you may add to Johan's list the Restored icon, and Priestly sacrificial atonement.
A question just to start things off.
- Thread starter Administrator
- Start date
Johann
Well-known member
What on earth is wrong with that?
Hebrews 4:14-16 (NIV):
"Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has ascended into heaven, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold firmly to the faith we profess. For we do not have a high priest who is unable to feel sympathy for our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet he did not sin. Let us then approach God’s throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need."
Hebrews 7:24-25 (NIV):
"But because Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent priesthood. Therefore he is able to save completely those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them."
Hebrews 9:11-12 (NIV):
"But when Christ came as high priest of the good things that are now already here, he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not made with human hands, that is to say, is not a part of this creation. He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, thus obtaining eternal redemption."
Romans 8:34 (NIV):
"Who then is the one who condemns? No one. Christ Jesus who died—more than that, who was raised to life—is at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us."
Priestly Functions of Jesus
Intercession:
Jesus is depicted as continually interceding on behalf of believers before God. This intercession is ongoing, reflecting His role as a mediator between God and humanity.
Sacrifice:
Jesus’ priestly role is based on His one-time sacrificial offering of Himself on the cross. Unlike the repeated sacrifices of the Old Testament priests, Jesus’ sacrifice is sufficient for all time.
Mediator:
As the high priest, Jesus bridges the gap between God and humanity, providing access to God’s grace and forgiveness.
Sympathy and Understanding:
Jesus, having experienced human weakness and temptation, is able to sympathize with human frailties, making His intercession compassionate and effective.
Theological Significance
Eternal Priesthood: Jesus’ priesthood is eternal, meaning it does not end with His death but continues forever. This is contrasted with the temporary and repeated priesthood of the Levitical system in the Old Testament.
Heavenly Sanctuary: Jesus serves in the heavenly sanctuary, a perfect and eternal counterpart to the earthly tabernacle or temple.
Perfect Sacrifice: Jesus’ sacrifice is once-for-all, sufficient to atone for the sins of humanity, negating the need for ongoing animal sacrifices.
Conclusion
According to the New Testament, Jesus is indeed performing priestly service now. He is interceding for believers, acting as their mediator before God, and applying the benefits of His once-for-all sacrifice. This priestly role is central to Christian understanding of salvation and ongoing spiritual life.
I am rejoicing because of this-or did you not know our Lord Jesus Christ is our High Priest?
Why the cold shoulder?
civic
Well-known member
What is the source material for the above cut n paste ?
What are you talking about?
Who stated anything was wrong and what cold shoulder are you speaking of?
Pancho Frijoles
Well-known member
I guess these two theories above look closer to my current understanding of atonement, plus another one not mentioned in the list:
The Pastoral Theory
Jesus sacrifice replaces animal sacrifice as a symbol because it works better to address a big problem in the first Christian congregations: the demand placed by Judaizing converts over Greek converts to attend the Temple in Jerusalem for animal sacrifices (and, for that matter, to keep the Law of Moses as a whole). Replacing the slaughtering of lambs by the sacrifice of the "Lamb of God" is equivalent to replacing foreskin circumcision with the "circumcision of the heart" or keeping the Sabbath with "entering Christ's rest".
It is a new "spiritual reinterpretation" of an old bloody ritual.
Behold
Well-known member
The shed Blood of Jesus that is the "Blood Atonement" that is the "new covenant" that is the "one time eternal sacrifice for Sin", is not a "Symbol".
Jesus didnt Bleed "symbols"... . He bled Red Human Blood, that ran off his tortured Body, down The Cross, and puddled at the foot of The Cross.
That's not a symbol..
That is THE Lord as THE Bleeding Dying SACRIFICE... that is this...>>"without the shedding of Blood there is no remission, redemption, or forgiveness".
Had Jesus not shed His Blood then no Believer's sin could be dealt with eternally.
Do you understand this @Pancho Frijoles ??
Pancho Frijoles
Well-known member
Certainly, the blood of Jesus was literal.
The water of baptism was literal.
The bread Jesus blessed was literal.
Yet, you don't believe that such blood literally washes you from sins.
You don't believe that the water of baptism literally buries you to your past life or washes out your sins.
You don't believe that a loaf of bread is literally the body of Christ and you can literally eat his body.
Blood is a symbol of the life Jesus gave up for our sake, so that we could receive his Message on forgiveness and reconciliation with God.
Behold
Well-known member
Of course i do.
I Literally believe that the Blood of Jesus, washes away the sin of the World., as Paul Teaches, as Peter understood, as Christ's Salvation.
@Pancho Frijoles ....You are of some odd Baha'is religion, that believes that Peter is the first Pope, so, for you everything is symbolic......but for God, it was LITERAL.... He Literally offers Jesus as a Literal Blood Sacrifice.
Welcome to CHRISTianity... its where God offers the SHED BLOOD of His Son, and the Death of His Son, to forgive people like you who play with Religion and try to sound "authentic".
So, If you own a Bible, then read Romans 3:25..
"""Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in HIS BLOOD, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;""""
""""whom God set forth as a propitiation through.. FAITH IN HIS BLOOD for a showing forth of His righteousness, because of the forbearance of the sins having taken place beforehand,
"""""God presented him as the mercy seat BY HIS (Jesus's) BLOOD , through faith, to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his restraint God passed over the sins previously committed.
Last edited:
This person is no longer here after dozens of warnings for excessive cut and pastes from sources that would not be cited and plagiarized material.
Pancho Frijoles
Well-known member
Good morning, Behold.
I'll try to explain what I mean.
The precious blood of Jesus Christ does not exist now, literally. It was shed 2000 years ago. When you ask for forgiveness, you don't have any contact with such blood. Some ancient cults needed literal interaction with blood and/or with the animal or person being slaughtered. That is not your case.
So, when you speak about the blood of Jesus, you are talking about an abstract concept: you are talking about what such blood means for you.
A symbol is a physical object that is precious because of its meaning.
This meaning differs from person to person, even among Christians. Not all Christians, for example, believe in the penalty substitutionary atonement theory.
Behold
Well-known member
It does exist now.
It exists forever, as "The one time ETERNAL Sacrifice for sin"...
Its exist like this.......= forever....."God HATH made JESUS....to be SIN for us"..
You just read multiple verses that said to have """"FAITH in the "BLOOD" of Jesus'"... So, if didnt exist literally, then not only would the Blood be symbolic, but the faith would also, and "without faith its impossible to please God".
So, both the BLOOD of Jesus and FAITH, are LITERAL..
See those?
Those are not "symbolic" and they both exist, as if they didn't, then there would be no Redemption "through Christ", available.
Now, what is symbolic?
Taking "communion", is symbolic.
Pancho Frijoles
Well-known member
You know that blood does not exist, and that sacrifice does not exist. Those are past events.
What exists forever is the meaning of that sacrifice. That is what is eternal.
No, my friend.
We are not called to have faith in any physical, literal object, including the blood of Jesus or the cross of Jesus.
What you are reading in the text is figurative language.
I respect your view, but I don't think, in my heart of hearts, that you have faith in the blood of Jesus, but on what that blood represents for you: the love of Jesus, his example and teachings.
Behold
Well-known member
YOU just posted a God insulting, Cross denying Lie.
You just stated on a "christian forum"... that the BLOOD ATONEMENT, THAT IS THE "NEW Covenant", "Does not exist'.
Amazing what so called "christians forums", allow to be heard.
Its pathetic.
Pancho Frijoles
Well-known member
If an atheist came to the forum, that atheist would claim that God does not exist and present his arguments.... and what would you do, then? Would you ask the administrators his expulsion? Or would you respectfully listen to his arguments and prepare a refutation?
The Bible states that God can forgive us out of his mercy and compassion.
It does not only states that. It provides examples of real human beings forgiven that way.
It does it not only in marginal isolated verses, but in full sections specifically addressing the issue.
I may be hurting your sensibilities, but I am not insulting God.
God is the All-Merciful, the Ocean of Mercy, the Clement, the Munificent. Praised be God forever and ever.
Johann
Well-known member
Albert Barnes was not a Calvinist but a Presbyterian with strong influences from Arminian theology. If the claim is that Barnes was a "renowned Calvinist," that is incorrect. Barnes often rejected the harsher aspects of Calvinism, particularly Limited Atonement and Irresistible Grace.
Now, regarding his interpretation of Isaiah 53:10:
Error in Stating That There Was No "Direct Agency" from Yahweh
Isaiah 53:10 explicitly states: "Yet Yahweh was pleased to crush him; He put him to grief". The Hebrew verb דָּכָא (dākā’ – “to crush”) is in the Hiphil stem, which is causative, indicating direct action from God.
The phrase חָפֵץ יְהוָה (ḥāpēṣ YHWH – “Yahweh was pleased”) means this was God's deliberate will, not merely passive permission.
Barnes downplays the active role of Yahweh in the suffering of the Servant, but the Hebrew text contradicts him—this was an act of divine intention, not just something God "allowed."
Misunderstanding of the Atonement
If Christ's suffering was merely "acceptable" to God rather than actively purposed, then the doctrine of substitutionary atonement is weakened.
The NT confirms that Christ’s death was predestined: “this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God” (Acts 2:23), showing divine agency, not passive allowance.
Thus, Barnes’ interpretation is incorrect because it does not fully account for the causative force of the Hebrew text, nor does it align with the broader scriptural witness on the atonement.
J.
civic
Well-known member
He is considered a 4 point calvinist- in fact John calvin many say was a 4 point calvinist and there and many calvinists today who do not hold to all 5 points.
Albert Barnes (1798-1870)
Albert Barnes was a Presbyterian minister who produced a number of valuable commentaries on the Bible. He wrote Old Testament commentaries on Job, Psalms, Isaiah, and Daniel, and a complete set on the New Testament. These works have been extremely popular in both Europe and the U.S., selling into the millions of copies, though his Old Testament productions are generally considered to be superior to the New Testament works — which were written mostly for Sunday school teachers.Educated at Princeton seminary, Barnes was a dedicated student. He arose early in the morning and studied by lamplight — which sustained practice almost cost him his eyesight. For forty years he maintained an association with the First Presbyterian Church in Philadelphia.
Barnes had a strong sense of morality and was much opposed to the practice of slavery. In 1846, he wrote a book, An Inquiry into the Scriptural Views of Slavery. He also preached against the use of alcoholic beverages, urging total abstinence.
In 1868, Barnes was invited to deliver a series of ten lectures on “Christian Evidences” in New York. These were subsequently incorporated into a book and constitute a masterful defense of the Christian religion.
Though a Presbyterian, Barnes argued that man possesses freewill; he urged his auditors exercise their power of choice, and to respond to God’s offer of salvation. These views brought him into serious conflict with strict Calvinists. After the publication of his commentary on Romans, Barnes was charged with doctrinal heresy, and put on trial (1835) by his presbytery. Ultimately, the church’s general assembly acquitted him, though with some censure. His teaching on “unlimited atonement” (contra Calvin) helped generate a split in the Presbyterian Church in 1837.
Johann
Well-known member
Adam Clarke & Albert Barnes: Scholars from the Past
Adam Clarke and Albert Barnes were famous Bible commentators of a by-gone era. This "human interest" piece discusses some little-known facts about these distinguished gentlemen.
christiancourier.com
Thanks for the link.
J.
There are many. Here are some
7 Theories of the Atonement Summarized The nature of the Atonement has been a study for me over Articles Atonement theories the last few years. After having my world turned upside by Dr. C. Baxter Kruger in his book, Jesus and the Undoing of Adam, I have not been able to shake this fascination with rediscovering the cross of Jesus Christ. Today I wanted to share seven of the major theories for the Atonement. These theories attempt to explain the nature of Jesus’ death on the cross. Why did Jesus die? What does this death mean for the world today? These theories are historically the most dominant, and I hope you enjoy learning some of them today!
#1 The Moral Influence Theory One of the earliest theories for the atonement is the Moral Influence theory, which simply taught that Jesus Christ came and died in order to bring about a positive change to humanity. This moral change comes through the teachings of Jesus alongside His example and actions. The most notable name here is that of Augustine from the 4th century, whose influence has almost single-handedly had the greatest impact upon Western Christianity. He affirmed the Moral Influence theory as the main theory of the Atonement (alongside the Ransom theory as well). Within this theory the death of Christ is understood as a catalyst to reform society, inspiring men and women to follow His example and live good moral lives of love. In this theory, the Holy Spirit comes to help Christians produce this moral change. Logically, in this theory, the Eschatological development too becomes about morality, where it is taught that after death the human race will be judged by their conduct in life. This in turn creates a strong emphasis on free will as the human response to follow Jesus’ example. AlthoughAugustine himself differs here in that he did not teach free will, but instead that human Home About beings are incapable of changing themselves, and require God to radically alter their lives Stephen D. Morrison sovereignly through the Holy Spirit. Author & Theologian Plain English Series Articles This theory focuses on not just the death of Jesus Christ, but on His entire life. This sees Videos the saving work of Jesus not only in the event of the crucifixion, but also in all the words He Books has spoken, and the example He has set. In this theory, the cross is merely a ramification of the moral life of Jesus. He is crucified as a martyr due to the radical nature of His moral example. In this way, the Moral Influence theory emphasizes Jesus Christ as our teacher, our example, our founder and leader, and ultimately, as a result, our first martyr.
#2 The Ransom Theory The Ransom Theory of the Atonement is one of the first major theories for the Atonement. It is often held alongside the Moral Influence Theory, and usually deals more with the actual death of Jesus Christ, what it actually means and the effect it has upon humanity. This theory finds its roots in the Early Church, particularly in Origen from the 3rd century. This theory essentially teaches that Jesus Christ died as a ransom sacrifice, paid either to Satan (the most dominant view) or to God the Father. Jesus’ death then acts as a payment to satisfy the debt on the souls of the human race, the same debt we inherited from Adam’s original sin. The Ransom view could be summarized like this: “Essentially, this theory claimed that Adam and Eve sold humanity over to the devil at the time of the Fall’ hence, justice required that God pay the Devil a ransom, for the Devil did not realize that Christ could not be held in the bonds of death. Once the Devil accepted Christ’s death as a ransom, this theory concluded, justice was satisfied and God was able to free us from Satan’s grip.” 1 Redemption in this theory means to buy back, and purchase the human race from the clutches of the Devil. The main controversy here with this theory is the act of paying off the Devil. Some have written that this is not a fair statement to say that all Ransom Theorists believe that the Devil is paid, but rather in this act of Ransom Christ frees humanity from the bondage of sin and death. In this way, Ransom relates the Christus Victor theory. But it’s worth differentiating here because in one way these views are similar, but in another way, they are drastically different.
#3 Christus Victor Classically, the Christus Victor theory of Atonement is widely considered to be the dominant theory for most of the historical Christian Church. In this theory, Jesus Christ dies in order to defeat the powers of evil (such as sin, death, and the devil) in order to free mankind fromtheir bondage. This is related to the Ransom view with the difference being that there is no Home About payment to the devil or to God. Within the Christus Victor framework, the cross did not pay Stephen D. Morrison off anyone but defeated evil thereby setting the human race free. Plain English Series Author & Theologian Articles Gustaf Aulen argued that this theory of the Atonement is the most consistently held theory Videos for church history, especially in the early church up until the 12th century before Anslem’s Books satisfaction theory came along. He writes that “the work of Christ is first and foremost a victory over the powers which hold mankind in bondage: sin, death, and the devil.” He 2 calls this theory the “classic” theory of the Atonement. While some will say that Christus Victor is compatible with other theories of the Atonement, others argue that it is not. Though I have found that most theologians believe that Christus Victor is true, even if it is not for them the primary theory of Christ’s death.
#4 The Satisfaction Theory (Anselm) In the 12th century, Anselm of Canterbury proposed a satisfaction theory for the Atonement. In this theory, Jesus Christ’s death is understood as a death to satisfy the justice of God. Satisfaction here means restitution, the mending of what was broken, and the paying back of a debt. In this theory, Anselm emphasizes the justice of God and claims that sin is an injustice that must be balanced. Anselm’s satisfaction theory says essentially that Jesus Christ died in order to pay back the injustice of human sin and to satisfy the justice of God. This theory was developed in reaction to the historical dominance of the Ransom theory, that God paid the devil with Christ’s death. Anselm saw that this theory was logically flawed, because what does God owe satan? Therefore, in contrast with the Ransom theory, Anselm taught that it is humanity who owes a debt to God, not God to satan. Our debt, in this theory, is that of injustice. Our injustices have stolen from the justice of God and therefore must be paid back. Satisfaction theory then postulates that Jesus Christ pays pack God in His death on the cross to God. This is the first Atonement theory to bring up the notion that God is acted upon by the Atonement (i.e. that Jesus satisfies God).
#5 The Penal Substitutionary Theory Penal Substitutionary Atonement is a development of the Reformation. The Reformers, Specifically Calvin and Luther, took Anselm’s Satisfaction theory and modified it slightly. They added a more legal (or forensic) framework into this notion of the cross as satisfaction. The result is that within Penal Substitution, Jesus Christ dies to satisfy God’s wrath against human sin. Jesus is punished (penal) in the place of sinners (substitution) in order to satisfy the justice of God and the legal demand of God to punish sin. In the light of Jesus’ death, God can now forgive the sinner because Jesus Christ has been punished in the place of the sinner, in this way meeting the retributive requirements of God’s justice. Thislegal balancing of the ledgers is at the heart of this theory, which claims that Jesus died for Home About legal satisfaction. It’s also worth mentioning that in this theory the notion of imputed Stephen D. Morrison righteousness is postulated. Author & Theologian Plain English Series Articles This theory of the Atonement contrasts with Anselm’s Satisfaction Theory in that God is not Videos satisfied with a debt of justice being paid by Jesus, but that God is satisfied with punishing Books Jesus in the place of mankind. The notion that the cross acts upon God, conditioning Him to forgiveness, originates from Anslems theory, but here in Penal Substitution the means are different. This theory of the Atonement is perhaps the most dominant today, especially among the Reformed, and the evangelical.
#6 The Governmental Theory The Governmental Theory of the Atonement is a slight variation upon the Penal Substitutionary theory, which is notably held in Methodism. The main difference here is the extent to which Christ suffered. In the Governmental Theory, Jesus Christ suffers the punishment of our sin and propitiates God’s wrath. In this way, it is similar to Penal Substitution. However, in the Governmental Theory, Jesus Christ does not take the exact punishment we deserve, He takes a punishment. Jesus dies on the cross therefore to demonstrate the displeasure of God towards sin. He died to display God’s wrath against sin and the high price which must be paid, but not to specifically satisfy that particular wrath. The Governmental Theory also teaches that Jesus died only for the church, and if you by faith are part of the church, you can take part in God’s salvation. The church then acts as the sort of hiding place from God’s punishment. This view contrasts both the Penal and Satisfaction models but retains the fundamental belief that God cannot forgive if Jesus does not die a propitiating death.
#7 The Scapegoat Theory The Scapegoat Theory is a modern Atonement theory rooted in the philosophical concept of the Scapegoat. Here the key figures Rene Girard and James Allison. Within this theory of the Atonement Jesus Christ dies as the Scapegoat of humanity. This theory moves away from the idea that Jesus died in order to act upon God (as in PSA, Satisfaction, or Governmental), or as payment to the devil (as in Ransom). Scapegoating therefore is considered to be a form of non-violent atonement, in that Jesus is not a sacrifice but a victim. There are many Philosophical concepts that come up within this model, but in a general sense, we can say that Jesus Christ as the Scapegoat means the following. 1) Jesus is killed by a violent crowd. 2) The violent crowd kills Him believing that He is guilty. 3) Jesus is proven innocent, as the true Son of God. 4) The crowd is therefore deemed guilty. James Allison summarizes the Scapegoating Theory like this, “Christianity is a priestly religion which understands that it is God’s overcoming of our violence by substitutinghimself for the victim of our typical sacrifices that opens up our being able to enjoy the Home fullness of creation as if death were not.” Stephen D. Morrison Author & Theologian Conclusions About Plain English Series Articles Each theory presented here is dense and complex, but I hope you can learn from the overall Videos Books focus of each. I personally believe that we need to move beyond some of these theories and progress into a more robust theory of atonement. But thankfully, at the end of the day, we aren’t saved by theories. We’re saved by Jesus! How that happens may be fun to discuss and theorized about, but only in the sight of the fact that it’s the who that matters far more! What do you think of all these theories? Does a certain one appeal to you more than the rest? Let me know in a comment! Recommended reading The following books are some of the best studies on the atonement I know and recommend for further reading: Atonement, Justice, and Peace by Darrin W. Snyder Belousek (the best argument against penal substitution I’ve read) The Crucifixion by Fleming Rutledge (excellent study on the cross for today’s world) Christus Victor by Gustaf Aulén (a classic study of traditional atonement models) Atonement: Person and Work of Christ by Thomas F. Torrance (great study by the renowned 20th-century theologian) The Nature of the Atonement by John McLeod Campbell (difficult reading, but historically an important text) On the Incarnation by Athanasius (don’t let the title fool you: this is a profound text for the atonement in the early church) Curs Deus Homo: Why God Became Man by Anselm (classic for the “satisfaction” atonement theory) Against Heresies by Ireneaus (a great example of the atonement in the early church) Things Hidden Since the Foundations of the World by Rene Girard (for the scapegoat theory) The Crucified God by Jürgen Moltmann (one of the best modern works on the atonement)Election and Reprobation Faith and Doubt (Friends or Foes?) Church Dogmatics IV/1 by Karl Barth (another modern classic on the atonement, famous for Barth’s notion of the “Judge judged in our p
