Theories of the Atonement

[Aaron]

I am not being obtuse at all. I believe 53:5 means that the people believed Christ unworthy of honor and afflicted by God not recognizing the truth - His suffering and death was for their sins (He who knew no sin was made sin for us), He suffered for their iniquities, the chastening upon Him brought us peace, and by His wounds we are healed.

As far as I know this is a belief common to all Christians - even the majority of believers who have rejected Penal Substitution Theory.

But it is a huge leap from Isaiah 53 to Penal Substitution Theory.

In Acts Peter tells us it was these people who believed Christ unworthy of honor and afflicted by God who handed Him over to the wicked to be punished, but that this was in accord with God's predetermined plan (it pleased Him to crush Him).

My question was very specific. Is there a verse that has God punishing Jedus in our place with the wrath reserved for our sins?

How do you get from Scripture, which we all affirm, to Penal Substitution Theory?

It's quite clear. He was punished for our sins. We won't be. Your pedantry notwithstanding, that's a substitute.

 

[JonC]

It's quite clear. He was punished for our sins. We won't be. Your pedantry notwithstanding, that's a substitute.

Yes. The chastening was for our sins. I agree. He was sinless and became sin for us.

It is obvious, I think, that you (and a few others here) cannot see what you presuppose (that God was punishing Christ with the wrath due our sins).

So we can just move on with the understanding I absolutely agree with Isaiah 53 while rejecting Penal Substitution Theory as a humanistic corruption.

 

[MichaelBoryAlis]

Romans 11:36 keeps it simple -
"For out of Him and through Him and to Him are All Things"

Or, I Cor 15:28 "And God shall be All in All"

"All Things" is an interesting Bible Study.

 

[JonC]

Throught Christian history all Christians have confirmed Isaiah 53.

But throughout history most Christians have not interpreted the passage to mean that God was punishing Jesus instead of punishing us.

Advocates of Penal Substitution Theory typically defend their interpretation of the passage by offering up the passage and saying "that is what it means".

But that is not what the text actually states, and historically that interpretation is held by a minority (within Christianity as a whole, it is a majority view with Reformed churches and Baptists).

So my question was not what verses were used but how do you interpret those passages to mean God punishing Christ instead of punishing us when most Christians have not come to that conclusion.

The reason I get aggravated in these discussions is thus far no member has explained how they get from Scripture to Penal Substitution Theory (they just pretend there can be no other interpretation).

 

[Aaron]

The reason I get aggravated in these discussions is thus far no member has explained how they get from Scripture to Penal Substitution Theory (they just pretend there can be no other interpretation).

Then let the Law teach you again those things which be the first principles of the doctrines of Christ.

Lev 1:4 And he shall put his hand upon the head of the burnt offering; and it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him.

NIV: accepted on your behalf
​

This act of identification is repeated in the offerings for sin, and offerings for the debts of sin, trespass.

Whether one is coming for acceptance, to atone for one's sins, and to pay the damages, one brings a substitute, and that one is Christ, and it is all accomplished in Christ's one act on the Cross.

for he that is hanged [on a cross] is accursed of God. Deuteronomy 21:23

​

Now that it has been established, that all things due our sins, even the penalty, are visited upon the sacrificial victim, it only remains for you to determine whether or not the sins of the elect deserve God's wrath, or if His wrath is even a penalty for sin. If it wasn't poured out on our substitute, then it wasn't due us to begin with.

 

[JonC]

Then let the Law teach you again those things which be the first principles of the doctrines of Christ.

Lev 1:4 And he shall put his hand upon the head of the burnt offering; and it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him.

NIV: accepted on your behalf
​

This act of identification is repeated in the offerings for sin, and offerings for the debts of sin, trespass.

Whether one is coming for acceptance, to atone for one's sins, and to pay the damages, one brings a substitute, and that one is Christ, and it is all accomplished in Christ's one act on the Cross.

for he that is hanged [on a cross] is accursed of God. Deuteronomy 21:23

​

Now that it has been established, that all things due our sins, even the penalty, are visited upon the sacrificial victim, it only remains for you to determine whether or not the sins of the elect deserve God's wrath, or if His wrath is even a penalty for sin. If it wasn't poured out on our substitute, then it wasn't due us to begin with.

You are still missing the target. I believe Christ is the guilt offering on our behalf. Deuteronomy 21:23 relates to Isaiah 53 - if Israek considered the man accursed under the Law and was because of a crime killed then the body was hanged in a tree as a sign, but removed prior to sundown.

Christ did come under the curse for us.

I an asking you to connect Scripture to the unbiblical myth that God punished Christ (something Peter rejected in his sermon) and that Jesus died instead of us dying

You cannot because no evidence exists in Scripture. It is a form of Roman Catholicism carried over by some Protestants who do not realize just how Catholic they have remained.

Penal Substitution Theory owes just as much to Roman Catholic tradition as it does to Scripture.

 

[Aaron]

You are still missing the target.

No. I'm dead on. It's just the kink in yer think that enables your fence-riding.

If Christ didn't suffer it, it wasn't anything we were headed for.

 

[JonC]

No. I'm dead on. It's just the kink in yer think that enables your fence-riding.

If Christ didn't suffer it, it wasn't anything we were headed for.

I am not sure what fence you imagine I am riding (that seems to be a silly claim - I just disagree with your position).


You are just creating a bit of a strawman. I never claimed Christ did not suffer the fate we are all heading for. Quite the opposite, in fact.

I disagree that our redemption was founded on God punishing Christ instead of us. Scripture only addresses the "punisher" a few times, and then as "wicked nen" by the "preordained plan of God".

.

 

[Aaron]

k

 

[JonC]

k

C

 

[Yeshua1]

That is because you refuse to consider how any other view allows for a Holy Hod to judge and ounish sinand to also justify sinners.

Your refusal to put the good eye to the scope does not legitimize your conclusions.

Unless Jesus paid and atoned to the Father our obligated and due sin debt, how can any get saved?

 

[Yeshua1]

Hey MM ("good morning from my location).

But we also have to remember that Gregory of Nazianzus did not hold to Penal Substitution Theory.

I believe everything posted in your quote is correct. Christ, who knew no sin, was made sin for me and I am made righteous in Him (His righteousness).

Gregory of Nazianzus also taught that the belief Christ paid the wages of sin to satisfy the demands of the Father was heresy (that it made the Father the cause of our bondage).

But advocates of Penal Substitution Theory often take something like your quote to claim early Penal Substitution Theory.

It depends on how you define the Theory, I suppose.

If you mean the above (your quote) while rejecting the idea that the Cross was to satisfy the Father (or the demands of the Father) then I suppose we all hold to Penal Substitution Theory.

The divine wrath of the Father towards sin has to be propiation by someone!

 

[Yeshua1]

I do not believe in continued special revelation. I believe we should rely on what is recorded in the Bible for doctrine. When we start relying on second special revelation we have no true objective standard.

You say Isaiah, Jesus, and Paul believed it, but this cannot be confirmed by Scripture and is therefore subjective.

I read a book last year, "Pierced for Our Transgressions". It was the most willfully dishonest book I have read on the topic. The authors lifted quotes, none expressing anything beyond common belief about the cross, and claimed it proved the theory. It was deceptive (given what of the ECF's was omitted,I believe willfully so).

That is what you are doing. Show ONE verse proving Penal Substitution Theory. You can't because none exist.

That in itself does not make Penal Substitution wrong. But it does mean it is wrong to add it to Scripture by pretending it is divinely inspired.

We can show MANY verses supporting it for the scriptures, but you would just reject them!

 

[Yeshua1]

It means more.

Penal Substitution Theory means that God punished Jesus, that Jesus was punished instead of us with the punishment-wrath due our sins.

It is what Thomas Aquinas referred to as a high heresy because it corrupts divine justice.

NO, the Father punished and judged our sins in the Person of Jesus, as God was in Christ providing for our reconciliation!

 

[Yeshua1]

not from the Holy Bible. You call it a "theory", that Jesus Christ died "in the place of" sinners, but the Bible is against you, as I have shown. You need to get this sorted with the Lord, as it is you who is fighting the Word of God. You have yet to show your view, and when you did, you quote from Isaiah 53, which IS Penal Substitution. The more I read your arguments, the more I see that you really don't understand what Penal Substitution is!

Guess main sticking point is that God placed divine wrath against Jesus, but Jesus was a willing participate of that happening!

 

[Yeshua1]

Please provide a passage that states *not what you believe is taught or implied) that God punished Jesus instead of punishing us.

No comments but JUST the passage you believe exists.

No "He was pleased to crush Him", "Christ died for our sins" (which was all believe anyway) but a verse stating that God punished Jedus instead of punishing us for our sins.

You can't because no such verse exists.

I do not mind people believing Penal Substitution Theory. I did for years. But to elevate the theory to the level of Scriprure is to add to Scripture.

The problem is you seem to be unable to tell where the biblical text ends and your understanding of the text begins.

I gave you 2 passages stating my view. So your turn.

Provide at least one stating that God punished Jeus instead of punishing us.

Did Jesus become our Sin bearer while upon that Cross, was he forsaken by the father?

 

[Yeshua1]

Are you arguing that some of the Persons in the Trinity are not always the LORD God? Jesus did teach, John 13:16, ". . . The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him." (Did not say not equal.)

Are you saying that the Father is greater the Jesus?

 

[Yeshua1]

Here you go with personal attacks.
So where is the Holy Spirit in John 1:1? Where is He in Isaiah 53:1-12? That does not mean He plays no role. Jesus I trust you do know taught, in John 4:24, "God is a Spirit: . . ." Hebrews 9:14, ". . . the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, . . ."

The Spirit Himself was brooding over the Earth in Genesis 1, and he is not Jesus!

 

[Yeshua1]

Yes. The chastening was for our sins. I agree. He was sinless and became sin for us.

It is obvious, I think, that you (and a few others here) cannot see what you presuppose (that God was punishing Christ with the wrath due our sins).

So we can just move on with the understanding I absolutely agree with Isaiah 53 while rejecting Penal Substitution Theory as a humanistic corruption.

Jesus experienced while upon that Cross the very same all lost sinners will in Judgement by God for their sins!

 

[SavedByGrace]

Guess main sticking point is that God placed divine wrath against Jesus, but Jesus was a willing participate of that happening!

According to the OT Law sin must be punished to satisfy the wrath of God against us sinners. Jesus the Lamb of God took the punishment upon Himself and became a curse on our behalf. This is what Substitutionary Atonement means.