they knew nakedness was/is wrong.
I think it's like laws. With or without laws actions stay the same. But with laws those actions are classified as good and evil. But if there are no laws they can't be broken. And God won't count it as a sin.
Similary Adam and Eve had no understanding nudity was evil so until they knew God kept silent about the issue.
:dontknow:

[Beloved Servant]

Nudity is evil?

[WhiteWings]

Nudity is evil?

No by my standards.

[CHB]

Being that this was the first recorded application of .... sacrifice, I'm trying to understand God's motivation behind that act of "covering".  God couldn't have been bothered by their "nakedness".  Adam and Eve, now aware of their nakedness, are now bothered, insecure, neurotic - nakedness suddenly became an issue. 
............
So what was God's mind and heart behind His gesture of having an animal killed to provide that covering of "nakedness", nakedness not being a problem when all was initially created?

There is also a another way to look at it. Before Adam and Eve ate from the fruit they didn't have the knowledge of good and evil. So they didn't know nakedness was good or evil.
But when they ate the fruit they got that knowledge. And it seems they knew nakedness was/is wrong.
I think it's like laws. With or without laws actions stay the same. But with laws those actions are classified as good and evil. But if there are no laws they can't be broken. And God won't count it as a sin.
Similary Adam and Eve had no understanding nudity was evil so until they knew God kept silent about the issue.
:dontknow:

Hi WW,

Here is the way I understand this, may be wrong but I usually am.

I think what you said above is right about why Adam and Eve felt like they needed covering. I believe they tried to cover their own shame/sin by fig leaves but that wasn't a good covering so God used animal skin. I believe this is telling us something spiritual. No matter how hard we try, our works just aren't good enough to atone for our own sins. God had to cover Adam and Eve. I think it was also a shadow of the crucifixion, that Jesus would die for our sins.

CHB

[gky]

After musing over the weekend:
I'm guessing Yab Yum you might agree - maybe the wording of our question -

Is God bloodthirsty (in light of His apparent requirement of "sacrifice)?

"Nakedness"
I don't think the "nakedness" was the issue because God created them that way
in the first place, and completed every phase of creation saying "it is/was good".
Therefore I don't agree the nakedness in and of itself is good nor evil - it just "is".

I am however musing over "knowledge of good and evil".
If anything, it seems the awareness that there now is such a thing as "good and evil"
is actually THE CONSEQUENCE of "SIN" - introducing conflict, disagreement on what is "good and evil", and therefore the fruit of neurosis and insecurity that has plagued man ever since.  Man might have never been designed to take on the burden of deciding
what is good and evil (meant to be childlike).  We see the fruit of this confusion ever since (religious conflict, a feeble attempt to institute laws, wars, etc).  Aren't there phrases in the text saying we would come to a point of calling what is good evil and calling what is evil good?  So "knowledge" of good and evil doesn't seem to be knowledge at all, but simply the ambiguity/conflict/confusion of deciding what is "good and evil".  Adam and Eve seemed to decide that their nakedness was wrong - but on what basis?

I agree with a take here that because of the introduction of the "knowledge"
of good and evil, the "Law" NOW becomes necessary.


So the insecurity, shame, and paranoia caused them to hide.  They desperately tried to
use plant matter to cover their new insecurity and shame, but it seemed inadequate
to Adam and Eve, not necessarily God.  Despite using plant matter to cover, they
still felt a need to hide.  So God had to resort to a more drastic solution -  having
them kill an animal (blood required) to provide this covering.  Again, I propose
the covering was God's idea and provision, but only to aid in pulling Adam and Eve
out from under their now new found shame and insecurity.  This might be
where one could propose that God is NOT bloodthirsty - that He only resorted
to this extreme (killing an animal / blood sacrifice) to "appease" Adam and Eve's
self inflicted devastation, an act of loving grace from God - possibly.

I took the question asking "if God is bloodthirsty" to the very, very next step.
Cain and Abel.  At first, it seems as if God is bloodthirsty there, comparing
Abel's animal sacrifice as "more acceptible" than Cain's from the produce in his field.
Now by this time, I would think both Abel and Cain are clothed. Therefore they
are probably brought up with the concept of nakedness and needing covering/clothes.
So both probably have some idea of the significance of an animal sacrifice.
So when both present their respective sacrifices to God, God seems to
"favor" Abel's sacrifice over Cain's.  Of course we know Cain gets angry an now
we have our first murder - that in and of itself hit me profoundly.  But here we
have both performing an act of worship, but God now has to "discriminate" the
quality and cost of their respective acts of worship.  So we now have our first
religious conflict - leading to a murder even.  Already, if anything, it seems to be
a LACK of "knowledge" of good and evil that fuels this conflict.

First off, God might have only imposed that comparison simply by referring back to
what their parents discovered - the plant matter wasn't going to cut it as covering.
It took the death of an animal (again blood) to provide a more adequate and longer
lasting (not permanent) covering.

Secondly, Cain's jealously and anger driving him to murder his brother could be
viewed as a type of scenario in which the religious leaders murdered Christ.
Christ lived and offered the perfect sacrifice (both His works in fulfilling the law
and literally Himself) vs. religion's failed attempt to offer a perishable sacrifice
(plant matter being more easily perishable) - man's own feeble works of righteosness,
which we should realize is like that of filthy rags.

I've rambled on too long already but let me nutshell now.
1. "knowledge" of good and evil seems not to be knowledge but an introduction
        to a vexing ambiguity that man cannot handle - a life of conflict, disagreement,
        violence and death result.
2. In the two cases above, it seems as if God is only providing the animal or
       blood sacrifice to resolve the need ... of man, not Himself. It's as if
       God is appeasing man, not man sacrificing to appease a bloodthirsty God.
3. So this is just scratching the surface, but I propose it's possible that God is
       NOT bloodthirsty as it relates to the principle of substitutionary atonement
       or blood sacrifice.

Anyway, this is just a beginning of a long road journey for me.
Bear with me - I asked dirty questions en route to learning of UR, I'm not going
to stop asking now.

[Jerm]

Hi all

Is there a UR understanding of Christ's atonement that is different from mainstream church's? I.e. is there substitutionary atonement in UR?

Although I do see a substitutionary element in the atonement, I no longer subscribe to the Penal Substitution view of the atonement.  To clarify my terms, PS states that God is first and foremost a holy, righteous judge who's law must be followed perfectly.  Due to Adam's transgression, all of mankind is deemed guilty and thus deserving of God's righteous anger and wrath.  Christ opts to take mankind's place and thus God pours out all of His wrath on Christ.  Basically, this view asserts that mankind has royally pissed God off and He has to take it out on somebody so Christ takes the beating for us.  This has become a very common viewpoint and IMO, it couldn't be further from the truth.  It portrays God as cruel, wrathful tyrant who's just itching to smack us around because we've offended Him.  Even if all of mankind is eventually redeemed, this still makes God out to be a monster and the worst child abuser in history.

On the other hand, I have now come to see the atonement through the lens of Christus Victor, which was the most commonly held view for the first thousand years of the Church.  In this view, God is first and foremost a loving, benevolent Father who's main concern is for the well being of His children.  Through Adam's transgression, mankind is in turn infected and enslaved to the malevolent, cosmic forces of Sin and Death.  Out of His love for us, Christ enters into the world and assumes these forces upon Himself and defeats them through His life, death, and resurrection.  So ultimately, Christ came on a rescue mission.  His aim was the healing and liberation of an enslaved people.  This is much closer to the picture of God found in Christ.  He is a loving, benevolent Father who's primary concern is for the good of His children.  THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT HE NEVER GETS ANGRY AND NEVER PUNISHES.  Every good father sees the occasional need for anger and discipline but this is never the point in and of itself.  The point is ALWAYS for the good of the child.  Here are some good sources concerning this viewpoint:

http://therebelgod.com/cross_intro.shtml

You can also Wikipedia the term Christus Victor (Also check out Irenaus' Recapitulation)

Also, there are the books Christus Victor by Gustaf Aulen and The Deliverance of God by Douglas Campbell (Campbell doesn't refer to his view as Christus Victor but it's the exact same thing he's presenting)

[jabcat]

Hi Jerm.  Where do you see "the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world" fit - i.e., that Christ's death was pre-ordained to occur as Plan A, not as a Plan B back-up plan?  

IPeter 1:19,20 and Rev. 13:8 "Then everyone who is making a home on the earth, whose name hasn't been wirtten in the Scroll of Life that belongs to the young Lamb who has been slaughtered since the foundation of the world...."

Thanks, James.

[jabcat]

Also this;  "Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene.....this Man, delivered up by the
predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the
hands of godless men and put Him to death" (Acts 2:22-23)

I've considered this topic before.  Thanks for your thoughts on it Jerm.

[fullarmor2]

I was just wondering if there was any question along these lines - if everyone ends up going to heaven anyway, why do we need a saving act that was so bloody and violent? but i think that question can be answered from within the context of UR.

    I really believe that there is a very deep understanding to be had regarding Jesus' earthly sufferings. I can't put my finger on what it is, but I feel like I know this in my spirit.  So,  I believe we will have that info someday,  and it will make sense and be awesome.
 One thing I greatly appreciate is, is that Jesus, our subjecter  ,  didn't just require us to go through this difficult life,  Jesus came and went through it with us.     And I think more importantly than anything else,  Jesus showed us the way. Or revealed our salvation and new life to us.  Which is our faith and our hope.   There is soo much more to what Jesus has done,  who Jesus is,  and what Jesus is going to do with us  than that blood and guts part.  That was only one aspect of all that Jesus did, and will do.  Jesus did that to suffer/die for us and with us.   SO he could be raised up again for us and with us after we enter into our glory.    Its all about love and God eventually getting us out of here and into our heavenly calling in Christ!      Anyway,   blessings to you .  :happy3: