Featured BIBLICAL atonement

I think the above by itself, establishes penal substitution. There is a transferring of sin, God was "pleased to crush him" (which shows wrath being suffered by Jesus), and this resulted in benefit to us.

Then you follow with the above. If God was pleased to crush Jesus then (and I want to be reverent here) God was expressing his nature which do know is just and we know he hates sin. If as you say, his death was to appease God, then you are admitting that this was not a governmental transaction, or economic, but was an "appeasement" of what we as humans would view as an emotional state and which the scripture graciously explains to us in those terms.

We can go in circles forever. Maybe I should start a thread where I could demand that someone show me in bold letters where in Exodus it is stated that the Israelites "exited" Egypt.

 

SBG said "Appeasment is not what the actual word means. The word "propitiation", is the Greek noun ἱλαστήριον, which does not mean this, when used for the Death of Jesus Christ."

You seem to be stuck on this idea that only those that read and write Greek / Hebrew could possibly understand the text of the bible. Tad arrogant don't you think.

The idea of Christ Jesus appeasing God the Father is found it the text but you just do not want to see it.

God the Father provided the lamb and also accepted the sacrifice of the lamb.

Rom 3:24 being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus;
Rom 3:25 whom God displayed publicly as a means of appeasing or expiating in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed;

Heb 9:5 and above it were the cherubim of glory overshadowing the mercy seat {the place for appeasing God}; but of these things we cannot now speak in detail.

If you can not see this in the text then it seems to me that my not being able to read Greek / Hebrew is an advantage.

 

Iirrelevant. The New Testament dates to the first century. The "Baptist churches" as a group name is post reformation. The irregular churches do not establish what I believe as a Christian. The Word who was born the Christ is the true Light, not a light from light, part of a fourth century error.

 

in the first place the Bible was not written in English, but Hebrew and Greek. So an understanding of the orignal languages and word uses is crucial to a correct interpretation of what the Bible Teaches

Secondly, there can be no doubt the the usage of the Greek in the LXX, has carried over into the NT. This Version normally has the meaning of "covering for sin", when translating the Hebrew kaphar.

In Luke 18:13, there is a good example of the use of ἱλάσκομαι:

"And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful (ἱλάσκομαι) to me a sinner"

and in Hebrews 2:17

"Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for (ἱλάσκομαι) the sins of the people"

 

you missed #79

 

Yes...the word exited needs to be in bold letters.

 

Not in any way.
What I believe starts with Romans 6:23 and Romans 5:8. ". . . wages of sin is death . . . " ". . . Christ died instead of us . . . ." KJV, ". . . for us . . . " . . . χριστος υπερ ημων απεθανε

 

Not theory. Romans 6:23 and Romans 5:8. It is a fundamental Baptist teaching.

 

Psa IS Pauline Justification, very heart of the Gospel, and was the bedrock of the reformation, and do think Calvin and Luther much superior on the view of the Atonement then NT Wright and his ilk today!

 

It is, just that you fail to grasp it!

 

A sinner receives jesus as lord, on what basis does the Father justify Him, makes Him a saint while still a sinner?

 

In your own post you said God was pleased to crush him. Maybe getting crushed doesn't necessarily cause you to be wounded and maybe there is a theology that has the Easter Bunny doing it but my point is we are dancing in circles with word salads.

In all seriousness, Jon, what group or church or identifiable school of thought is using your theory of the purpose of the atonement. I know how some of the liberal groups don't like penal substitution and I understand their reasons and you don't fit in with them. I know that Ratzinger's explanation of the RCC view is incoherent and he himself said it was developing. Where do you see this going - not as a point of argument, but what is going on?

 

Aaron,

Do you really think this helps?

I understand frustrated responses, but neither @JonC or I are avoiding any Scripture offered in defense of your view. You just don’t particularly seem to agree that they don’t support your view.

 

You seem to have a real problem with the idea that God would be appeased by the sacrifice of "the lamb of God".

The word also communicates God's covering of sin. Persons made reconciliation with God for their sins by imposing something that would appease the offended party (in this case the Lord) and cover the sinners with righteousness (Exo_32:30; Eze_45:17; cf. Dan_9:24). In the Old Testament, the blood of sacrifices was most notably imposed (Exo_30:10). By this imposition, sin was purged (Psa_79:9; Isa_6:7) and forgiven (Psa_78:38). The offenses were removed, leaving the sinners clothed in righteousness (cf. Zec_3:3-4). Of course, the imposition of the blood of bulls and of goats could never fully cover our sin (see Heb_10:4), but with the coming of Christ and the imposition of His shed blood, a perfect atonement was made (Rom_5:9-11). The Complete Word Study Dictionary

I understand that you need God to punish [pour out His wrath] on Christ Jesus. But that is not what I see in scripture. Christ Jesus gave Himself to be our substitute and to redeem us.