Theory of Atonement?

[Michael_Mayo]

Maybe start a thread just on Adam and Eve. Do you also believe Adam was formed from the clay of the ground and God blew into his nostrils and Eve came from his rib while sleeping?

 

[Hatikvah]

We’re not trusting Sacred Revelation (as either Scripture or Tradition) entirely if we feel the need to interpret things allegorically just to protect our position from “scientific damage.” Faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance in what we do not see (Hebrews 11:1).

Scripture and Tradition are the teachings of the apostles: Paul references Adam (Rom. 5:12-21, 1 Cor. 15:22, 1 Cor. 15:45) and so does Jesus, though that must be taken in context (Mat. 19:4). If the account of Adam and Eve is false, then original sin is false, contradictory to Paul’s teaching.

Of course, “all scientific evidence points to the contrary,” or something like that. But is there any doubt that the early Church accepted that account? Josephus wrote in his Antiquities of the Jews, around 72 AD, about the literal acceptance of the account to explain to the Romans, and even describing in depth how the etymology of Adam’s name (meaning “red,” or “ruddy”) refers to the red dirt from which he was created in the Middle East.

Also, there are over 300 flood accounts in the folklore of even indigenous peoples of the Americas, such as the Hopi and the Cherokee, which are obviously not Semitic peoples. The Church says to think what you’d like on the matter, of course.

 

[Jake_Parker]

I know this discussion seems to have ended, but I didn’t know if I could create a new thread on this topic since this was is only a couple months old.

I found a site that does a nice job of summarizing the majority of atonement theories, including some I think many of us probably haven’t heard of.
hackingchristianity.net/2013/03/primer-on-atonement-theories.html

Incarnational Atonement is one that’s mentioned. I am actually inclined to believe this is one of the more accurate explanations for the atonement. I found a very detailed site that explains Incarnational Atonement. home.messiah.edu/~rcollins/Philosophical%20Theology/Atonement/AT7.HTM

Here is just one small section to summarize:

Another theological merit of the Incarnational theory is that it neatly unites the post-Easter gospel (literally, “good news”) preached by the Apostles with the pre-Easter gospel of the Kingdom of Heaven preached by Jesus–that is, the message that God, and God’s reign, are now breaking into the human situation: “the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe the good news” (Mk. 1:16). Under the Incarnational theory, the difference between the two gospels simply amounts to one of tense, just as one would expect: Jesus says that God is presently entering our human world (the Kingdom of Heaven is breaking in), whereas the Apostles say that God has already entered as deeply as possible, and because of this we can now be reconciled to God. In contrast, according to the Satisfaction and Penal theories, the post-Easter gospel is about the satisfaction of divine justice. Yet the gospel that Jesus preached in his earthly ministry did not make any mention of the satisfaction of divine justice, but rather was about the coming of God’s reign with the offer of forgiveness and reconciliation for all, as illustrated most vividly in his quotation of the prophet Isaiah at the beginning of his ministry: “The spirit of the Lord is upon me because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor, to proclaim release for the captives and to open the eyes of the blind, to let prisoners go free and to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor” (Lk. 4:18). In choosing to quote this passage of Isaiah, Jesus compares his coming to the Hebrew festival year of Jubilee, a festival appointed by God in which every fifty years all debts and obligations were wiped out for every Israelite, without the need for any repayment by anyone.

Unlike the Satisfaction and Penal theories, the Incarnational theory also does a more satisfactory job at theologically explaining what the book of Hebrews calls Jesus’ High Priesthood, or the special mediatorial role that Christ plays in our redemption. To see this, consider that in the Satisfaction and Penal theories, the primary saving act that Christ performs is that of paying the penalty for our sins on the Cross. Once this penalty is paid, God the Father is then free to forgive us and have fellowship with us. Thus within the logic of these theories, once the penalty was paid at a certain point in human history, there is no reason why Christ should continue to play any special role in mediating our relationship with God. But scripture tells us that Christ does play such a role. For example, Jesus says that he is the Way the Truth and the Life, and only through him can we come to the Father (Jn. 14:6), and Paul tells the Corinthians that in Christ is the wisdom, righteousness, holiness, and life of God, that is, it is only in Christ that we can partake of the divine nature (I Cor. 1:30). The Satisfaction and Penal theories have to explain these statements as referring to a one-time mediatorial act performed by Christ, in which we have faith on an ongoing basis. In contrast to this, however, the Incarnational theory is able to explain the ongoing mediatorial and salvific role of Christ himself, for under this theory Christ is where the divine and human meet for all time and thus it is only in and through Christ that we can partake of the divine nature on a continuing basis. The book of Hebrews tells us that although Christ did indeed offer up one single sacrifice, it is perpetual because Christ remains forever (Heb. 7:24); that he “was made a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek” (Heb. 6:20, 7:17); and that this is also why Christ is also able to save absolutely those who approach God through him as a mediator (Heb. 7:25). In addition, this theory goes along well with those passages which suggest that Christ is able to perform a mediatorial role as High Priest because he was “made like his brothers in every way,” and thus can “sympathize with their weakness” and “help those who are being tempted” (Heb. 2:17-18, Heb. 4:15).

 

[Vico]

I have not used the designation of sinners.

It is not my place to judge the soul of a teacher/preacher who does not believe that Divinity is necessary when the prophet Jesus Christ persuaded the crowd to share their lunch with their neighbor. (beginning of chapter 6, Gospel of John)

I think you could identify some as Arians in a state of invincible ignorance, and otherse, in fact are knowledgeable Arians today, such as Jehovah’s Witnesses, for they openly profess it.

Of course you did not use the term sinners. However we are all sinners, as sin by St. Paul:

Romans 3
22 Even the justice of God, by faith of Jesus Christ, unto all and upon all them that believe in him: for there is no distinction: 23 For all have sinned, and do need the glory of God. 24 Being justified freely by his grace, through the redemption, that is in Christ Jesus, 25 Whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation, through faith in his blood, to the shewing of his justice, for the remission of former sins, 26 Through the forbearance of God, for the shewing of his justice in this time; that he himself may be just, and the justifier of him, who is of the faith of Jesus Christ.