Featured Theory of atonement, do you have one?

Whoops! Post 97.

 

Christ is fully God and fully Man, but the two natures are distinct and not blended. For example, the Lord Jesus got tired (e.g. Mark 4:38); 'The LORD.....will not grow tired or weary' (Isaiah 40:26).
The Father did not forsake the Son forever; when the Lord Jesus said, "It is finished," it really was. Sin had been paid for, propitiation had been made, except for the final act of death which followed almost immediately. Therefore the Lord Jesus can say, "Father, into Your hands I commend My spirit," and then dismissed His spirit (John 19:30) to be with the Father (Luke 24:43)..

 

Peter explicitly states in no uncertain terms that the Just (Christ) suffered FOR THE unjust -

1Pe 3:18 For Christ also has once suffered for sins, the just for (huper)the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:

1. The Just is suffering in the place of the unjust - Greek preposition "huper"
2. It is "for sins"
3. The implication is that otherwise the unjust would "suffer" and thus HOW would they "suffer" for sins? The answer is retributive justice determined on the day of judgement that would be suffering forever in the lake of fire - retributive justice.

This text clearly demonstrates that in God's sight no injustice occurs for a just person to suffer in the place of an unjust person. That being so, then how could it be possibly unjust in God's sight for the just to be punished in the place of the unjust - since the suffering that God prescribes on the day of judgement for the unjust is penal and retributive?

 

O my friend! It seems you have completely and utterly misunderstood misunderstood what I have been arguing. Doubtless the fault is mine, so let me see what I can do to explain further!

There are two things that we must never suppose. I think these come from John Stott, but they are really Atonement 101:
Firstly, that God the Father imposed upon the Son an ordeal that He was unwilling to undergo.
Secondly, that by His suffering the Son extracted from the Father a mercy that He was unwilling to give.

'And truly, the Son of Man goes as it has been determined.....' (Luke 22:22). Determined by whom? By the Trinity before the beginning of time (Titus 1:2; Revelation 13:10 etc.). There it was agreed that God the Father would give to the Son a people, a vast number of sinners (John 6:39 etc.; Revelation 7:9); the Son would redeem them from their sins by paying the penalty for them in full, and the Spirit would indwell them and seal them to the day of redemption. All this is seen in Ephesians 1:3-14.

To accomplish this redemption, on the cross Christ was made sin (2 Corinthians 5:21), that is, all the sins of His people were laid upon Him (Isaiah 53:6), and He became the very epitome of sin (c.f. John 3:14), and all God's wrath and righteous anger against sin was poured out on Him (Isaiah 53:5, 10). But He never ceased to be the Beloved Son! "Therefore the Father loves Me, because I lay down My life that I may take it up again" (John 10:17).

First, the Son never ceased to be a Person of the Trinity. He suffered in His humanity, not in His Deity.
Second, we read that just as the soldiers crucified Him, 'Then they offered Him wine mingled with Myrrh to drink, but He did not take it' (Mark 15:23). This was an analgesic; why did He not take it? Because He must drink the cup of God's wrath in full, down to the very dregs if He was to redeem His people. There are no analgesics in hell! Then we read, 'Now when the sixth hour had come, there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour, and at the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying........"My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me."' Our Lord had been suffering for 3 hours before the darkness came, but I take it that it was at the sixth hour that His darkest time came in every sense of the word. The Father, who is of purer eyes than to behold iniquity, turned His eyes away from the Son, and the Lord Jesus, who all His life on earth had enjoyed the closest imaginable relationship with His heavenly Father (John 8:29; 11:42), hung during those three hours utterly alone, bearing the curse for the people God had given Him (Galatians 3:13). If it was not so, why did He say it was? And should we not think what it cost the Father to abandon His beloved Son during that time.

'What was it, O our God
Led Thee to give Thy Son?
To yield Thy well-beloved
For us by sin undone?
Unbounded love led Thee to give
Thy Son for us that we might live.'

'How deep the father's love for us!
How vast beyond all measure,
That He should give His only Son
To make a wretch His treasure!'

But at the ninth hour, following His cry, the sun came out again, signifying that the Father's wrath had been turned away. 'After this, Jesus, knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the Scripture [Psalm 22:15; 69:21] might be fulfilled, said, "I thirst!" (John 19:28). The Greek word for 'accomplished' is the same as that in the next verse 'finished'-- tetelestai. There was something accomplished at the ninth hour which had not been accomplished before-- the wrath of God was satisfied. It remained only for the last prophesy-- of vinegar being given to Him to drink-- being fulfilled, and for Him to dismiss His Spirit. It was indeed finished. Propitiation had been made.

I understand why you would think that, but as I have shown above, it is not what the word of God says in John 19:28 above. And I assume that part of our Lord's request for a drink was so that He might wet His throat to give that great shout of victory. But after that, He resigned His Spirit to God (Luke 23:46).

Amen! But there is even more to it than that. The Greek word teleo, of which tetelestai is the 3rd Person Perfect Passive, also means to 'pay,' as it does in Matthew 17:24. And Roman shipping bills and other documents have been discovered with tetelestai stamped upon them: Paid in Full!

My friend, I think you need to reconsider your statement here, for it is blasphemous. If the Father did not forsake the Son during those hours of darkness, why does Jesus say that He did? And if propitiation had not been made at the ninth hour, why did He say that it was? And if it was, why should not the relationship have been restored, symbolized by the return of the sun?

The word is 'forsake.' It is synonymous with 'abandon' and means a whole lot more than 'withhold support.' "Why are You so far from helping Me, and from the words of My groaning" (Psalm 22:1b).

 

Deal with the text. I could care less about your philosophical views.

 

You are wrong! The text does not say "sinless flesh for the sinful flesh." However, this is typical of your treatment of scriptures and that is why no scripture no matter how clear it is to others will continue to be explained away by you.

 

This is like the kettle calling the pot black(lol).

.

Peter is not speaking abstractly. The terms "just" and "unjust" are terms that are descriptive of persons. The theme is not the incarnation but suffering either justly or unjustly. Peter's point is not that Jesus suffered merely unjustly as some abstract kind of suffering, but that he concretely and specifically suffered as a "just" person "for the unjust" as persons (huper - in the place of" the unjust) for what they deserved but he did not deserve. In contrast, the generation in Noah's day is brought into the picture to demonstrate that unjust persons suffered deservedly so for their own sins.

The immediate context is about the readers of this epistle suffering justly versus suffering unjustly. It is about deserving suffering versus not deserving it with regard to the readers. Those in Noah's day are brought into this passage to confirm the idea for suffering deservedly. Christ is brought into the passage to not merely convey an example of one who suffered unjustly, but one who indeed suffered "for the unjust"support that idea, not your idea. Hence, the contextual theme of the passage is just versus unjust suffering or suffering for rightouesness versus suffering deservedly so. Jesus did not merely suffer for righteousness, but he undeservedly suffered "for the unjust" not merely for unjustness. You are attempting to make the subject abstract when Peter is making it particular and concrete. When Peter introduces Christ he is not speaking abstractly about suffering unjustly but about suffering "for the unjust."

We are both Greek students, please demonstrate how that is a literal interpretation of text???? The purpose clause "that he might bring us to God" demonstrates "the unjust" is a moral description of our persons and therefore "the just" is a moral descriptive of his own person. Being put to death in the flesh describes the unjust act of men toward Christ while being raised by the Spirit describes God's justification of his person. The incarnation simply made possible for the existence of a "just" man in this world of "unjust" men.

The only difference between your comments and mine is that you say the same thing but clothed in pious language. [edited - insults removed] In other words, to condemn your approach to scriptures is not "Christ-like". Not only Martin has said the same thing about your approach but you have used similar language describing my approach. [edited - insults removed]

 

Look at the purpose clause - "THAT he might bring us to God" - that is the ultimate goal. So, it was not for the purpose merely to identify him or us, although that is the purpose of our suffering but not his suffering.

 

God intended the death of Jesus to atone for just His elect....