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

[JonC]

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

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.

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!

Irenaeus is obvious - he tells you what he believed (the cross being that "final" stage of human existence). It wasn't penal substitution...but I will let you read it yourself (read the entire chapter from which you lifted your quote).

This thread is what I believe. So I will rephrase your question -

So what does it mean that '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 we were purchased with the precious blood of Christ. It means His flesh for our flesh, His life for our life.

It does not mean His life instead of our life, but as C.S. Lewis was eloquently pointing out, His death on our behalf. Jesus died FOR us - not instead of us.

Did you even notice you changed the words around?

 

[JonC]

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

Yep. I'm surprised it hasn't taken yet.

Have you noticed how I can tell you what you believe on this topic yet you remain clueless how not only my view but all views that depart from yours address the necessity of the cross and satisfy divine justice?

For example - and correct me if I mistate your view (although I probably won't state it as well as you):

You believe that God's wrath is against sin. All have sinned so all are born guilty and under God's wrath. God can't just forgive sin because this is unjust (it is against God's nature). So God lays our iniquities on His Son and punishes our sin. God pours His wrath upon Christ (who lays down His life in our place and willingly takes the cup of God's wrath in our stead). This satisfies divine justice (God has punished sin). And Jesus has taken this punishment instead of us. Because of this work God is both just (He has punished sin) and the justifier of sinners.

Can you explain how my view satisfies the demand of divine justice and necessitates the Cross?

What about Irenaeus' theory? Can you explain how God's justice is satisfied and why Christ died under Recipitulation? Under Anselm's theory? Moral Influence theory?

In other words, can you see beyond your own narrow presuppositions...your philosophies?

 

[JonC]

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

we were replying at the same time.

Show me where I miss your view.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Have you noticed how I can tell you what you believe on this topic

You have constantly told me what I believe on this topic, and invariably wrongly, ascribing to me views and motives I do not possess. Some of our sharpest exchanges have come about because of this. Yet this is despite my having laid out my views in great detail before you, which is something you have never done before me.

 

[JonC]

You have constantly told me what I believe on this topic, and invariably wrongly, ascribing to me views and motives I do not possess. Some of our sharpest exchanges have come about because of this. Yet this is despite my having laid out my views in great detail before you, which is something you have never done before me.

I believe that there is a miscommunication here, Martin.

I was taught in an argument to restate the other's position. This is not a challenge, but rather to make sure that I understand what the other holds. I've done this repeatedly, asking for you to point out if I erred. I did it in the thread from which you quoted from here.

FROM THE POST YOU QUOTE:

"For example - and correct me if I mistate your view (although I probably won't state it as well as you):

You believe that God's wrath is against sin. All have sinned so all are born guilty and under God's wrath. God can't just forgive sin because this is unjust (it is against God's nature). So God lays our iniquities on His Son and punishes our sin. God pours His wrath upon Christ (who lays down His life in our place and willingly takes the cup of God's wrath in our stead). This satisfies divine justice (God has punished sin). And Jesus has taken this punishment instead of us. Because of this work God is both just (He has punished sin) and the justifier of sinners."

I understand now that you reject the above (because you just told me). But I don't know why. "Wrong" is not clarification.

And then I asked you to explain my view (again, not as a challenge but to make sure that you understood my position as stated in this thread....i.e., the OP).

"Can you explain how my view satisfies the demand of divine justice and necessitates the Cross? "

There really is no need to respond in an insulting manner. This thread is about my view - and I stated my view in detail on this thread. I am trying to discuss my view among Christians - I can explain what I believe, but I can't understand it for you.

If you are so frustrated that you cannot deal with my view or confirm yours, then by all means take a step back. My view is here and we can return to it when your demeanor returns.

But again, when you are able I would appreciate correction of my understanding of your belief as stated above. And as always, you are free to ask me questions of my stated view on this thread.

I hope you get better, brother. What I need from you is not "wrong", but why or how it is wrong. And you have my view in this very thread.

John

 

[JonC]

@Martin Marprelate ,

I am sorry if it appears my replies are sharp. It is difficult for me to go to the trouble to lay out my views (for a second time) only to be met with the comment that I have never laid out my views before. It is also difficult for me to consider you honest when I do present your views asking for clarification if I've made any mistakes only to be met with "wrong" and insulted for the effort (but it's a difficulty I overcome).

MY VIEW

My view, in detail, is here:

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

It is the OP of this thread (post # 1). If you want my view in detail, well, there it is. You are more than welcome to ask me questions about what I believe.



MY UNDERSTANDING OF YOUR VIEW

Here is how I presented your view, as I understand it, and asked for clarification if I had made a mistake:

"For example - and correct me if I mistate your view (although I probably won't state it as well as you): You believe that God's wrath is against sin. All have sinned so all are born guilty and under God's wrath. God can't just forgive sin because this is unjust (it is against God's nature). So God lays our iniquities on His Son and punishes our sin. God pours His wrath upon Christ (who lays down His life in our place and willingly takes the cup of God's wrath in our stead). This satisfies divine justice (God has punished sin). And Jesus has taken this punishment instead of us. Because of this work God is both just (He has punished sin) and the justifier of sinners."

It is post # 42. You informed me that I was "wrong", but you did not tell me what part of that understanding you find wrong. Please clarify where I misunderstand your view.

I stated that I understand you to believe:


1. That God's wrath is against sin, and all have sinned so all are born guilty and under God's wrath?

2. That God can't just forgive sin because this is unjust (it is against God's nature). So God lays our iniquities on His Son and punishes our sin?

3. That God pours His wrath upon Christ (who lays down His life in our place and willingly takes the cup of God's wrath in our stead)?

4. That this work satisfies divine justice (God has punished sin)?

5. That Jesus has taken this punishment instead of us?

6. That it is because of this work (the Cross) that God is both just (He has punished sin) and the justifier of sinners?


By your insistence that I'm wrong here, I understand that you reject at least one of those points. Which ones do you deny? How have I misrepresented your view?

Please let me know. While simply answering "wrong" may provide you more opportunities to insult me, I don't see how this can benefit the topic or in any form contribute to a "Christian" dialogue.

Thanks,

John

 

[Martin Marprelate]

My view, in detail, is here:

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

It is the OP of this thread (post # 1). If you want my view in detail, well, there it is. You are more than welcome to ask me questions about what I believe.

Yes, but it wasn't your view, was it? Read posts #2 and #3. As soon as I began to deal ith the O,P you told me I had misunderstood you. If you would like to give me your view as amended to include post #3, and anything else you may have omitted to say, that will no doubt be helpful. I can't play Twenty Questions with you to find out what you really believe.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Earlier, I asked for your comments on my definition of Penal Substitution:

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]

You responded:

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.

Is that your only objection? If I were to emend the statement to read The doctrine of Penal Substitution states that God gave Himself in the person of His Son to suffer on our behalf the death, punishment and curse due to fallen humanity as the penalty for sin, would you then be in full agreement with it? I need to know because I'm going out in a few minutes to lead a Bible study, but when I come back I shall have some time (D.V.) to reply to some posts, and I'd like to deal with this.

You may well have replied earlier to my question, which I first asked at post #5, but I haven't seen it. When one takes a bit of time off these threads, the posts whizz by and maybe don't get seen. So if your earlier reply contained more detail, perhaps you will kindly link me to it, or cut and paste it as a reply to this post. Otherwise I will assume that those three words are the only difference between us and proceed accordingly.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I stated that I understand you to believe:


1. That God's wrath is against sin, and all have sinned so all are born guilty and under God's wrath?

God's wrath is against sinners (Psalm 7:11 etc.).

2. That God can't just forgive sin because this is unjust (it is against God's nature). So God lays our iniquities on His Son and punishes our sin?

Again, sin is not a person and therefore cannot be forgiven; God cannot forgive sinners because He cannot deny Himself

3. That God pours His wrath upon Christ (who lays down His life in our place and willingly takes the cup of God's wrath in our stead)?

This is my chief objection. God punishes sin in Christ; our sins are laid upon Christ and He pays the penalty for them. He personally is never under the wrath of God and never ceases to be the beloved Son.

4. That this work satisfies divine justice (God has punished sin)?

God has punished us in Christ (Galatians 2:20)

5. That Jesus has taken this punishment instead of us?[/QUOTE]
He has taken the punishment that we deserve, both instead of us and on our behalf.

6. That it is because of this work (the Cross) that God is both just (He has punished sin) and the justifier of sinners?

Yes, subject to what I have written above.

 

[JonC]

Yes, but it wasn't your view, was it? Read posts #2 and #3. As soon as I began to deal ith the O,P you told me I had misunderstood you. If you would like to give me your view as amended to include post #3, and anything else you may have omitted to say, that will no doubt be helpful. I can't play Twenty Questions with you to find out what you really believe.

I told you what I believe. I can't help it if my actual beliefs are just beyond your grasp, and I certainly can't anticipate your ignorance of my views.

 

[JonC]

God's wrath is against sinners (Psalm 7:11 etc.).

Again, sin is not a person and therefore cannot be forgiven; God cannot forgive sinners because He cannot deny Himself

This is my chief objection. God punishes sin in Christ; our sins are laid upon Christ and He pays the penalty for them. He personally is never under the wrath of God and never ceases to be the beloved Son.
God has punished us in Christ (Galatians 2:20)

5. That Jesus has taken this punishment instead of us?

He has taken the punishment that we deserve, both instead of us and on our behalf.
Yes, subject to what I have written above.[/QUOTE]
Yes, as I said - I understand your view and reasoning. You reworded what I stated (your "objections" are addressed in other points). I'm glad we at least agree here.

 

[JonC]

Earlier, I asked for your comments on my definition of Penal Substitution: You responded:

Is that your only objection? If I were to emend the statement to read The doctrine of Penal Substitution states that God gave Himself in the person of His Son to suffer on our behalf the death, punishment and curse due to fallen humanity as the penalty for sin, would you then be in full agreement with it? I need to know because I'm going out in a few minutes to lead a Bible study, but when I come back I shall have some time (D.V.) to reply to some posts, and I'd like to deal with this.

You may well have replied earlier to my question, which I first asked at post #5, but I haven't seen it. When one takes a bit of time off these threads, the posts whizz by and maybe don't get seen. So if your earlier reply contained more detail, perhaps you will kindly link me to it, or cut and paste it as a reply to this post. Otherwise I will assume that those three words are the only difference between us and proceed accordingly.

You don't understand. Those words, that Jesus suffered for us rather than in our stead, are not where we differ but are a result of our difference. Others include your understanding that God forsook Christ on the cross where I believe God forsook Him to the cross....you believe God abandoned Christ in His suffering where I believe He abandoned Christ to suffer for us.

These "little" differences are miles apart.

Where we differ is in how God is just and the justifier of sinners. We differ on how God's justice is satisfied. But ultimately our difference is I have not accepted your philosophical approach to God's justice.....and it is this presupposition you must prove to demonstrate your theory correct.

 

[JonShaff]

Again, sin is not a person and therefore cannot be forgiven;

Wait, i thought earlier you said Jesus became actual sin.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Wait, i thought earlier you said Jesus became actual sin.

He did. All our sins were imputed to Him and He became the very epitome of sin.

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.

I'm sorry not to have replied to this earlier. Isaiah 53:10 is Hebrew; I have no problem with that meaning 'sin offering;' Christ obviously was a sin offering as well as being made sin for us. What I have said is that hamartia, the Greek word for 'sin' is never used for 'sin offering' in the N.T. I give two other reasons in my post #18 as to why I do not believe that hamartia can mean 'sin offering' in 2 Corinthians 5:21. Have a look at those. I find your basket-ball analogy ingenious but not persuasive, because I don't believe Paul is using slang.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I told you what I believe. I can't help it if my actual beliefs are just beyond your grasp, and I certainly can't anticipate your ignorance of my views.

They will remain beyond my grasp if you don't express them. The O.P. was not your view because you immediately amended it in post #3.

Irenaeus is obvious - he tells you what he believed (the cross being that "final" stage of human existence). It wasn't penal substitution...but I will let you read it yourself (read the entire chapter from which you lifted your quote).

This thread is what I believe. So I will rephrase your question -

So what does it mean that '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 we were purchased with the precious blood of Christ. It means His flesh for our flesh, His life for our life.

It does not mean His life instead of our life, but as C.S. Lewis was eloquently pointing out, His death on our behalf. Jesus died FOR us - not instead of us.

I don't think Lewis is necessarily the best advocate for your beliefs. He was a High Church Anglican and certainly no sort of evangelical. However, what does it mean that the Lord Jesus died on our behalf?

If I write a letter on your behalf, I write it and you don't. I write it instead of you.
If you win the Congressional Medal of Honour (how long can it be?), but are unable to go to receive it, I might do so on your behalf; I collect it instead of you.
In both of these examples, I am doing something for your benefit.
If you have tickets to a big baseball match and I steal them from you, I would go to the match instead of you, but I wouldn't be going on your behalf. I am not doing something for your benefit.

So to do something on someone's behalf means to do it instead of him, but for his benefit. Christ gave His flesh for our flesh; He suffered in the flesh instead of us, so that we don't have to. He gave His life for our life; He died that we might live forever. He did both those things for our benefit, so they are on our behalf.

What you (and Lewis) are arguing is that Christ died for our benefit, but not instead of us. But what you cannot deny is that He suffered and we don't. What benefit is it if Christ dies and it is not in our place? Where is the justice of God in that?

 

[utilyan]

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.........

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?

You think God foams at the mouth. Anger only occurs when a person is too ignorant to a solution.

Give us that verse where We are told by Jesus to follow God's example and foam at the mouth like an idiot.

 

[JonC]

They will remain beyond my grasp if you don't express them. The O.P. was not your view because you immediately amended it in post #3.

Hey MartinM.

I am really not sure how you missed it, perhaps with your studies and preaching it was just an oversight. I can try to explain.

Here are a few comments from the OP:

that we will be saved by Him from the wrath of God….through Christ, Whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood …God has laid on Him the iniquity of us all…. I also believe that the death of Christ satisfied the demands of divine justice…. …

Your reply?

Where your understanding falls short, so far as I can see, is that you do not believe that God shows or feels wrath, fury or anger against sin, or that these need to be propitiated by Christ

Post #3 was not an “amendment” to my stated belief but an explanation to your reply. You had missed that I addressed God's wrath, Christ as a propitiation, and divine justice being satisfied.

I trust looking back over the post now you see that I addressed those issues, even though I'm sure we disagree as I do not share your philosophy of justice. But at least you can understand better my position.

John

 

[Yeshua1]

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.

My conclusions fit though into what Jesus and Paul wrote to us concerning His death, as the Pauline Justification is the Pst itself!

 

[Yeshua1]

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.

Pauline theology of the atonement as expressed to us especially in Romans and Galatians is Pst!

 

[Yeshua1]

@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?

My concern is that non of fthe other theories really line up with Pauline Justification fully, as they still do not fully address How exactly God used the Cross to allow Himself to freely justify sinners while still staying Holy and True!