Featured Thinking about the Atonement or Reconciliation

He seemed to have a really good understanding on the Gospel itself!

 

reading both Morris and Stott on the Cross helped me understand more just why Pst is the correct viewpoint!

 

I want to highlight this quote from the O.P. to show the tendentious nature of the argument. It is designed to make God appear as some sort of mad sadist, crying out, "Blood! I must have blood!"
If God had chosen some random bloke and bullied him into dying to satisfy some sort of divine blood-lust, there might be some truth in it. But in fact it is God Himself (Acts 20:28), in the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ, who has found a way to reconcile God's justice with His mercy (2 Corinthians 5:18-19).

The key verse in understanding the atonement IMO is Romans 3:26; '.....That [God] might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.' 1,700 years ago, Athanasius understood the dilemma that the Fall appeared to pose to God. 'It would, of course, have been unthinkable that God should go back on His word, and that man, having transgressed, should not die; but it was equally monstrous that beings which had once shared the nature of the Word should perish..........It was unworthy of the goodness of God that creatures made by Him should be brought to nothing by the deceit wrought upon man by the devil......Yet true though this is......it was unthinkable that God, the father of Truth, should go back on His word regarding death in order to ensure our continued existence. He could not falsify Himself; what then was God to do?' [Athanasius, 'On the Incarnation' sects. 6-7]

But in Christ, the justice of God has been satisfied; His guilty people have been punished in Christ (Isaiah 53:6). God is reconciled to man, and the way is open for men to be reconciled to God (2 Corinthians 5:20-21).

 

The reason you can agree with it is that you evacuate it of all its meaning.

 

I believe that this is exactly where you are mistaken, and that you have not properly considered Romans 3:25-26. It is not that God justifies believers and declares Himself just in doing it No! '....Christ Jesus, whom God set forth as a propitiation to demonstrate His righteousness......' Satan is the accuser of the brethren (Revelation 12:10). He 'accused them day and night before God.' Satan's power consists of his appeal to justice. In Zechariah 3, Joshua the high priest is pictured in filthy rags. He is unclean, and Satan is ready to accuse Him. "How," he asks, "Can God be just and yet pardon sinners?" He appeals to God's justice, calling on Him to 'do the right thing' by punishing guilty humans as we deserve and upholding the curse upon those who do not continue in God's laws. So if God is to 'demonstrate His righteousness,' He must punish sin by punishing those who commit it. This He has done by laying our sins upon the sinless shoulders of the Lord Jesus. 'He Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree.' God can be 'just and the justifier of the one who believes in Jesus' only because justice has been fully satisfied in that Christ has borne our iniquities (Isaiah 53:11 etc.).

You continually say that you believe that Christ has borne our sins and so forth, so, no, I don't confuse your views with those of Denny (not Denby) Weaver, but You still haven't explained why the Lord Jesus needed to die such a terrible death.

I was dealing with the quotation by Helm that you supplied, and its tendentious nature. I was not referring to you except insofar as you supplied the quote. The 'elementary characterization' came from Helm, not me.

It is exactly here that your position is unclear. If God is both just and faithful to forgive people who repent, why is there no forgiveness without the shedding of blood?

The Lord Jesus Christ is God's righteousness manifested apart from the law. He has magnified the law and made it honourable by keeping it perfectly, and has fulfilled it completely by becoming the one perfect and acceptable sacrifice for sins. So now God can justify sinners through faith apart from the law and still be righteous, 'Do we than make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law' (Romans 3:31).

 

God CANNOT forgive us unless and until his wrath against sin and sinners is Propitiated!

 

Again, how is His wrath against sin and sinners appeased if not by Pst?

 

Again, unless and until wrath of God placated, no forgivness for lost sinners!

 

You actually don't understand Penal Substitution at all, do you? You could not be more mistaken on this if you tried. And you accuse me of 'elementary characterization! Sheesh!
I'm tied up at present, but I will try, once again, to explain Penal Substitution to you before the end of the day (UK time).

 

It wasn't that Jesus experience physical suffering same way all crucified did, but that he also experienced being the Sin Bearing Lamb of God the very wrath of God from a Holy God!

 

While I can understand how one might come to this conclusion, this would in fact make God HImself...under the Law.

The Law was added because of transgression. Transgression is the result of...separation from God.

Man's singular problem is that he is born separated from God, hence he sins. Reconciliation/Atonement is an eternal answer to a problem that began in the temporal. Adam's relationship with God was physical, he was not, as we are (having been reconciled) in Christ nor was Christ in he. When he sinned he was separated from God in the physical sense. No more would he walk with God in the Garden. The idea that Adam "died spiritually" is erroneous in that it suggests Adam had the very nature that we, as born again believers in Christ have. That idea is denied by Scripture itself, as well as implies that Adam "lost" eternal life. Eternal life cannot be lost.

Christ did not have to die because the Law demanded it, He died because He chose to die. When we consider Hebrews 9:22 we must balance that with Hebrews 10, understanding that there is a distinction made between what the sacrifices of the Law were for and what they accomplished and what Christ's Sacrifice accomplished. Remember, it was God Himself that established the Law, and this only as a temporary economy. The Promise of God predates the Law and Man, not God, was beholden to the demands of the Law.

God bless.

 

Hi JonC, just going to target this part of the quote (the rest makes a statement that leans more to humanistic philosophy in my view).

The Lord's death is just that, innocent blood/death to solve the guilt equation. Because God desires that all men be saved, and because all men sin, the only means of eradicating our guilt is death. In a temporal context the death of the innocent animal sufficed because that death provided temporal remission, but in regards to Eternal Remission only the Death of Christ can provide remission on an eternal basis:


Hebrews 10:1-4 King James Version (KJV)

1 For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.

2 For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.

3 But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year.

4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.



Hebrews 10:10-14 King James Version (KJV)

10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:

12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;

13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.

14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.


The purpose of animal sacrifice was atonement in a temporal context. The purpose of the Cross was Atonement/Reconciliation and...Redemption. Allin an eternal context. The Lord was not just providing a remedy for the state of separation Adam created, but beyond that to an eternal union with Himself. Have you considered whether men had eternal life prior to Pentecost? Most believe Adam "died spiritually" and that is what is being corrected through Christ. The truth is that Adam's only means of "everlasting life" was the Tree of Life, and that provided only "everlasting" physical life. The Lord makes it very clear how men can have eternal life:


John 3:9-16 King James Version (KJV)

9 Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be?

10 Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?

11 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.

12 If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?

13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.

14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:

15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.


If God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself, how many were reconciled before Christ?


God bless.

 

The contrast is between a temporal and an eternal context.

God has always justified men through faith according to His grace.

The distinction made by Paul in Romans 3-5 is that now...God is justifying in an eternal context as opposed to Temporal Justification that took place under Old Testament economies.


God bless.