Why Atonement anyway?

[emeraldgirl]

I'm sorry if I'm being a pain.

Part of what is so annoying about the whole Atonement concept is this: Why is atonement needed anyway?

Please don't say "Because God is holy and we sin."

Here's my analogy. Say I'm your landlord and you owe me $10 million dollars. You can never pay the debt. So, because I love you, I say, "Okay, look, my son will pay it for you. I'm going to sell everything he owns and then sell him into slavery to come up with the ransom for your debt."

The one part that makes no sense is that I'm the landlord in the first place! I could just cancel the debt. If *I* am the one making the requirement, why do I need to create any gymnastics to free you from the debt?

[Leonard]

One of the reasons Scripture gives is 'that sin might appear exceeding sinful.' That is, so that WE will recognize how awful sin is.

I doubt that answer will satisfy you anymore than it does me, but God's thoughts are different than ours.

[Jorge S]

Hi Emeraldgirl

That's a deep question and I'm not sure I can fit my answer to your analogy.

I think there are several issues implied in the concept of atonement.

One is that all God's attributes work harmoniously and perfectly at the same time. After Adam's sin, God could have annihilated him right away. In doing so He would have been just (punishing a fault He had already announced) but He would have lacked mercy, love, patience and loyalty to His own word (His previous blessings and command to multiply and fill the earth). In condoning Adam's guilt as if nothing had happened He would have been merciful, loving and patient but He would have lacked justice, authority and loyalty to His Own Word (the warning that Adam would die the day he ate from the prohibited tree.)

Another aspect to consider is the covenantal equation. God cannot fault, man can. Sin breaks the covenant and becomes therefore punishable. Atonement is the mechanism God uses to restore us back into the covenant. He erases our faults and remains not only just and authoritative but also merciful and caring.

Lastly, atonement brings judgement upon a third party not implied in your analogy: Satan. He is not subjected to the usual mechanisms of punishment man is because of his spiritual nature, but he is also a created being. Jesus' atonement for our sins leaves Satan without allegations against God for our sake. We stopped being accused and convicted by God's Law because His Grace saves us from the consequences of sin Satan wants us to dwell in.

Hope this helps.

[Fiosh]

Try to expand your analogy a bit. My thought is that if God "cancels" our debt, He takes away any free will we have in making that choice, and yet leaves us free to continue in our sin. What reason would we have to stop sinning?

If my landlord canceled my debt with no consequences to me, why not simply run up a new tab?

Do you see what I'm getting at? I'm just thinking out loud, so to speak.

Peace,

Fiosh

[sylvan3]

This then begs the question that I have had for years:

Why does God create/allow sin in the first place? He's omniscient and, therefore, knows that sin will occur, but he creates mankind anyway.

If you are going to say, "It's because he wanted us to have free will", I will question the whole concept of free will, based on an omniscient creator who has a "plan" and knows what everyone is going to do prior to his creating them. He supposedly didn't want "robots" but he knows what everyone is going to do anyway. That makes sense to a human being? Why would he create a situation where people could make supposedly bad choices (some quite legitmately) that would result in them spending an eternity in fiery hell--knowing ahead of time that they would do this.

I think the above is a very legitimate question that frequently results in answers of "I don't know". Those answers then legitimize a concept of agnosticism (i.e. one is incapable of knowing God), which, in my view, could never be a philosophically bad thing. What the heck, I even hear Billy Graham saying, "I don't know" (when asked about why Katrina hit). However, there are many who will say that this view--one that basically states, "I just don't get it"--will result in someone spending eternity in a fiery hell (if you are going to say, "All you have to do is believe in Jesus, and you won't go to hell", my response is that the "I don't get it" also extends that supposed condition for avoiding eternal damnation).

[emeraldgirl]

Try to expand your analogy a bit. My thought is that if God "cancels" our debt, He takes away any free will we have in making that choice, and yet leaves us free to continue in our sin. What reason would we have to stop sinning?

If my landlord canceled my debt with no consequences to me, why not simply run up a new tab?

Do you see what I'm getting at? I'm just thinking out loud, so to speak.

Foish, I'm not a big believer in punishment as a deterant to sin. That's a whole 'nother post, but basically, what you're saying is also true of people who accept the free gift of Jesus and now have no external motivation to "do good". Generally speaking, people "do good" for relational reasons. When people feel they are in a relationship with God, they tend to do good. If they only "accept God" in a shallow way because they fear hell, they don't have any motivation to do good because there is no relational reason to do good. But I digress.

I guess my problem is more in the vein of: Why is sin a "problem" for God in the first place? He has all the power, yet he has no alternative except atonement to deal with the sin problem. Like the landlord in my analogy, that there is even a debt is in my hands. Why do I need to create a system for addressing the debt? The debt is there because I created the indebtedness by saying you have to pay.

When I was a young child, my more simple version of this was, "Why did God put people on a planet where Satan even had access? Or why is Satan any kind of "problem" for God? The snake snuck in there and lied to Eve and all this was going on while God was where? Even if it's allegorical, and not literal, the problem still nags: why would God even need to come up with some way of dealing with the "problem" of sin?

Is that making the question more clear?

[emeraldgirl]

After Adam's sin, God could have annihilated him right away. In doing so He would have been just (punishing a fault He had already announced) but He would have lacked mercy, love, patience and loyalty to His own word (His previous blessings and command to multiply and fill the earth). In condoning Adam's guilt as if nothing had happened He would have been merciful, loving and patient but He would have lacked justice, authority and loyalty to His Own Word (the warning that Adam would die the day he ate from the prohibited tree.)

But Jorge, the question goes back further. I'm sorry; this is hard to articulate. He knew we were not perfect. Love requires freedom; I understand that. Of course he would not have wanted us to just obey because we couldn't do anything else. Then it would cease to be a relationship. But the point is more that he created us with the option to choose obedience or disobedience. So, he had to know the choice for disobedience was bound to be made. But for him to have to come up with a sacrafice to atone for sin seems incoherant. Why does death of an innocent "pay" for sin in the first place?

I know an analogy using my own children is an imperfect analogy, but I think the point is still there. I know, eventually, they will disobey me. (Marvelous though they are. ) I am not happy when they disobey, especially if the results are significant. But nobody has to die because they disobeyed me. No blood has to be shed to bring them back into a relationship with me. We just address the problem and move on. In some instances, there might be a logical retribution, like if one child intentionally damaged another child's possession, the errant child would have to restore the possession, if possible. But they don't have to pay in blood because they did something wrong, even if it was outright wrong and not just a foolish mistake.

[sylvan3]

Foish, I'm not a big believer in punishment as a deterant to sin. That's a whole 'nother post, but basically, what you're saying is also true of people who accept the free gift of Jesus and now have no external motivation to "do good". Generally speaking, people "do good" for relational reasons. When people feel they are in a relationship with God, they tend to do good. If they only "accept God" in a shallow way because they fear hell, they don't have any motivation to do good because there is no relational reason to do good. But I digress.

I guess my problem is more in the vein of: Why is sin a "problem" for God in the first place? He has all the power, yet he has no alternative except atonement to deal with the sin problem. Like the landlord in my analogy, that there is even a debt is in my hands. Why do I need to create a system for addressing the debt? The debt is there because I created the indebtedness by saying you have to pay.

When I was a young child, my more simple version of this was, "Why did God put people on a planet where Satan even had access? Or why is Satan any kind of "problem" for God? The snake snuck in there and lied to Eve and all this was going on while God was where? Even if it's allegorical, and not literal, the problem still nags: why would God even need to come up with some way of dealing with the "problem" of sin?

Is that making the question more clear?

I think these are very valid questions. To me , to just say "that's the way things are" is not good enough.

The concept of accepting God in order to avoid hell is a major issue for me. I have frequently heard how God gave us free will so that we would "choose" him freely. How is this free choice?

This is the scenario: "You have free will. You don't have to worship me. But there is this one little problem. If you don't worship me, you will burn in hell forever". That's a free choice? I believe that it is very easy to see the utter insanity of this.

[emeraldgirl]

The concept of accepting God in order to avoid hell is a major issue for me. I have frequently heard how God gave us free will so that we would "choose" him freely. How is this free choice?

This is the scenario: "You have free will. You don't have to worship me. But there is this one little problem. If you don't worship me, you will burn in hell forever". That's a free choice? I believe that it is very easy to see the utter insanity of this.

Sylvan, I hear ya. For myself personally, I believe the choice for God is more to do good in this world. Like, I wouldn't have "chosen" to marry my husband and love him if he held a fire to my hair and said, "If you don't choose to love me, I'll burn you." Even if I consented to marry him to avoid being burned, I wouldn't love him. I could only love him by it being a totally free choice. But now that I am in a relationship with him, I also choose to do good toward him, because it increases his happiness and our family peace. And, thankfully, he reciprocates.

I do believe in an afterlife, but my basis for choosing God doesn't have much to do with the afterlife simply because I only know about this life.

I also teach my children to choose God, but I never hang "hell" over their heads. I emphasize God for the good it tends to bring into people's hearts, not to avoid hell. My daughter has only the sketchist knowledge of hell, which she learned from church and/or friends and frankly, I'm glad.

[sylvan3]

The concept of accepting God in order to avoid hell is a major issue for me. I have frequently heard how God gave us free will so that we would "choose" him freely. How is this free choice?

This is the scenario: "You have free will. You don't have to worship me. But there is this one little problem. If you don't worship me, you will burn in hell forever". That's a free choice? I believe that it is very easy to see the utter insanity of this.

Sylvan, I hear ya. For myself personally, I believe the choice for God is more to do good in this world. Like, I wouldn't have "chosen" to marry my husband and love him if he held a fire to my hair and said, "If you don't choose to love me, I'll burn you." Even if I consented to marry him to avoid being burned, I wouldn't love him. I could only love him by it being a totally free choice. But now that I am in a relationship with him, I also choose to do good toward him, because it increases his happiness and our family peace. And, thankfully, he reciprocates.

I do believe in an afterlife, but my basis for choosing God doesn't have much to do with the afterlife simply because I only know about this life.

I also teach my children to choose God, but I never hang "hell" over their heads. I emphasize God for the good it tends to bring into people's hearts, not to avoid hell. My daughter has only the sketchist knowledge of hell, which she learned from church and/or friends and frankly, I'm glad.

Beautiful words...it's encouraging to know there are people like you.