I disagree that it is in agreement with mainstream Christianity (although I am sure it is in agreement with some within Mainstream Christianity).I believe that the person laying their hands on the animal being sacrificed was signifying the transference of their sin to the animal. The same goes with the other types of sacrifices and the things they signified. I haven't made up any of it myself and right or wrong, it is in agreement with mainstream Christianity.
On the Day of Atonement the ritual was performed and the scapegoat driven out for Azazel. I believe that this was symbolic, foreshadowing when Jesus woukd take away our sins. And this os mainstream as well (probably more than this ritual being an atonement).
RC Sproul, for example, claims that this was not a form of atoning for sins was symbolic of a future when their sins would be forgiven. John MacArthur agrees with Sproul, stating that this ritual was only a shadow of what was real, pointing to a day their sins would be forgiven. I agree with those mainstream Christians. So does JI Packer, Tim Keller, and John Piper.
I never said you made up anything yourself. I said that you do not take the sacrificial system as a literal picture of atonement. You exchange roles (where Scripture has the oriest representing the people as a whole you have the priest representing God).
A literal take on the symbolism would be the people killing the sacrifice because of their sins, and the culmination would be forgiveness (which is the view I hold). In Scripture the priest never represents God the Father.
How did you come to change the roles of the "players" in the OT sacrifice system?
I know, but I can't help that. The problem is language itself. As a substitute Jesus would bear ones sins, but bearing ones sins does not indicate a substitution (other than representative substitution) without qualifying words.I continue to maintain that Jesus bearing our sin is by definition incompatible with a refusal to look at it as substitution.
My son bears my name. So what am I called now???!!!!! (Joke...kinda)
I can stop in occasionally on here and repeat that, forever. It doesn't seem to bother you to do the same but what will it accomplish?
My hope is that some other person, member or passerby, will think about it, go to Scripture, and realize that Penal Substitution Theory is based on a very flawed judicial philosophy and ultimately be able to take Scripture for what is written. It has happened a couple of times (over about 10 years) and those two were worth the effort to me.
I agree....BUT who caused Jesus' unjust suffering?The part about Jesus suffering unjustly has to be true since he was sinless, innocent of any wrongdoing, and he technically won his case.
Then you have misunderstood my theology.His being referred to as the "Lamb" has to be dealt with and your theology fails to do so.
Jesus is the Lamb symbolized in the OT sacrifices when the one representing the people took from then the lamb and killed it because this was God's plan.
More importantly, Jesus is the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.
It seems to me you may be making our disagreement larger than it is in order to "prove" it wrong.
We do disagree. But we do not disagree about EVERYTHING.
I simply believe that a foundational doctrine must be written in the text of Scripture so it can be tested against Scripture. Of such doctrines, what is not in God's Word has to be dismissed. I do not believe the Atonement to be a secondary doctrine where we can guess and theorize. The readon is this doctrine is so important to other teachings, colors our understanding of Scripture, and forms a base for other doctrines.
I absolutely agree. Amen.Without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins and no word salad gyrations can get around that. It does not mesh well with our modern sensibilities
I would even say that a person who denies "without the shedding of blood there can be no remission of sins" is not a Christian.
I am not sure how much it offends the modern sensibilities....I can't imagine it would offend any believer.
I am not sure why you are bringing this up here as I also stated several times that very verse. Not only that, I provided the reason.
I'm curious.....why (what purpose did it serve) do you believe the shedding of blood was necessary for our forgiveness?
The fact is, that is what God says about our redemption and the plan of salvation is God's plan. It does help us understand the seriousness of sin in God's sight but whether it helps us see anything or whether it symbolizes anything from God's view of sin to upholding his righteousness the fact is it looks to me like Christ's death on the cross did something actual and specific for those of us who get saved in that it somehow directly handled our sin against a Holy God which incurred a debt that we are totally unable to fix.
I agree that what God says is His plan. I just believe this to be the actual text of Scripture (I believe words were chosen, included, and excluded for the reason of communicating truth to us).
Yes, obviously sin is serious in God's sight. I just believe it is more serious, and more a problem, than you are allowing.
Of course Jesus' death and resurrection (these cannot be separated into micro doctrines without comoromise....especially given that Paul says the Chriatian faith is in Christ's resurrection) did something. But of course Christ's death did something actual and specific. The Bible tells us what His death did (and we have been over this).
I'm not sure about your last part.
Scripture tells us "sin begats death", "the wages of sin is death", "sin produces death", "the mind set on the flesh is death" and "it is appointed man once to die and then the judgment".
It seems that you have shifted from the "once to die" to "the judgment". God will punish the wicked. But those who are saved will not be wicked, they will not be guilty (they are recreated).
If you mean man somehow hurt God or injured Him in some way do substantial to equate to a debt then I disagree. This would make God subject to man.
I am not sure what you mean by referring to sin as a debt (sin is evil, and it's wage is death).
What verse are you looking at?