Featured Martin Luther and the Atonement (theories of atonement)

I think the distinction in views might be which of the two elements - penal and substitution - has the higher priority.

I can see where the priorities have shifted in my understanding (although maybe subtly). Whereas I used to see the penal aspect as having the hire priority, now I see the substitution aspect slightly higher.

However, I'm not certain that those two aspects occupy the top two seats because I have developed a dramatically different view of what constitutes sin and righteousness in the first place.

In the Protestant framework, sin and righteousness are purely on the basis of works. Now, before I get run out on a rail, let me characterize it (even though I know many might balk at my characterization).

Adam and Eve were under a covenant of works. If they obeyed (works) they could stay in the garden. But if they disobeyed (works) they would be put out of the garden. They made the decision (works) to disobey (works) and died instantly on the inside and began a slow process of death on the outside. With that one act of sin (works) Adam condemned the entire human race as if we had all participated in his (works of) unrighteousness. But in addition to sharing in Adam's guilt, he also gifted to each of us a nature (whatever that is) by which we are driven to fulfill our (own works) of unrighteousness.

Now enter the remedy: Jesus, the sinless (works) One, being made similar to humans (not like us in all things), never did anything wrong (works). He fulfilled the law (works) on our behalf, died to take the punishment for our bad works, and traded His perfect works for our imperfect works. And then his perfect works are credited to our account, where we are viewed as having done nothing wrong (works).

Now, I realize I have breezed right through the atonement. But like I said, it has been a focused study in other areas which is leading me to the train wreck of the atonement.

What if it wasn't works which plunged Adam or anyone else into ruin? If there is such a thing as righteousness apart from works, is there such a thing as unrighteousness apart from works?

Additionally, if our plunge into despair is not on the basis of works, and the results of our rescue are not on the basis of works, can we rightly say that the rescue itself is on the basis of works?

Indeed, there was some kind of rescue, some kind of price for restitution made, some kind of substitution. But Jesus said the well have no need for a physician. We're told that by his stripes we are healed. We're told that we are new creations, and then we have become the righteousness of God.

Can we rightly say that God is righteous because he doesn't do any bad things? If righteousness is synonymous with lawfulness, can any of us really say that we are a new creation and have become the righteousness of God? And especially with a view of imputed righteousness only, how can anyone lay claim to "become" ? why didn't Paul plainly state that we are viewed as the righteousness of God?

See, I don't think any atonement theory can be genuine unless the practical implications can be tied in.

There are more of these non atonement issues which I feel need to be considered in a view of the atonement

and I'd be happy to share some of the scriptures which I feel run this works based sin and righteousness into a bind

 

It would be good to finish the quotation off properly since you appear to have ended it in mid-sentence. It was by surrendering to death the body which He had taken, as an offering and sacrifice free from every stain, that He forthwith abolished death for His human brethren by the offering of an equivalent. For naturally, since the Word of God was above all, when He offered His own temple and bodily instrument as a substitute for the life of all, He fulfilled in His death all that was required.

Both penal and substitutionary elements seem to be present.

 

Then you don't believe in PSA. Part of the sinner's penalty at Judgement will be to be cut off from the presence of the Lord (2 Thessalonians 1:9). For the rest, see the definition I gave earlier.

I have previously given you a quote by Luther which shows that he did hold to Penal Substitution. I don't have time to look it out again, but it's there.

See above.

 

Another quibble which goes on and on...

My view FWIW - Both penal and substitutionary are taught

Isaiah 53:10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.

bruised (crushed)
offered

IMO, the penal side reveals the horror of sin by the substitute of an innocent victim being punished by death in my stead.

It is natural (fleshy) that we should want to run and hide from God for the offense like Adam and Eve knowing that the innocent lamb of God was crucified/punished in my place.

The full price of sin.

My opinion of course.

HankD

 

I would chose the English word equilibrium, the quantitative aspect being the infinite/eternal.

noun equilibrium
1.a state of rest or balance due to the equal action of opposing forces.
2.equal balance between any powers, influences, etc.; equality of effect.
3.mental or emotional balance; equanimity:
The pressures of the situation caused her to lose her equilibrium.

the definition of equilibrium

HankD

 

I quoted this on another thread. Here is Luther on Galatians 3:13:

'But here we must make a distinction, as the words of Paul plainly show. For he saith not that Christ was made a curse for Himself, but for us. Therefore all the weight of the matter standeth in this word "for us." For Christ is innocent as concerning His own person, and therefore He ought not to have been hanged on a tree; but because according to the law of Moses, every thief and malefactor ought to be hanged, therefore Christ also ought to be hanged, for He sustained the person of a sinner and a thief, not of one, but of all sinners and thieves. For we are sinners and thieves, and therefore guilty of death and everlasting damnation. But Christ took our sins upon Him, and for them died upon the cross; therefore it behoveth that He should become a transgressor and (as Isaiah saith, chapter LIII) "be reckoned with the transgressors............Paul therefore doth very well allege this general sentence out of Moses as concerning Christ: "Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree." But Christ hath hanged upon a tree, therefore Christ is accursed of God.'

Is that what you believe?

 

I agree with Luther. 'Every thief and malefactor ought to be hanged, therefore Christ also ought to be hanged.' Is that Christ being punished with our punishment or is it not?

 

The Lord Jesus died in the place of those whom God would save by that Act, and as being the Sin bearer, he would face the full wrath of God towards sinners, and he experienced suffering and felt the isolation and terrible extent of separation from presence of God, as all lost sinners will!

 

2 things at play within PST, namely, that while Jesus had to experience in full what the lost sinners will forever while becoming our sin bearer is true, including for a time separation from the Father in His own humanity, He also had to be the perfect law Keeper in order to have his death acceptable to God, So it is not either/or, but both aspects at play here!

 

That is what Calvin and Paul held with though!

 

I believe that the atonement is only for the elect. I believe this is what Calvin and Paul taught. Mennosota said, in another forum, that a "general atonement" is efficacious. He is a Calvinist, but maybe only a 4 pointer. I disagree with him. What do others think?