Sin and Substitutionary Atonement salvation

[The Biblicist]

One must have a right understanding of "sin" before they can have a right understanding of salvation as one without the other is meaningless. Where there is no sin there is no need of salvation.

The New Testament presents two different views of sin and in this world today the same two views continue to exist.

1. There is the Phariseeical view of sin that inteprets the scriptues in such a way to lower the standard of God's righteousness so that it is acheivable by imperfect human beings.

2. There is the Christ view of sin that interprets the scriptures to define sin as anything less than God's own "glory" or moral holiness as revealed in the Law, preached by the prophets and ultimately revealed by God in human flesh - Rom. 3:19-23

This clash of interpetations of sin and righteousness is found in Matthew 5:16-48 where Jesus repeatedly says "you have heard" which is a reference to the traditional interpretations of the fathers which is then contrasted with "but I say."

1. Jesus claims His purpose is to personally fulfil - measure up to - the righteous standard set by the Law of God - Mt. 5:16-18

2. Jesus admits that those already in the kingdom of heaven do not personally measure up to that standard - Mt. 5:19

3. However, Jesus demands that anyone seeking entrance into the kingdom of heaven must obtain a righteousness that exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees and their interpretaional basis for defining righteousness and sin - Mt. 5:20-47.

4. Jesus interprets the righteousness standard demanded by God's Law to be equal with God's own personal moral holiness - Mt. 5:48

This presents a dilemma for any sinner. The only human ever to PERSONALLY attain this standard is Christ but none in the kingdom of God personally attain unto it (v. 19) but yet it is this standard that must be attained to enter the kingdom of God (vv. 20,48). If entrance demands attaining to this standard but none that have entered have attained then how did they gain entrance? This is the dilemma for all who repudiate substitutionary atonement and righteousness imputed by faith in Christ.


Paul defines any righteousness that "comes short of THE GLORY of God" to be sin - Rom. 3:23

James defines any obedience that violates the Law in "ONE POINT" to be disobedience to all points of the Law and thus sin - James 2:10 - Therefore for the Law to justify you as righteous you must keep EVERY POINT of the Law without failing any point!

Jesus defines this to be "perfect even as your Father in heaven is perfect" - Mt. 5:48 to be justified by the law as "righteous" in God's sight.

What does perfect "EVEN AS" God mean?

1. God has never sinned in the past
2. God is not sinning
3. God will never sin in the future

Hence, to sin but once is to fail the standard of God's Law for righteousness and ETERNAL life but come under its ETERNAL condemnation.

This is precisely why Jesus said "There is NONE GOOD but One and that is God."

However, God has not changed his standard of righteousness! That is the righteousness required to enter heaven - Mt. 5:20 - That is the will of the Father to be righteous before Him - that is His standard.

How are sinners going to obtain that standard of NEVER SINNING? This is precisely why Paul denies that any sinner can be justified by works proceeding from their own life in an attempt to measure up to God's standard of righteousness - the Law - Rom. 3:19-20.

Paul says this righteousness is now manifested in the life of Jesus Christ which was witnessed by the law and the prophets:


Rom. 3:21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;

This is why it is obtainable only "by faith" in Jesus Christ and received by imputation rather than by perspiration:

Rom. 3:22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe

This is a righteousness that is impossible for sinners to attain by anything connected with their own life before or after regeneration as it is a righteousness completely without sin. It is a righteousness that no sinner can attain even by God's grace as it is a sinless righteousness and they have already "come short" and thus their life can never personally measure up to apart from glorification (Rom. 3:23; 1 Jn. 1:8-10).


Hence, there is no other way to attain to it other than by a legal substitute who acts in their behalf for their person in a legal exchange whereby His. righteous life is legally imputed to them by faith. .

Such a legal substitution would require God coming from heaven in the flesh as a second Adam or a second representative man and living a sinless life and then offering up that sinless life to satisfy both righteous demands of the Law fully "It is finished" in the place of sinners who receive it by faith.

1. Perfection to be justified by the Law's standard as righteous
2. Penalty to satisfy the Laws wrath against sinners for coming short of that righteous standard

This is the "good news" of the gospel How Christ came and live and died IN THE PLACE OF sinners that we might be made THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD in Him.

How many of you believe that Christ did not die IN YOUR PLACE? Do you believe you must go back 2000 years and climb upon the cross and co-participate in his death? Do you reject his death IN YOUR PLACE as sufficient but believe you must co-participate now and pay for your own sins?

If not, then you have accepted LEGAL SUBSITUTION in regard to his death and have no argument to reject it in regard to his life.

If so, then how are you going to co-participate in paying for your own sins?

 

[Michael Wrenn]

One must have a right understanding of "sin" before they can have a right understanding of salvation as one without the other is meaningless. Where there is no sin there is no need of salvation.

The New Testament presents two different views of sin and in this world today the same two views continue to exist.

1. There is the Phariseeical view of sin that inteprets the scriptues in such a way to lower the standard of God's righteousness so that it is acheivable by imperfect human beings.

2. There is the Christ view of sin that interprets the scriptures to define sin as anything less than God's own "glory" or moral holiness as revealed in the Law, preached by the prophets and ultimately revealed by God in human flesh - Rom. 3:19-23

This clash of interpetations of sin and righteousness is found in Matthew 5:16-48 where Jesus repeatedly says "you have heard" which is a reference to the traditional interpretations of the fathers which is then contrasted with "but I say."

1. Jesus claims His purpose is to personally fulfil - measure up to - the righteous standard set by the Law of God - Mt. 5:16-18

2. Jesus admits that those already in the kingdom of heaven do not personally measure up to that standard - Mt. 5:19

3. However, Jesus demands that anyone seeking entrance into the kingdom of heaven must obtain a righteousness that exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees and their interpretaional basis for defining righteousness and sin - Mt. 5:20-47.

4. Jesus interprets the righteousness standard demanded by God's Law to be equal with God's own personal moral holiness - Mt. 5:48

This presents a dilemma for any sinner. The only human ever to PERSONALLY attain this standard is Christ but none in the kingdom of God personally attain unto it (v. 19) but yet it is this standard that must be attained to enter the kingdom of God (vv. 20,48). If entrance demands attaining to this standard but none that have entered have attained then how did they gain entrance? This is the dilemma for all who repudiate substitutionary atonement and righteousness imputed by faith in Christ.


Paul defines any righteousness that "comes short of THE GLORY of God" to be sin - Rom. 3:23

James defines any obedience that violates the Law in "ONE POINT" to be disobedience to all points of the Law and thus sin - James 2:10 - Therefore for the Law to justify you as righteous you must keep EVERY POINT of the Law without failing any point!

Jesus defines this to be "perfect even as your Father in heaven is perfect" - Mt. 5:48 to be justified by the law as "righteous" in God's sight.

What does perfect "EVEN AS" God mean?

1. God has never sinned in the past
2. God is not sinning
3. God will never sin in the future

Hence, to sin but once is to fail the standard of God's Law for righteousness and ETERNAL life but come under its ETERNAL condemnation.

This is precisely why Jesus said "There is NONE GOOD but One and that is God."

However, God has not changed his standard of righteousness! That is the righteousness required to enter heaven - Mt. 5:20 - That is the will of the Father to be righteous before Him - that is His standard.

How are sinners going to obtain that standard of NEVER SINNING? This is precisely why Paul denies that any sinner can be justified by works proceeding from their own life in an attempt to measure up to God's standard of righteousness - the Law - Rom. 3:19-20.

Paul says this righteousness is now manifested in the life of Jesus Christ which was witnessed by the law and the prophets:


Rom. 3:21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;

This is why it is obtainable only "by faith" in Jesus Christ and received by imputation rather than by perspiration:

Rom. 3:22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe

This is a righteousness that is impossible for sinners to attain by anything connected with their own life before or after regeneration as it is a righteousness completely without sin. It is a righteousness that no sinner can attain even by God's grace as it is a sinless righteousness and they have already "come short" and thus their life can never personally measure up to apart from glorification (Rom. 3:23; 1 Jn. 1:8-10).


Hence, there is no other way to attain to it other than by a legal substitute who acts in their behalf for their person in a legal exchange whereby His. righteous life is legally imputed to them by faith. .

Such a legal substitution would require God coming from heaven in the flesh as a second Adam or a second representative man and living a sinless life and then offering up that sinless life to satisfy both righteous demands of the Law fully "It is finished" in the place of sinners who receive it by faith.

1. Perfection to be justified by the Law's standard as righteous
2. Penalty to satisfy the Laws wrath against sinners for coming short of that righteous standard

This is the "good news" of the gospel How Christ came and live and died IN THE PLACE OF sinners that we might be made THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD in Him.

How many of you believe that Christ did not die IN YOUR PLACE? Do you believe you must go back 2000 years and climb upon the cross and co-participate in his death? Do you reject his death IN YOUR PLACE as sufficient but believe you must co-participate now and pay for your own sins?

If not, then you have accepted LEGAL SUBSITUTION in regard to his death and have no argument to reject it in regard to his life.

If so, then how are you going to co-participate in paying for your own sins?

You already know my view of the atonement, so I won't go into that again.

 

[billwald]

If God/Jesus has created a legal fiction to bail me out, praise be to God! But is it justice?

Pragmatically, how is this different than "liberal" judges letting bad guys off the hook?

Crooks steal money, banks steal money. The crooks and bankers get a free pass and the "cost" e.g. the incurred debt is passed to the US taxpayers. How is this different than God "passing" our debt to Jesus? Beats me!

 

[The Biblicist]

If God/Jesus has created a legal fiction to bail me out, praise be to God! But is it justice?

Carefully consider this. If the standard of righteousness required to obtain justification before God is a SINLESS LIFE then what are your alternatives? By SINLESS LIFE I am referring to a life from beginning to end - like Christ's! By "sinless life" I am referring to God's own existence past, present and future without sin. By "sinless life" I am referring to never having violated even "one point" of the Law of God. By sinless life I am referring to never coming "short of the glory of God."

Second, is the actions of a REPRESENTATIVE man legal fiction?

"By ONE MANS disobedience MANY WERE MADE sinners."

Paul in this context explicitly says that Adam was a type of Christ. In 1 Corinthians 15 he explicitly compares Christ to Adam as the "second man" when literally speaking it was Cain who was the literal second man.

If it is legal fiction then is it possible for Christ to die or pay the penalty of YOUR sins in YOUR PLACE? Is that legal fiction?

Pragmatically, how is this different than "liberal" judges letting bad guys off the hook?

Will the judge take his place and suffer his penalty and thus satisfy justice against his crime? God did in the incarnation!

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Carefully consider this. If the standard of righteousness required to obtain justification before God is a SINLESS LIFE then what are your alternatives? By SINLESS LIFE I am referring to a life from beginning to end - like Christ's! By "sinless life" I am referring to God's own existence past, present and future without sin. By "sinless life" I am referring to never having violated even "one point" of the Law of God. By sinless life I am referring to never coming "short of the glory of God."

Second, is the actions of a REPRESENTATIVE man legal fiction?

"By ONE MANS disobedience MANY WERE MADE sinners."

Paul in this context explicitly says that Adam was a type of Christ. In 1 Corinthians 15 he explicitly compares Christ to Adam as the "second man" when literally speaking it was Cain who was the literal second man.

If it is legal fiction then is it possible for Christ to die or pay the penalty of YOUR sins in YOUR PLACE? Is that legal fiction?



Will the judge take his place and suffer his penalty and thus satisfy justice against his crime? God did in the incarnation!

Christ did not "pay the penalty of my sins in my place." If he did, I would not have to die. I reject penal substitution and forensic justification as unscriptural.

 

[Yeshua1]

If God/Jesus has created a legal fiction to bail me out, praise be to God! But is it justice?

Pragmatically, how is this different than "liberal" judges letting bad guys off the hook?

Crooks steal money, banks steal money. The crooks and bankers get a free pass and the "cost" e.g. the incurred debt is passed to the US taxpayers. How is this different than God "passing" our debt to Jesus? Beats me!

grace is God granting to us what we could NEVER earn nor merit!

ONLY death of Jesus is sufficient and acceptable payment for my sins to god, how is that a "legal fiction?"

As my good works do NOTHING to contribute to my salvation itself?

 

[savedbymercy]

the bib

One must have a right understanding of "sin" before they can have a right understanding of salvation as one without the other is meaningless. Where there is no sin there is no need of salvation.

Dont worry, those Christ came to save from their sins will be convinced of sin by the Spirit in New Birth Jn 16:8-10

8 And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:

9 Of sin, because they believe not on me;

10 Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more;


They shall all [The Children of Promise] be taught of God Jn 6:44-45

44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.

They are experientially taught their need for their Saviour, and as a result they come to Christ in Faith !

 

[The Biblicist]

Christ did not "pay the penalty of my sins in my place." If he did, I would not have to die. I reject penal substitution and forensic justification as unscriptural.

You do not die (Jn. 11:26). Neither are immediate consequences of sin or physical death eternal but are overruled by his resurrection when it is also applied to his elect.

Salvation of the spirit is IMMEDIATELY applied while the salvation from the temporal consequences of sin are applied at the resurrection.

God determines the point in your life when the spiritual consequences are applied and he determines the point in time when the physical consequences are applied but both were paid in full by Christ in his life, death and resurrection FOR YOU. The legal basis was finished by Christ while the application work is that of the Holy Spirit at the appointed time.

 

[Yeshua1]

You do not die (Jn. 11:26). Neither are immediate consequences of sin or physical death eternal but are overruled by his resurrection when it is also applied to his elect.

Salvation of the spirit is IMMEDIATELY applied while the salvation from the temporal consequences of sin are applied at the resurrection.

God determines the point in your life when the spiritual consequences are applied and he determines the point in time when the physical consequences are applied but both were paid in full by Christ in his life, death and resurrection FOR YOU. The legal basis was finished by Christ while the application work is that of the Holy Spirit at the appointed time.

What would be the scriptual basis for ANY other view of the atonememnt not being a substitionary one?

 

[The Biblicist]

What would be the scriptual basis for ANY other view of the atonememnt not being a substitionary one?

There is no other scriptural basis for any other view than substitutionary atonement.

Their problem is that God's standard for justification or satisfaction of His righteous standard is SINLESS PERFECTION and no amount of mental gymnastics can provide any other way to satisfy that demand except judicial satisfaction by a competent substitute.

 

[Yeshua1]

There is no other scriptural basis for any other view than substitutionary atonement.

Their problem is that God's standard for justification or satisfaction of His righteous standard is SINLESS PERFECTION and no amount of mental gymnastics can provide any other way to satisfy that demand except judicial satisfaction by a competent substitute.

IF there was ANY other way for god to reconcile and reddem a sinner back to himself, than Christ death was in vain, and really a "sham"

 

[The Biblicist]

IF there was ANY other way for god to reconcile and reddem a sinner back to himself, than Christ death was in vain, and really a "sham"

Denial of substitutionary atonement is a denial of Jesus Christ and the whole Divine redemptive design of the atonement.

 

[billwald]

Substitutionary atonement is a hypothesis invented to "justify" and account for human history.

 

[Yeshua1]

Substitutionary atonement is a hypothesis invented to "justify" and account for human history.

Actually, the concept was given as far back by God Himself in the garden of eden!

 

[The Biblicist]

Substitutionary atonement is a hypothesis invented to "justify" and account for human history.

Under the law of our own land is a person who is merely your LEGAL guardian a fictious or real guardian according to the Law?

Under the law of our own land is a person who has the power of attorney in your behalf a fictious person with fictious position or is that a real person who takes your real place in the eyes of the law?

 

[Michael Wrenn]

There is no other scriptural basis for any other view than substitutionary atonement.

Their problem is that God's standard for justification or satisfaction of His righteous standard is SINLESS PERFECTION and no amount of mental gymnastics can provide any other way to satisfy that demand except judicial satisfaction by a competent substitute.

If you are talking about penal substitution, there certainly is. Penal substitution is simply legalistic and was unknown until Calvin. The earliest views were Christus Victor, and the Moral Influence view. But no need for me to go into all that again.

 

[The Biblicist]

If you are talking about penal substitution, there certainly is.

No there is not! SINLESS perfection as the standard for justification eliminates all men but one. You don't understand how Jesus defines "perfect" in this matter. He defines it as "even as" the Father is perfect.

The Father has NEVER needed to be forgiven - hence the forgiven fail this standard

Penal substitution is simply legalistic and was unknown until Calvin.

Just like the doctrine of grace was not known till Calvin??? Another lie of the devil.

The earliest views were Christus Victor, and

So you reject the sacrificial system "for sin" in Leviticus culminated in "Behold the lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world BY VICARIOUS SACRIFICE? So you don't believe the cross was really necessary in regard to sin or that Christ really had to die but only died in his struggle with Satan? So you don't believe the term "justification" is a forensic term? So you don't believe in any satisfaction of Divine justice? So you don't believe there must be shedding of blood for remission of sins judicially? So Jesus is no more than a good moral activist whose death was really not necessary for reconciliation between man and God?!? So you believe that Christ was a passive moral activists whose death was merely incidental but unnecessary in regard to satisfying the wrath of God against sin?!? Why then did the Father forsake the Son on the cross if his death was not penal in nature? Why is there more emphasis upon the death of Christ than the life of Christ in the New Testament if his death was not penal and necessary to remove the legal consequences of sin?

There is no God of love who is not a God of truth and there is no God of truth who is not a Just God and there is no Just God who is not a Wrathful God toward unrighteousness who punishes sin. Neither the God of the Christus Victor theory exists nor does its Christ.

This theory is a reproach to the name of Christ.

the Moral Influence view.

You have got to be joking!?! The example of Christ is SINLESS PERFECTION - perfect obedience! If the standard for justification is sinless perfection then mere influence, mere example is worthless as it cannot influence you to be sinlessly perfect.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

No there is not! SINLESS perfection as the standard for justification eliminates all men but one. You don't understand how Jesus defines "perfect" in this matter. He defines it as "even as" the Father is perfect.

The Father has NEVER needed to be forgiven - hence the forgiven fail this standard




Just like the doctrine of grace was not known till Calvin??? Another lie of the devil.


No, Calvinism was not known until Calvin. People may want to term the Calvinistic system the ""doctrines of grace", but that is an affront to all Christians because all Christians believe in the doctrines of grace, just not the Calvinist definition of same.



So you reject the sacrificial system "for sin" in Leviticus culminated in "Behold the lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world BY VICARIOUS SACRIFICE? So you don't believe the cross was really necessary in regard to sin or that Christ really had to die but only died in his struggle with Satan? So you don't believe the term "justification" is a forensic term? So you don't believe in any satisfaction of Divine justice? So you don't believe there must be shedding of blood for remission of sins judicially? So Jesus is no more than a good moral activist whose death was really not necessary for reconciliation between man and God?!? So you believe that Christ was a passive moral activists whose death was merely incidental but unnecessary in regard to satisfying the wrath of God against sin?!? Why then did the Father forsake the Son on the cross if his death was not penal in nature? Why is there more emphasis upon the death of Christ than the life of Christ in the New Testament if his death was not penal and necessary to remove the legal consequences of sin?

There is no God of love who is not a God of truth and there is no God of truth who is not a Just God and there is no Just God who is not a Wrathful God toward unrighteousness who punishes sin. Neither the God of the Christus Victor theory exists nor does its Christ.

This theory is a reproach to the name of Christ.


No it is not; it is the only one that does justice to what Jesus did.


You have got to be joking!?! The example of Christ is SINLESS PERFECTION - perfect obedience! If the standard for justification is sinless perfection then mere influence, mere example is worthless as it cannot influence you to be sinlessly perfect.

I was trying to tell you that the two main early views of the atonement were Christus Victor and Moral Influence. I believe there is some truth in the Moral Influence view, but Christus Victor is the earliest view universally held for the first millenium and the view that does full justice to the complete work of Jesus -- from His Incarnation to His life, death, and Resurrection.

Have you really studied the Christus Victor view? I don't believe you know what all it encompasses, and I don't say that as an insult.

 

[billwald]

>Actually, the concept was given as far back by God Himself in the garden of eden!

6000 years of study by the people who wrote Genesis never noticed?

I am angry with you so I shall break my child's arm and everything will be fine between us?

 

[Michael Wrenn]

>Actually, the concept was given as far back by God Himself in the garden of eden!

6000 years of study by the people who wrote Genesis never noticed?

I am angry with you so I shall break my child's arm and everything will be fine between us?

It really is ridiculous and quite offensive, is it not -- and unjust besides.

The reason nobody believed this until Calvin is precisely because it is not taught in scripture. It is the invention of a "lawyer".