Back by popular demand - An often unpopular view of the Atonement

[Yeshua1]

Partly correct. You are assuming that divine justice binds God to an "eye for an eye" type law. But what if God can forgive people simply because they repent (as Scripture actually states)? What if men will not do this except God makes them "new creations" in Christ (which Scripture also states)? And what if this is a manifestation of God's righteousness apart from the law rather than through it (also, what is stated in Scripture)? Well, then God is just and the justifier of sinners because of the Cross. Our redemption is grace.

In order to have God forgive a sinner and grant eternal life, they must not just repent from sinning, but must have never sinned! and how is their sin guilt from fall of Adam get dealt with then?

 

[JonC]

Still no reply to my question at post #5.

Here is my definition of Penal Substitution AGAIN:

The doctrine of Penal Substitution states that God gave Himself in the person of His Son to suffer instead of us the death, punishment and curse due to fallen humanity as the penalty for sin. [as you know, it is not actually my definition but that of Jeffrey, Ovey and Sach, but I have adopted it because it is brief and accurate]

I shall not be replying again on this thread until you state where you differ with this statement. Stop mucking about and get on with it!

There really is no going forward with this thread until this simple question is answered.

I replied. Maybe that was on the other thread....I'm getting them mixed up.

I agreed with C.S. Lewis that "instead of us" should be "on our behalf" or "for" us. Christ died for us, not instead of us.

Like Irenaeus said - His flesh for our flesh. Only a fool would think (reading Irenaeus' complete explanation on that point) that this was "instead of" (he goes into the necessity of Christ to each age, to Eve and Mary as representatives, etc.....which makes perfect sense when one understands "for" does NOT mean "instead of"...but simply "for").

 

[JonShaff]

From my blog:

We learn in the Scriptures two things that the Lord Jesus became on our behalf. He became sin ‘for us’ (2 Corinthians 5:21), and He became a curse ‘for us’ (Galatians 3:13). First, He became sin. ‘For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.’ So God the Father made the sinless Christ to be sin on our behalf. What does this mean? Well, it does not mean that Christ was made a sinner; He was never that! It means that all the sins of God’s elect were imputed to Christ– that is, laid to His account (c.f. Isaiah 53:6), and He has paid the penalty for them (Isaiah 53:5). At the same time, His perfect righteousness and obedience to His Father’s will are credited to us who believe. This is what Luther termed the ‘Great Exchange.’ The sinless One made sin, and sinners made righteous through the cross.

It has been suggested that Christ was not made ‘sin’ in 2 Cor. 5:21, but a ‘sin offering.’ There are three reasons why this suggestion should be rejected:

Firstly, hamartia, the Greek word translated ‘sin’ never means ‘sin offering’ in the New Testament, though it sometimes does elsewhere.

Secondly, hamartia occurs twice in the verse, and it would be strange if it had two meanings in one sentence; but to say, “God made Him who knew no sin offering to be a sin offering for us” makes no sense.

Thirdly, in John 3:14, the Lord Jesus declares, “As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so the Son of man must be lifted up……” The reference is, of course, to Numbers 21:8-9, where Moses made a ‘fiery serpent,’ lifted it up on a pole, and everyone who looked upon it was cured of snake-bite. The serpent is clearly some sort of type of the Lord Jesus, but what sort? Well where do we see in Scripture a red, fiery serpent? Well in Revelation 12:3, we are introduced to ‘A great fiery red dragon’ who, in verse 9, is seen to be the serpent, alias Satan himself. So how is Satan a type of Christ? He is a type of Christ made sin for us. The Lord Jesus manifested to destroy the works of the devil (1 John 2:8). The primary satanic work was the luring of mankind into sin. Christ was made the very epitome of sin for us, figured by the brazen serpent, and paid the penalty of His people’s sin in full, so that ‘the accuser of our brethren…..has been cast down’ (Revelation 12:10). Satan can no longer accuse Christians of sin because Christ has taken away their sin debt, nailing it to the cross (Colossians 2:14) marked tetelestai, ‘Paid in Full’ (John 19:20; c.f. Matthew 17:24). Therefore ‘Who shall bring a charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies; who is he who condemns?’ (Romans 8:33-34).

Brother,

I noticed you did not quote Isaiah 53 from my quote.

Saying Christ became 'sin' is quite the statement. Sin is an entity?

When understanding written communication, we can apply a method of understanding called "intent"...what was the author's intent? Paul said that Christ, who knew know sin, became sin for us. It is obvious, especially because of Paul's previous two chapters, that he was speaking on the realities of the Law. So, when he said Christ, who has never sinned, became a sin offering...intent is easily identifiable.

Let's try this exercise--Read: man let's play some ball, i can ball you up.

My intent is for you to understand, Let's play some BASKET-ball, I can play a game better than you. I used One word that can have two different effects/meaning.

 

[JonC]

In order to have God forgive a sinner and grant eternal life, they must not just repent from sinning, but must have never sinned! and how is their sin guilt from fall of Adam get dealt with then?

That is what advocates of the theory have to prove. If it can be proven via Scripture then all other theories would cease to exist and Penal Substitution would become "the doctrine of Penal Substitution".

Anyway, you've hit the nail squarely on the head about the task before you. It's what the theory assumes, but what it can't prove.

 

[JonShaff]

@Martin Marprelate

Why ignore Isaiah 53:10...When You make His soul an offering for sin...?

 

[Yeshua1]

@Martin Marprelate

Why ignore Isaiah 53:10...When You make His soul an offering for sin...?

Well, why ignore God pleased to crush Jesus fir our own iniquities?

 

[JonC]

Well, why ignore God pleased to crush Jesus fir our own iniquities?

I am not. It was God's will to crush Him. Peter even preaches about this.

Please reference a post where I claimed otherwise.

(He was pleased to crush Him does not mean "God punished Jesus for our sins instead of punishing us to pay our sin debt so He could forgive us)

 

[Yeshua1]

I am not. It was God's will to crush Him. Peter even preaches about this.

Please reference a post where I claimed otherwise.

(He was pleased to crush Him does not mean "God punished Jesus for our sins instead of punishing us to pay our sin debt so He could forgive us)

It does indeed mean that though!

 

[JonC]

It does indeed mean that though!

That is my point. You cannot read those words without ascribing to them what you believe they mean. This is not interpretation but biblical illiteracy as you can't distinguish between your conclusions and God's Word as actually recorded in the text.

 

[JonC]

@Yeshua1

I am sure you realize other theories exist. And I'm sure you know each theory looks at the same Scriptures to address the same questions.

You indicated that you could not see how other theories like Ransom Theory, Christus Victor, Moral Influence Theory, Recipitulation, and Ontological Substitution could see Christ's death as necessary. But we all know they did.

Why do you think their reasoning escapes you?

Can you really evaluate your interpretation if you can't see how other theories necessitates the Cross?

 

[John of Japan]

Thanks for taking the time to reply. I took the meaning from The Complete Word Study Dictionary, Old Testament, by Warren Baker and Eugene Carpenter, in which they say:

za'am: A verb meaning to be indignant, to be enraged. The root literally means to foam at the mouth, to be enraged. It is used to describe the fury of the king of the North against the holy covenant in Daniel's vision (Dan. 11:30). Because God is a righteous judge, He shows indignation against evil every day.(Psalms 7:11). The theme is picked up in Isaiah 66:14.........

"Word studies" can have problems, especially if they put too much emphasis on the etymology. Remember that "word studies" are not lexicons.

With a word in the original languages that only occurs once (hapax legomenon), the etymology can be important in determining the meaning. However, with a word that occurs multiple times like this one, the etymology can even be irrelevant. Not one single usage of the 12 occurrences in the OT can be translated "foam at the mouth," so I'm mystified as to why it was even in the entry in your book. The word does not "literally mean 'foam at the mouth." (I realize the entry says "root," but it's 6 of one and half a dozen of the other.) To think of the meaning as "foam at the mouth" is misleading, IMO.

I accept that usage is more important than etymology, but is it fair to say that the word refers to severe anger? Is 'fury' a reasonable translation?

In most of the 12 usages of the word in the OT, it looks to me like "fury" would be a good rendering. However, that rendering is impossible in Prov. 22:14 (abhorred) and Mic. 6:10 (abominable).

 

[JonC]

"Word studies" can have problems, especially if they put too much emphasis on the etymology. Remember that "word studies" are not lexicons.

With a word in the original languages that only occurs once (hapax legomenon), the etymology can be important in determining the meaning. However, with a word that occurs multiple times like this one, the etymology can even be irrelevant. Not one single usage of the 12 occurrences in the OT can be translated "foam at the mouth," so I'm mystified as to why it was even in the entry in your book. The word does not "literally mean 'foam at the mouth." (I realize the entry says "root," but it's 6 of one and half a dozen of the other.) To think of the meaning as "foam at the mouth" is misleading, IMO.

In most of the 12 usages of the word in the OT, it looks to me like "fury" would be a good rendering. However, that rendering is impossible in Prov. 22:14 (abhorred) and Mic. 6:10 (abominable).

But φρίσσω in James 2:19 does literally mean "freak out".....right?

(I remember that one from a Tim Keller sermon....it was a good sermon).

 

[Martin Marprelate]

"Word studies" can have problems, especially if they put too much emphasis on the etymology. Remember that "word studies" are not lexicons.

With a word in the original languages that only occurs once (hapax legomenon), the etymology can be important in determining the meaning. However, with a word that occurs multiple times like this one, the etymology can even be irrelevant. Not one single usage of the 12 occurrences in the OT can be translated "foam at the mouth," so I'm mystified as to why it was even in the entry in your book. The word does not "literally mean 'foam at the mouth." (I realize the entry says "root," but it's 6 of one and half a dozen of the other.) To think of the meaning as "foam at the mouth" is misleading, IMO.

In most of the 12 usages of the word in the OT, it looks to me like "fury" would be a good rendering. However, that rendering is impossible in Prov. 22:14 (abhorred) and Mic. 6:10 (abominable).

Thanks again, John. Actually, I read about 'foam at the mouth in an article (can't remember where now ) and looked it up to be sure. I take your points, but can we maybe agree that za'am doesn't mean 'a little bit cross,' which is all I'm really trying to say? I realise that God does not literally foam at the mouth!

 

[John of Japan]

But φρίσσω in James 2:19 does literally mean "freak out".....right?

(I remember that one from a Tim Keller sermon....it was a good sermon).

Absolutely and obviously correct!

 

[JonC]

I take your points, but can we maybe agree that za'am doesn't mean 'a little bit cross,' which is all I'm really trying to say?

I had to read that part twice. That's a new one for me.

If I understand you correctly, what you are saying is that you have encountered some who believe God is slightly annoyed at sin. Kinda makes our argument calm. You believe God's anger could only be remedied by God punishing Jesus to pay our sin debt. I believe God's wrath against sin so much eternally greater than punishment would cure so we had to be "re-created", that we had to die to sin and be made into new creations.

But where I believe your view weak on divine wrath and sin, it's nothing compared to the idea of divine annoyance.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I had to read that part twice. That's a new one for me.

If I understand you correctly, what you are saying is that you have encountered some who believe God is slightly annoyed at sin. Kinda makes our argument calm. You believe God's anger could only be remedied by God punishing Jesus to pay our sin debt. I believe God's wrath against sin so much eternally greater than punishment would cure so we had to be "re-created", that we had to die to sin and be made into new creations.

But where I believe your view weak on divine wrath and sin, it's nothing compared to the idea of divine annoyance.

I remembered the other place where I saw za'am described as 'foam at the mouth. It is in Spurgeon's Treasury of David in a quotation from a chap called Richard Mant. 'The original expression here is very forcible. The true idea of it appears to be to 'froth' or 'foam at the mouth' with indignation.'

But you continue to misunderstand my position. I believe that God is furious with sin, and must punish it if He is to be righteous. But He does not 'punish Jesus to pay our sin debt.' He punishes sin in Jesus, which is not the same thing. Christ was made sin for us, and bore our sins in His body on the tree.

Who does not believe that 'unless one is born again ['re-created'] he cannot enter the kingdom of God'? I certainly do. But if that is what is needed for God to forgive guilty sinners, then there was no need for Christ to die.

 

[JonC]

I remembered the other place where I saw za'am described as 'foam at the mouth. It is in Spurgeon's Treasury of David in a quotation from a chap called Richard Mant. 'The original expression here is very forcible. The true idea of it appears to be to 'froth' or 'foam at the mouth' with indignation.'

But you continue to misunderstand my position. I believe that God is furious with sin, and must punish it if He is to be righteous. But He does not 'punish Jesus to pay our sin debt.' He punishes sin in Jesus, which is not the same thing. Christ was made sin for us, and bore our sins in His body on the tree.

Who does not believe that 'unless one is born again ['re-created'] he cannot enter the kingdom of God'? I certainly do. But if that is what is needed for God to forgive guilty sinners, then there was no need for Christ to die.

I understand what you are saying. I once held (and taught) your position. I remember preaching a sermon insisting that God never turned His back on the cross but looked Jesus straight on as if He were the chief of sinners and poured His wrath reserved for our sins upon His Son. I was young....er and dumb....er back then.

We all believe we must be born again just as we all believe Christ bore our sins. But Penal Substitution Theory is humanistic and as such holds God's justice is satisfied by the punishment of human sin.

I think this is a weaker view of God's justice (and by virtue, of His wrath). No one can remedy man's condition by being punished in his place to satisfy "sin debt". For one, this us not just. But more than that it creates a feeble view of God who is just as much Subject as He is Sovereign and a higher view of man who merely needs someone who can withstand God's wrath in their place.

But I understand the Theory you believe (if you doubt it - just ask) because it was once mine. By your own admission you don't understand mine (you can't see how my belief....or the other theories we discussed, for that matter...necessitates the cross or deals with God's justice). And that, brother, is what I have been trying to help you understand.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I replied. Maybe that was on the other thread....I'm getting them mixed up.

Perhaps you did. I haven't seen it though.

I agreed with C.S. Lewis that "instead of us" should be "on our behalf" or "for" us. Christ died for us, not instead of us.

That Christ died on our behalf is unquestionably true, but what does it mean? Let's look at 1 Peter 2:24. 'He Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree.....' Now for sure He bore our sins on our behalf, but do we still have to bear them? Yes or no? No! Therefore He bore them instead of us. It's not rocket science.

Like Irenaeus said - His flesh for our flesh. Only a fool would think (reading Irenaeus' complete explanation on that point) that this was "instead of" (he goes into the necessity of Christ to each age, to Eve and Mary as representatives, etc.....which makes perfect sense when one understands "for" does NOT mean "instead of"...but simply "for").

So what does it mean that, as Irenaeus says, 'The Lord redeemed us by His blood'? What does it mean that the redemption was 'His life for our life, His flesh for our flesh'? It means that He gave His life in exchange for our life; He died instead of us. He suffered in His flesh so that we should not suffer in ours. that is the meaning of 'redemption.' A price is paid in exchange for something. As for the rest of Irenaeus' explanation, you are still thinking 'either....or' when you should be thinking 'both....and.' Until you get that right you will never understand.

BTW, I found a very similar quote in Clement of Rome.'Because of the love He had towards us, Jesus Christ our Lord gave His blood for us by the will of God, His flesh for our flesh, His life for our life' (Epistle to the Corinthians, xlix). It looks as if Irenaeus was quoting him!

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I understand what you are saying. I once held (and taught) your position. I remember preaching a sermon insisting that God never turned His back on the cross but looked Jesus straight on as if He were the chief of sinners and poured His wrath reserved for our sins upon His Son. I was young....er and dumb....er back then.

I'm not sure if you were dumber, but you were certainly dumb. The Scriptures are very clear that God forsook Christ on the cross until the ninth hour.

No one can remedy man's condition by being punished in his place to satisfy "sin debt".

No one says anyone can. The new birth is absolutely essential, but again it's 'both....and' rather than 'either.....or.'
BTW, you may look all through my posts and you will never find me referring to a 'sin debt.'

 

[Martin Marprelate]

But I understand the Theory you believe (if you doubt it - just ask) because it was once mine.

So you keep telling me, but as I read your posts, I rather doubt it.