Whoops! Post 97.
-
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!
Theory of atonement, do you have one?
- Thread starter agedman
- Start date
2 Corinthians 5:16-21 Therefore from now on we recognize no one according to the flesh; even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know Him in this way no longer. Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come. Now all these things are from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation, namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation. Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were making an appeal through us; we beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.
God the Father made Christ who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him. Amen!!! And here is where you prove yourself wrong – THE PROOF OF SCRIPTURE IS NOT FOUND IN ‘IT IS WRITTEN’ BUT IN ‘IT IS WRITTEN AGAIN’!!!!!!!!!! (except this is not your practice...look at how you base God separating Himself from God based on one word in one verse, and Christ being "made sin" from one verse when others confirm this is a sin offering rather than literally being made sin - i.e., an immoral act against God [which is, BTW, blasphemy]).
And here is how you are wrong- you do not believe Jesus was made sin or evil, literally, but rather that God considered him to be sin/evil. You allowed your tradition to dictate a meaning for "made sin" and are objecting to others allowing Scripture to dictate the meaning. THE PROOF OF SCRIPTURE IS NOT FOUND IN 'IT IS WRITTEN' BUT IN 'IT IS WRITTEN AGAIN'.
Romans 8:1-4 Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death. For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.
Isaiah 53:10 But the LORD was pleased To crush Him, putting Him to grief; If He would render Himself as a guilt offering, He will see His offspring, He will prolong His days, And the good pleasure of the LORD will prosper in His hand.
Romans 3:21-26 But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.
So all of these verses (and there are more) show that Christ was made a sin offering, not literally sin itself or even considered to be sin itself or sinful. BUT do you see what is not demonstrated in these verses? The type of justice you base your entire theory upon.
I do not see where I quoted John Calvin. He was, however, an outstanding scholar so it was probably just that we think alike.
Such a presentation of God abandoning the Son, in the sense of leaving, must then qualify the one God as having split into some multiple personality.
Christ was never not the Son of God, in complete understanding of the suffering, and knowledge that the Father approved, apointed, and allowed all that transpired throughout the whole earthly ministry, just as it was prior and after the earthy stay.
The problem with selecting “abandon” as the definition is that he only term of all the many definitions of “azab” is ignore. (Psalms)
In the Greek, it expresses the FEELING not a fact. As one left in distress, ingnored in desire for help... (Matthew)
The demand for God to have abandoned Himself, is invalidated by understanding that until He said, “Into your hand I commend my spirit, finished,” He was fully God and fully man.
First, I never accused you of heresy. You may have inferred such a meaning from my comments, but I can assure you that was in error. I respect you and enjoy discussing these topics with you as a brother. Had I thought you a heretic discussion would end. I do believe you have made a serious error in your theology, but heresy is a charge that exceeds anything I ever thought of you.
Second, here is how you define hamartia, or this "sin":
You define "sin" here as meaning that "all the sins of God's elect were imputed to Christ" and complain that others define it as "sin offering". This is interpreting Scripture through your own theory, brother. I am not denying our iniquities were laid upon Christ (this is indeed what is being said) but they were laid upon Him as a "sin offering". As you say, the proof of Scripture is not 'it is written' but 'it is written again'.
Isaiah 53, Romans 3, and Romans 8 all present Jesus as being made a "sin offering".
If you allow Scripture to both interpret Scripture and form your theology I believe you will walk away with a very different theory of the Cross.
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)..
It seems you would allow the Christ to actually entrust His Spirit (the very God of the union of God and man) into the one who left, abandoned, no longer had a relationship with, turning back on, cut off, ... Him.
Therefore, some questions must then be answered:
When did God reestablish His completely broken (abandoned, cut off, turned back on, no longer a part of the union) relationship with the Son?
When was such atonement for Christ made to remove the sin He became, that the Father may again look upon the Son as redeemed, well beloved, ....?
When was such atonement for Christ made to remove the sin He became, that the Father may again look upon the Son as redeemed, well beloved, ....?
If the wages of sin is death, then had the death not come, it follows that the full wages would not have been paid.
Therefore, there was no time space between “Finished” and death. They were united, the exhaled last breath was a word of complete victory.
Not a sigh of despairing abandonment, of resignation, but acknowledgement that the purpose was accomplished, that He was worthy to take the Scrolls and break the seals, to stand before the Father with all heaven bowed before Him.
Therefore, how could the Son even be heard commending His Spirit to a God that was not in intimate nearness to Him?
How could one trust a God that turned and ran away from His own Son?
There is no foundation for the use of abandonment when it comes to the relationship of the Father and Son, but there is great room for the words to be thought of in terms of the loving Father “withholding support” and allowing the fulfillment of all Scriptures written of the crucifixion.
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?
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?
Historically the difference has been in an absence of the context you presuppose as this "exchange" was viewed as Christ coming in the likeness of sinful flesh. Here is the passage in its own context:
1 Peter 3:17-22 For it is better, if God should will it so, that you suffer for doing what is right rather than for doing what is wrong. 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. Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you—not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who is at the right hand of God, having gone into heaven, after angels and authorities and powers had been subjected to Him.
To answer your question, the reason it would be unjust for God to condemn the Just is that Scripture states it is an abomination to God (it appeals to God's own character). I believe that "the just for the unjust" refers to the Word becoming flesh - God becoming man - and being put to death in the flesh (God became man, took upon Himself what it is to be man, took on corruptible flesh, was found in the likeness of sinful flesh, became the "last Adam", etc.).
In the typical presentation of Penal (Retributive) Theory, there is a desire to place "sin" as the determiner of the eternal state.
Unfortunately, that is not the true.
The determination of judgement is based upon unbelief, for those who are unbelievers are "condemned already."
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 why I try not to discuss much with you. You have a tendency to become very insulting rather than dealing with the topic itself.
My first comment was simply how Christianity viewed the issue in times past- the Just for the unjust being Christ incarnation through His death redeeming the human family by conquering sin in the flesh (Jesus for us).
My second was that you are imposing on the passage what is not stated. Had you allowed the passage itself to provide the context the interpretation would perhaps be different.
My third comment was that I believe the verse to be literal - the Just for the unjust, the Word becoming flesh to redeem man.
If you find yourself able to discuss any of those three comments in a Christ-like manner then I am willing also. Until then, however, I have no interest.
Your brother in Christ,
John
It is unfortunate that you ascribe the statement of JonC and me as “not dealing with the text.”
That merely avoidance on your part.
By doing so, it seems that you would deny that Christ (who knew no sin) became sin for us (2 Corinthians 5).
I am assuming that you do not hold to 1 Peter 3 when it states “Christ died for all” but make the “all” elect, only?
1 Peter 3 in the broad sense is letting believers know that the death of Christ is an example of what to expect from the ungodly for doing what is right. That in comparison, just as in the example of Christ, it is better to suffer from doing right than to suffer from doing wrong.
Within that context is the statement that Christ died for all, excluding none, including all. This is consistent with the Scripture treatment of the death of Christ.
That you may not agree is reason enough to prove by Scripture your view.
In doing so, you must of course respond to:
1) in what manner did Christ become “sin for us.”
2) how did this sinful endowment not be paid the wage of sin by death
3) if Christ did not take on the “form of Adam” (the form of sinful man) then in what form was He - bird, horse, fish?
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]
Interesting, and practical read.
I am not certain that you and JonC are that far apart in your thinking, but the sentence formation may be the distraction.
All three of us would agree that the passage is reflecting on the injustice of the just suffering, as exampled by Christ.
All three of us would also agree that Christ suffered unjustly, the question is to what ultimate goal, purpose, or ....
I hold that the suffering was identififiers given in prophecy so there would be no mistaken identification of who the messiah actually was in distinguishing from the many who claimed the title. Peter says as much at Pentecost when saying, “This same...”.
As such, believers also suffer, as Paul said, bearing in their own selves the identification marks...
However there is more to that suffering, for it all lead to blood letting.
That then is the significance. For the blood, shed for all, did not redeem all.
Rather, God chooses those to redeem.
It is then not the suffering, nor the blood atonement for sins, but the limit of redemption as God choice.
Now there may be disagreement of what limited redemption, blood or belief.
For me, the limit must be Scripturally found as that which is granted by the Father as His sovereign purpose - belief.
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.
I don't disagree, Biblicist!
What is agreeable is that ALL believers are brought to God!
What is NOT agreeable is that the blood is ONLY limited to the believers.
I just cannot find support for such a limit.
What I DO see, is that without the shedding of blood, there is NO remission of sin(s).
That the blood is the atonement for all human sin, irregardless of belief.
That God gives, as He purposes, and as He in sovereign authority determines, to choose from among the all those who He elects to salvation.
It takes the "limited atonement" statement of the Calvinistic thinking and conforms it to the statements found in Scriptures.
"THAT He might bring us to God," ACTUALLY verifies that view.
See, the choice resides outside the realms of human capacity or ability.
For Christ also died for sins once for all, ...
That - the result of the death for all (no mention of if being for the elect only)
He - the God
might - choice solely made upon His pleasure
bring - the effectual call of redemption to the elect
us - all believers as a separate grouping from the all
to - where the selected group called believers are going
God - the focused attention and journey of all believers.
To this are we not all in agreement?
Of course not, for some would desire out of tradition and name identification to cling to limiting the death blood of Christ to a few.
God intended the death of Jesus to atone for just His elect....