Hi
I would like to hear from any (especially in the UK)
Who know God, as opposed to merely knowing ABOUT him, and have a father-child relationship with him. Or at least WANT to know him and WANT a father-child relationship with him.
AND believe Jesus when he said “I and the father are one”, “He who has seen me has seen the father”, “I am the way, the truth and the life, no one comes to the father but by me”
BUT who have renounced the notion that God sent his son into the world to die on the cross as an atonement for their sins.
Galatians 6:7 says “God is not mocked by mere pretensions or professions or by having his precepts set aside. What a man sows, that and that only is what he shall reap”.
The atonement doctrine on the other hand says that God sent his son into the world to turn aside this law, so that instead of men reaping what they had sown, Jesus would.
I would like to hear from those whose HEARTS reject this doctrine as immoral and untrue.
The apparent biblical basis for this doctrine e.g “without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins” (Hebrews 9:22), raises the deeper more fundamental question of HOW truth is to be recognised. (How for example is this doctrine to be weighed?)
I suggest those who are unclear on this, and would like some help, reflect on the following question:
WHICH of these two MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE principles have you applied to test the truth of the proposition?
A. The head to heart principle? - An example of this: A person saying “I know in my head that God forgives me and accepts me, but I can’t feel it in my heart”, they have memorized verses on forgiveness, God’s love and acceptance, their position of grace, and all the related doctrines. They “know” the information in their heads, but they are far from “knowing” it in their hearts. They commonly think this “head” knowledge is somehow going to “sink in” to their hearts.
B. The heart to head principle? - This is described by Joyce Sibthorpe:
“THe more time you spend listening to the Lord, the more you tune out your extraneous thoughts and tune in God. Part of this tuning in process involves recognising where we receive the voice of God. Do you hear him in your mind? No, receiving from God goes on in a much deeper part of you. It is in your guts, some would call it your belly; it is in fact your innermost being.
I find it helps some people when I ask them, “where in you, is the voice of conscience?” When you know you’ve done something wrong and you feel guilty, where do you hear the guilt and shame? Where is that intuitive, sensitive part of you that is your conscience? You will hear the voice of God in the same place. It’s deep within you. It’s a part of you which in most of us is very undeveloped. That is where you hear”. - “Can you HEAR God?” page 60-61
If your answer to the question is “A. head to heart. I use my intellect to fathom the truth of a doctrine”, then consider this statement by Paul to the Corinthians and the two questions that follow:
“For our knowledge is fragmentary (incomplete and imperfect), and our prophecy (our teaching) is fragmentary (incomplete and imperfect). But when the complete and perfect total comes, the incomplete and imperfect will vanish away (become antiquated, void and superseded)….for now we are looking in a mirror that gives only a dim (blurred) reflection of reality as in a riddle or enigma, but then when perfection comes we shall see in reality and face to face…..1Cor. 13:9-10 &12.
1. Does the fulfilment of this prophecy lie in the here and now or beyond the grave?
2. Has the vision in the mirror become CLEARER for you over the course of time, or DIMMER? (Do you find yourself “forever learning but never arriving at the truth”?)
Michal ( a she not a he)
Re: weighing the atonement doctrine
Michal, it sounds like you are fishing for something here. I guess I’ll take your bait, but I’ll slide it off the hook first.
I am one that as you suggest rejects the theory of substitutionary atonement (or atonement in general). However, I don’t think the options A and B you give are fair. I would not differentiate between "heart" and "head" so for me they are both the same idea. Both concepts are another word for what you precieve in your "mind". A heart is an organ that pumps blood so it isn’t something that "feels". Your mind/brain is what feels. Faith is a pshycological phenomenon that results from many layers of emotional experiences and knowledge piled on top of our need to understand the questions of why we exist, who created us and how we relate to that which created us.
I reject this particular doctrine of atonement for the very simple reason that I reject all doctrines as keys to faith. But, rejecting a doctrine doesn’t mean I don’t see use for it. This particular doctrine is very helpful in modifying behavior because it creates a great deal of guilt which can be useful if channeled in the right direction. The organized church has used it successfully to preserve the teachings of Jesus for 2000 years as well as control people. For example, I also reject doctrines that say that God is a transcendant being that answers my prayers with supernatural intervention, but yet I still pray because I gain psychological benefit from times of prayer and reflection.
That probably sounds odd, but what I mean is that our faith is a result of experiences, teachings, scriptures, feelings, and influences that all add together to create our faith. You have to add them all up to get your answer to theological questions. So the reason I reject this doctrine is not because I don’t have valid experiences with God and it is not because I don’t have adequate knowledge about the scriptures. Instead, it is because the sum of every emotional experience and every byte of information that I have at my disposal right now in my life adds together to tell me that the answer is "no".
There was a time in my life when I accepted this doctrine as truth, but that was when I had a very immature faith. Like a child, I only believed what the authority figures around me said was true. Later I gathered my own experiences and better information about scripture to add to the equation. I also added information that explained some of the emotional experiences with more clarity.
To use your principles, I would say that I had moments of type A and also type B understandings of my faith during my youth while I did accept that doctrine of atonement and now I’ve had type A and B understandings during my time of rejecting this doctrine. God has touched my head and my heart during both times in my life. I think they were real then and are real now. That adds more weight to my theory that doctrines are not the key to real valid spiritual experiences.
That probably isn’t exactly what you were looking for, but it should give you the launching point for debate that you probably intended to create.
FYI… my name is Michael (a he not a she) Sorry, I’m NOT from the UK
Re: weighing the atonement doctrine
Hello Michal and Michael,
Yes, I agree with you on the rejection of the atonement doctrine (penal substitutionary sacrifice). It was the first thing I found hard to digest when I first came to Christ some 10 years ago. I know exactly what you mean with your heart to head analogy. I have had people explain how it works in the most logical way, and my head can process this information and say “I can see how this works”, all the while my heart (by which I do not mean the organ that pumps blood around my body) is telling me that it is wrong. I think the heart description fits…For instance, in some Asian cultures, the seat of the soul is said to be in the solar plexus…If I had to locate the place from which I feel my heart speaking I would say it is closest to the solar plexus…It is where I can physically feel strong emotional pain and elation.
Here is something I came across on another website regarding the penal substitutionary sacrifice…
Lets keep in mind, everyone, that scripture actually says that “it pleased the Father to bruise the Son”. God the Father “killed” God the Son, in the ultimate sense. This was part of a larger trinitarian agreement for the Son to become the substitionary atonement. This redemption plan was not an afterthought, but was predestined “before time began”……
This kind of talk makes me deeply uneasy, and always has…But I also recognise that by rejecting this doctrine I am in the minority.
Happy fishing, I’ll be checking back.
Best Wishes