Atonement and the Urantia book
One of the central truths of Christianity is the idea that when Jesus died on the Cross, He did so to pay for our sins. It is also one of the doctrines most denied by Urantians and, in my estimation, the most misunderstood.
It is misunderstood and there is a reason. As we go, I will attempt to give you both sides of thought on the topic, and I will also outline why I believe this idea of a vicarious atonement to some, seems like utter foolishness and ridiculous in their eyes. Some take the idea even further by saying the doctrine of the idea that God would demand an innocent person (insert Jesus) to pay for man’s sin is a barbarous idea. Here is an excerpt from the Urantia book Paper 60 {1}
“The barbarous idea of appeasing an angry God, of propitiating an offended Lord, of winning the favor of Deity through sacrifices and penance and even by the shedding of blood, represents a religion wholly puerile and primitive, a philosophy unworthy of an enlightened age of science and truth. Such beliefs are utterly repulsive to the celestial beings and the divine rulers who serve and reign in the universes. It is an affront to God to believe, hold, or teach that innocent blood must be shed in order to win his favor or to divert the fictitious divine wrath.” (60.3) 4:5.4
Also, in the Jesus papers the following was recorded in Paper 188 Titled the time of the Tomb
MEANING OF THE DEATH ON THE CROSS [188:4.1]
Although Jesus did not die this death on the cross to atone for the racial guilt of mortal man nor to provide some sort of effective approach to an otherwise offended and unforgiving God; even though the Son of Man did not offer himself as a sacrifice to appease the wrath of God and to open the way for sinful man to obtain salvation; notwithstanding that these ideas of atonement and propitiation are erroneous, nonetheless, there are significances attached to this death of Jesus on the cross which should not be overlooked. It is a fact that Urantia has become known among other neighboring inhabited planets as the “World of the Cross.” {2}
As you can see the “Revelators”, or those who transmitted the UB text to mortal man were adamant that Jesus did NOT die for the sins of mankind. But this denial is nothing new. This issue has been around for a long time since well, the crucifixion I would guess. Many early church fathers wrote on this topic. It progressed into medieval times. The 12th century theologian Peter Abelard was famous for the Moral influence theory.
Christ’s death achieved our reconciliation with God not by offering some compensation to God or ransoming us from the devil but by moving our hearts to contrition and love as we contemplate Christ’s voluntarily embracing horrible suffering and death. Nothing actually transpired between God and man at Jesus’ crucifixion. No debt was paid, no sins were punished. The entire power of the cross to achieve reconciliation lies in its exemplary force to produce a subjective impact on us. {3}
Abelard’s take on the atonement is the same idea here from the Theology Workbook by William Sadler.
A Creator Son did not bestow himself upon mankind to reconcile an angry God. He came to reveal the love of God and exalt sonship with God.
“A Creator Son did not incarnate in the likeness of mortal flesh and bestow himself upon the humanity of Urantia to reconcile an angry God but rather to win all mankind to the recognition of the Father’s love and to the realization of their sonship with God. After all, even the great advocate of the atonement doctrine realized something of this truth, for he declared that “God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself.’” (1083.6) 98:7.1 {4}
These ideas progressed and really took off around the turn of the 20th century. Mostly out of liberal seminaries.
You could say the Urantian thought on the death of Christ would be that His dying, was an accident and not a planned occurrence and could be summed up as “Lying down one’s life for His friends”. Thus, the Urantia book affirms the idea of a moral influence for Jesus’s death but not an atonement for the sins of man. You can see the moral influence theory within the biblical scriptures but that is not the main point.
The Ancient scriptures has a larger view. As early as 55 AD {5} and likely earlier as Paul is recounting a creed that was present in the early church, the idea of atonement was around. So as early as 25 years since the Cross the idea that Jesus dies for our sins was present in the church. Even if you go with a later date, it still must before the Gospels were written.
1 Cor 15:1-8 ESV
Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain.
For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.
I can hear the Urantian rebuttal already, but that is Paul and not Jesus making this statement. Paul was the “theologian” of the early church. Many have issues with Paul; however, I believe God chose him for this task.
You can also hear it in the writings of liberal biblical scholar Stephan Finlan in his book – The Apostle Paul and the Pauline tradition. {6}
“The importance of the Pauline letter tradition in Christian theology is exceeded only by that of the gospels through the lens of the Pauline tradition. Certain concepts derived from the letters (Jesus died for my sins) have become dominant in popular theology, even among people who know very little about Paul’s teaching as a whole. The church’s image of Paul is largely derived from the Act of the Apostles, where the wonder working Paul is the main character. The are many doubts however about the historical accuracy of Acts.”
Once again, Did God really say?
He also said in his book on the atonement he lists a few of the “problems” with the doctrine of the atonement. {7}
“God demanded a bloody victim- innocent or guilty – to pay for human sin”
“The death of the Son thus functioned as a payoff; salvation was purchased.
Progressive Christian pastors of today has been spouting these same claims. Brian Zhand the author of Sinners in the hands of a loving God, says in his Good Friday blog post
The cross is many things:
It’s the pinnacle of God’s self-disclosure.
It’s divine solidarity with all human suffering.
It’s the shaming of the principalities and powers.
It’s the point from which the Satan is driven out of the world.
It’s the death by which Christ conquers Death.
It’s the abolition of war and violence.
It’s the supreme demonstration of the love of God.
It’s the re-founding of the world around an axis of love.
It’s the enduring model of co-suffering love we are to follow.
It’s the eternal moment in which the sin of the world is forgiven.
The cross is not the appeasement of an angry and retributive god. The cross is not where Jesus saves us from God, but where Jesus reveals God as savior. The cross is not what God inflicts upon Jesus in order to forgive, but what God in Christ endures as he forgives.
Jesus’ atoning sacrifice doctrine was evident since the 1st century, it’s not just recent theology of the reformation to today. It is central to Paul in all his epistles. But did Jesus have the same view?
Yes, He did. That was the “good news” Jesus and what He did is the good news, the Gospel.
The gospel according the Urantia book is something else. See my post – Is the Urantia gospel and the Biblical gospel the same? When you unpack 1 Cor 15 it is the “person and work” of Jesus that saves us. Urantian theology may have the person, but they believe His work on the cross was a “barbarous idea” and they do NOT accept it for their forgiveness of their sins.
But before we look at that we need to remember what Jesus said to Nicodemus – “Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God” (John 3:3). Jesus is saying that to be born again is to be saved. Being born again is the plan of salvation that Jesus authored at Calvary and what Paul broke down for us in 1 Corinthians. Let’s look at the gospels and see what Jesus and the gospel writers said about “His death”.
Mark 10:45
For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”
Some biblical scholars say that this “ransom” statement is an insertion of Pauline doctrine, or not even authentic or that the context is about servanthood not atonement. The problem is they give no manuscript issues or reasons why. Just say they “think” that its not something Mark would say.
You can hear that also in “Salvation not purchased, Overcoming the Ransom Idea to Rediscover the Original Gospel teaching.” by Stephan Finlan
There is a ransom saying that was attributed to Jesus, a startling and “rather isolated” 17 saying found in Mark and copied in Matthew: “to give his life a ransom for many” (Mark 10: 45; Matt 20: 28), but it is of doubtful authenticity.
He goes on to say “They may have gotten the ransom idea from the Apostle Paul. The letters of Paul are fifteen and twenty- five years earlier than the writing of Mark and Matthew, respectively.” The idea of Jesus’ death as a sacrifice does not originate with him but with some apostles’ usage of common cultural images (particularly by Paul). Let us look at the development of Christian sacrificial theology. [8]
Once again (did God really say?) when he throws doubt on the scriptures in “doubtful authenticity?” Frankly it was about both, servanthood and atonement. And in my opinion Mr. Finlan is specifically ignoring the context of the passage. He claims it was speaking only of servanthood. But I beg to differ as Jesus was just saying to both James and John who were asking for special treatment in heaven and Jesus rebukes them by asking them if they want to take on the same fate that He came to do. And which all the apostles ended up drinking “the cup” eventually.
Starting with Mark 10:35….
Jesus said to them, “You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I drink, or to be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized?” And they said to him, “We are able.” And Jesus said to them, “The cup that I drink you will drink, and with the baptism with which I am baptized, you will be baptized, but to sit at my right hand or at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared.” And when the ten heard it, they began to be indignant at James and John.
And of course, the gospel writer knew about the atonement.
It was in their own scriptures. In Isa 53 – this is clearly a messianic passage. If fact this is not read in todays synagogues because it sounds way too much like Jesus and what He did.
Who has believed what he has heard from us?
And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?
For he grew up before him like a young plant,
and like a root out of dry ground;
he had no form or majesty that we should look at him,
and no beauty that we should desire him.
He was despised and rejected by men,
a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief;
and as one from whom men hide their faces
he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
Surely he has borne our griefs
and carried our sorrows;
yet we esteemed him stricken,
smitten by God, and afflicted.
But he was pierced for our transgressions;
he was crushed for our iniquities;
upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace,
and with his wounds we are healed.
All we like sheep have gone astray;
we have turned—every one—to his own way;
and the Lord has laid on him
the iniquity of us all.
At first, the apostles did not understand at first, and Jesus scolded them when the just were not getting it. In the strongest of terms. Here Jesus says He must be killed and raised.
In Matthew 16:21-23
From that time Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised. And Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him, saying, “Far be it from you, Lord! This shall never happen to you.” But he turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me. For you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man.”
I don’t think you can get clearer than that. And I think that should be the response to the Urantia Book and liberal theological scholars because they are looking at it from a human perspective. Take a hike Satan. There are many more passages that speak of the atoning work of Jesus and we will revisit those later.
I get it, it is a difficult thing to see what (we) did to Him on the Cross and I wouldn’t have done it that way. But I am not God, His ways are above mine. And I take it on faith that He did what He did regardless on how I feel.
The Urantia book has a man centered view of what Jesus did and the revelators repeatably casted doubt on the Scriptures and the work of Jesus. And that is what scares me. I want to be very careful here. I am not saying that if you don’t understand fully the atoning sacrifice idea you are not saved. That is between you and God. What scares me is those that understand and hate the doctrine still.
This is in my mind dangerous territory. I remember before I was first born again, I thought the idea of Jesus dying for my sins was silly. I didn’t “get” it either. But now it is as Paul said, the cross for us believers is “the Power of God.” I don’t fully understand it, but I accept it, gladly.
Jesus said in John 3 that a man MUST be born again, or he will not see the Kingdom of God. It is also spoken of in the Jesus papers.
Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. This man came to Jesus by night and said to him, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God, for no one can do these signs that you do unless God is with him.” Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”
If you have a proper view of the Godhead and the Trinity then, God was “in Christ” paying for the sins of mankind by laying down His own life through the Son. Not demanding that Jesus die on the cross to avenge an angry Deity.
Its all about the perspective – that’s God’s perspective not mans.
But according to the Apostle Paul for those who reject the cross and still don’t accept His gift of salvation that they are “perishing”
1 Cor 1:18
For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
As I wrote in my blog about the Gospel of the Urantia Revelation vs the Gospel of the Bible even atheists understand the difference.
Even the famous atheist Christopher Hitchens understood what the basic message of the New Testament was. In an interview with Unitarian minister Marilyn Sewell published in the Portland Monthly magazine. {9}
Marilyn –
The religion you cite in your book is generally the fundamentalist faith of various kinds. I’m a liberal Christian, and I don’t take the stories from the scripture literally. I don’t believe in the doctrine of atonement (that Jesus died for our sins, for example). Do you make and distinction between fundamentalist faith and liberal religion?
Hitchens -I would say that if you don’t believe that Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ and Messiah, and that he rose again from the dead and by his sacrifice our sins are forgiven, you’re really not in any meaningful sense a Christian.
She didn’t even respond and changed the subject……
It is sad that an atheist like Hitchens understands Christianity better than a Unitarian minister and the so-called Revelators in the Urantia Book.
For the so-called Revelators of the Urantia Revelation and many Urantians I have spoken to and have seen in their writings, are adamantly against Jesus’s death being any kind of atonement for them personally. And its more than folly to them, it is barbarous.
I love Urantians – Most of the Urantians I have come across are wonderful people. Salt of the earth folks. And it is my prayer that they would take another look at the ancient scriptures and see the wonder of the Cross in a positive light. Your eternal destiny may be at stake.
If you wish to discuss this topic or any other, please see my website
or contact me at –
NOTES
{1} -https://www.urantia.org/theology-urantia-book/26-plan-salvation#THE_ATONEMENT_IDEA
{2} Urantia Book Paper 188:4:1
{3} Craig, William Lane. Atonement and the Death of Christ (pp. 137-138). Baylor University Press. Kindle Edition.
{4} Proposition 8 https://www.urantia.org/theology-urantia-book/26-plan-salvation#THE_ATONEMENT_IDEA
{5} The Expositors Bible Commentary V10 1 Corinthians Pg 180
{6} The Apostle Paul and the Pauline Tradition. Stephan Finlan. 2008 Liturgical Press. Introduction pg. xi
{7} The Problems with Atonement – Stephan Finlan. 2005 Liturgical Press.
{8} Salvation not purchased, Overcoming the Ransom Idea to Rediscover the Original Gospel teaching.” by Stephan Finlan pg 31
[9] December 17, 2009 Published in the January 2010 issue of Portland Monthly https://www.pdxmonthly.com/news-and-city-life/2009/12/christopher-hitchens