How? Perhaps as Luther believed - Christ Himself outweighing the demands sin and wrath held over us by virtue of His holiness. Perhaps as Marytar taught - by overcoming the bonds of so and death. Perhaps as Peter and John taught - by purchase.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Martin Luther and the Atonement (theories of atonement)
- Thread starter JonC
- Start date
Luther saw that the law of God demanded perfection, and that he was wholly unable to provide that, so God wrath needing to be propiasted in full, needed to have someone pay for his own personal sins before a Holy God, and that Jesus paid in full for his own sins, by being His substitute who bore the wrath of God, and experienced all that means...
THAT is the focal point on which the very reformation rests upon!
Partly correct. Luther never expressed a very detailed theory of atonement, but he did focus on Christ's perfection and holiness outweighing the sin and wrath against us. There exists no evidence, however, that Luther held to Calvin's view of the atonement.
I quoted several passages where Luther pretty much did see the death of Jesus as paying for our sin debt by taking on our due punishment and wrath though!
That's because you decided Luther was close enough and assumed. As with Aquinas, what differed with Luther was the type of punishment.
I came across this in the current Banner of Truth magazine. It is a letter from Luther to George Spenlein dated 1516:
'Oh, my dear brother, learn to know Christ, and him crucified. Learn to sing unto him a new song, to despair of yourself, and to say to him, "You, Lord Jesus Christ, are my righteousness, and I am your sin. You have taken what was mine, and have given me what was yours, What you were not, you became, in order that I might become what I was not".........You will not find peace save in him, by despairing of yourself and of your works, and in learning with what love he opens his arms to you, taking all your sins upon himself, and giving you all his righteousness.'
'Oh, my dear brother, learn to know Christ, and him crucified. Learn to sing unto him a new song, to despair of yourself, and to say to him, "You, Lord Jesus Christ, are my righteousness, and I am your sin. You have taken what was mine, and have given me what was yours, What you were not, you became, in order that I might become what I was not".........You will not find peace save in him, by despairing of yourself and of your works, and in learning with what love he opens his arms to you, taking all your sins upon himself, and giving you all his righteousness.'
Yes. The "great exchange". I love reading Luther on the topic.
Ok, I am “calling foul”.
I’ve taken the time to see what N.T. Wright has said about PSA. He states (even recently) that he holds to PSA (even though he also views the cross within a historical context). Here is how he has explained his view:
“Jesus, the innocent one, was drawing on to himself the holy wrath of God against human sin in general, so that human sinners like you and me can find, as we look at the cross, that the load of sin and guilt we have been carrying is taken away from us. Jesus takes it on himself, and somehow absorbs it, so that when we look back there is nothing there. Our sins have been dealt with, and we need never carry their burden again.”
“On the cross Jesus took on himself that separation from God which all other men know. He did not deserve it; he had done nothing to warrant being cut off from God; but as he identified himself totally with sinful humanity, the punishment which that sinful humanity deserved was laid fairly and squarely on his shoulders…That is why he shrank, in Gethsemane, from drinking the ‘cup’ offered to him. He knew it to be the cup of God’s wrath. On the cross, Jesus drank that cup to the dregs, so that this sinful people might not drink it. He drank it to the dregs. He finished it, finished the bitter cup both physically and spiritually….Here is the bill, and on it the word ‘finished’ – ‘paid in full.’ The debt is paid. The punishment has been taken. Salvation is accomplished.”
“On the cross Jesus took on himself that separation from God which all other men know. He did not deserve it; he had done nothing to warrant being cut off from God; but as he identified himself totally with sinful humanity, the punishment which that sinful humanity deserved was laid fairly and squarely on his shoulders…That is why he shrank, in Gethsemane, from drinking the ‘cup’ offered to him. He knew it to be the cup of God’s wrath. On the cross, Jesus drank that cup to the dregs, so that this sinful people might not drink it. He drank it to the dregs. He finished it, finished the bitter cup both physically and spiritually….Here is the bill, and on it the word ‘finished’ – ‘paid in full.’ The debt is paid. The punishment has been taken. Salvation is accomplished.”
You take the writings of other men who do not even look at the cross as God pouring His wrath in the form of our punishment for our sins to satisfy the demands of God’s law as being PSA (when historically their position has not been considered under that theory). You and Martin have claimed that the view Jesus bore our sins as our substitution is enough to place one squarely under PSA. Yet you backtrack and require something even more of others…like N.T. Wright….by claiming their view does not meet the detailed requirement you hold to be PSA (or that their claim Scripture focuses more on Christ overcoming and freeing us from sin and death disqualifies them from holding your theory).
You can’t have it both ways. You can't go back and water down PSA to claim that those such as Luther and Martyr held the theory and then narrow it to exclude Wright who articulates his view even closer than the others.
Indeed!! Substitution. Christ the sinless One takes my sin, makes it His own and pays the penalty of it, that I may become the righteousness of God in Him.
I just came across this.
To be clear: I have no doubt that Yeshua 1 is absolutely right in what He says and that any reasonable understanding of Isaiah 53, Psalm 22, Galatians 3 etc. will support him. My only point was that it is not necessary to prove that Christ was punished with the same punishment that sinners experience in hell to prove Penal Substitution and that therefore I was not arguing it.
Thanks. My point was directed at your objection that no one was arguing what I had claimed (which in fact was Y1's argument), and I think the misunderstanding arose as I may have confused your argument with Y1's statements. For that I apologize and blame it on medication, which from this time forward is going to be my defense
.
For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit;in which also He went and made proclamation to the spirits now in prison,who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water. 1 Peter 3:18-20
God has wrath against individual sins and sinners, as being Holy, there can be none unrighteous in His sight though, and Wright uses some of the same terminology, but He actually has Jesus death more in the atonement view of being the Victor, and he also denies that God placed His divine wrath upon Jesus in a PST way, as he sees Jesus bearing the penalty Rome afflicted upon Him as what israel the nation should have had to face.
www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/whats-wrong-wright-examining-new-perspective-paul/
This Scripture is abundant in the after actions on the cross!
1) it shows the death was for all, not the elect only.
2) it shows that there are specific elect, the “us” brought to God.
3) the flesh died, but the Spirit travelled to further complete the work.
4) the pre-law people are also without excuse because Christ manifested Himself to them, too.
No person stands with excuse before God.
Perhaps, as one compares and contrasts statements and views of what others taught (Calvin, Luther, ...) it is most difficult to fully and accurately be contextual.
The education, the culture, the inner self struggles, the outward oppressions, each will push statements that without the consideration may fit any imaginations design.
For example, was the Wrath of God completely resolved on the Cross?
To one who is schooled as a lawyer the answer carries with it an understanding that the mechanic listening to the angry growl of an engine might not have.
The physician looking at Isaiah 53 might see every single conceivable wound to the human body was expressed, healing accomplished and payment made in full. Yet, the poet may view the passage as ultimate love in one exchanging places for another.
Perspective does not make what is viewed as wrong, merely changed from a different perspective.
The education, the culture, the inner self struggles, the outward oppressions, each will push statements that without the consideration may fit any imaginations design.
For example, was the Wrath of God completely resolved on the Cross?
To one who is schooled as a lawyer the answer carries with it an understanding that the mechanic listening to the angry growl of an engine might not have.
The physician looking at Isaiah 53 might see every single conceivable wound to the human body was expressed, healing accomplished and payment made in full. Yet, the poet may view the passage as ultimate love in one exchanging places for another.
Perspective does not make what is viewed as wrong, merely changed from a different perspective.
Luther and Calvin might have worded it somewhat differently, but they both would agree to PST as being the means by which the death of Jesus saved us!
You can back away from Jesus experiencing "Hell" upon the Cross if that aspect bothers you, but what is the rest of it that offends your understanding?Thanks. My point was directed at your objection that no one was arguing what I had claimed (which in fact was Y1's argument), and I think the misunderstanding arose as I may have confused your argument with Y1's statements. For that I apologize and blame it on medication, which from this time forward is going to be my defense
Luther and calvin explained the Cross in different terms, but both saw it in a substitution aspect for the atonement!
Can you give a Scripture that supports this?
Or are you using "Hell" in the manor of human suffering?
Certainly, but cannot the differences in expressing be better aligned with that which each was being oppressed rather than taking the statements as if the influences that impacted them were benign?