Featured My (JonC) view of the Atonement

The cross (Christ dying as a sin offering for humanity) provided the means of reconciliation, but did not reconcile anyone. Reconciliation occurs when God alone places an individual into Christ spiritually, where they undergo the washing of regeneration, and arise in Christ a new creation, made perfect, righteous, and blameless. Thus what God held against them is put out of the way (having been, so to speak, nailed to the cross). Therefore they are reconciled. Thus our individual salvation is God reconciling the world, one sinner at a time, to Himself. And those born anew have been, reconciled.

 

Thanks for putting that up. I would ask if you could elaborate on what it means for man to need to be reconciled to God. I know you said we're condemned under the law and I agree but would you elaborate on what this means? What I'm getting at is if there were direct scripture verses saying that this transgressing of ours could cause a reaction in God that we describe as "wrath" would you find that objectionable. I'm not trying to trick you. I want to know if you think God's view of sin could have something to do with our need of "reconciliation"? If not then why is that an unacceptable logical leap?

 

A few points that need clarification before going any further:

The bondage that holds mankind captive is sin (Romans 6:16) but you say )rightly, of course) that Christ was without sin. Would you please explain exactly what you mean by this comment?

I am glad that you now accept the plain meaning of Isaiah 53:10, but do you not see that this means that "man" was correct in considering stricken , smitten by God and afflicted? Where "man" was wrong was in not realising that the wounding by God was for our transgressions, and the bruising, also by God, was for our iniquities; also that the chastisement that brought us peace was upon Him. He got the chastisement; we got the peace, when it should have been the other way about. Penal Substitution.

If Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever, why do you think that Christ was not a life-giving Spirit before the resurrection.

Finally, you say nothing of Christ becoming a curse for us (Galatians 3:10-14. This is a major point with the ECFs when they uphold Penal Substitution. Perhaps you would like to tell us what you think that means.

.

 

This, I believe, is missunderstood by most geniune Christians. John 1:1-3 and John 1:14 are key.
John 1:1-2, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God." Two things about the Word. The Word was both always "with God" being someone other than God. And the Word also was always God. As God never changed. But how the word was with God did change. John 1:14, "And the Word was made flesh . . . ." And the Word did this Himself, John 1:3, "All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made." The Greek phrase προς τον θεον, here "with God", is used 20 times in the New Testament of someone other than God. The Word is identifed as the Son of God. And the Word being God too. see Hebrews 1:3 and 1 Timothy 2:5 and John 14:6. This understanding is not a denial of His deity. He remained God even while being the man, John 1;10 and John 3:13, ". . . the Son of man which is in heaven." And this while He was on the earth before the cross. And of course there is more.

 

I just read the above and I can't follow it. If the sins were ours and they were laid on him, that is saying that they were laid on him instead of us if they somehow are no longer on us but on him. And that means that they were transferred from us to him. And if they were laid on him but they were our sins not his then he was the substitute and since he was righteous and we were not then yes, in this case sins were laid on a righteous, innocent person.

This is true but somehow what you posted before that has to figure in somehow. When we say like Paul, we are crucified with Christ and talk about being "in Christ" we don't want to somehow forget that the effectiveness and the meritorious reason this is possible is that our sins were laid on him like you said at first.

 

Not denying Him now being an immortal man, Hebrews 13:8. 1 John 3:2. My point was that @Martin Marprelate denies such a type of change. See post #5.

 

In your theory we somehow get in Christ without the need for anything to happen between us and God. I believe the atonement is where this occurs. What you are suggesting above is that we can share in Christ's vindication, justness, and righteousness by him just uniting with us. There is nothing about actually dealing with our sin in your theory. That is why in your 1st post there is no mention of blood. Christ was unjustly crucified and he rose in victory and vindication and proved he was righteous and innocent all along. He was, but the atonement is much more than that. He was the Lamb that was slain and maybe I am mistaken theologically but I don't feel comfortable sharing in his vindication except as a recipient of the benefits of his sacrifice and shed blood. You need to be "in Christ Jesus for sure" and there is redemption in Christ Jesus. But it's because of what Christ Jesus did for us. What he did for us is described as penal substitution. What you are doing is trying to split off the priestly work of Christ and relying totally on the idea of us uniting with Christ which while absolutely true doesn't tell the whole story.

 

No, Martin. If Isaiah was correct then Humans were not correct at all.

God did not smite Him, did not strike Him, did not afflict Him - Humans did thinking that they were doing the work of God.

When in reality they KNEW that He was innocent but were afraid their status as power brokers would be diminished. John 1:

49But one of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, “You know nothing at all. 50Nor do you understand that it is better for you that one man should die for the people, not that the whole nation should perish.” 51He did not say this of his own accord, but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the nation,..​

I wonder if folks do not consider that humanity is formed by God, they are His workmanship, some honorable and others not. (Romans 9)

God allowed and was pleased with the human vileness done to the Redeemer, (though they thought it a work of God), and that brought us peace, healing, and no condemnation.

Consider it this way.

As a pastor, you consider yourself "called of God" to the ministry. God is pleased that you are "called to the ministry." He will allow all manner of testing to strengthen your service, all manner of evil pressed upon you to show that you too bear the marks of the Savior, and so forth.

God did not do these, but was pleased with the doing of them.

 

'The LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.' 'He Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree.....' If our iniquity is laid on Him it is no longer on us. He bore our sins so that we do not bear them and the curse and the punishment attached to them by God. That is Penal Substitution. He bore them; we don't.

You have finally conceded that Scripture is true when it declares that 'It pleased the LORD to bruise Him; He has put Him to grief.' Therefore, ipso facto, the people in Isaiah 53:4 who esteemed Him 'stricken, smitten by God and afflicted' must have been correct. You can wriggle all you want, but that is the inescapable consequence of believing Isaiah 53:10 to be true. Where the people were wrong was in not understanding that He was suffering the punishment on their behalf.

I believe that Hebrews 13:8 is as true as 1 Corinthians 15:45. The job of the Bible student is to reconcile the two verses. When the Lord Jesus became Man, He did not cease to be what He had always been - almighty God. He was IMO always a life-giving Spirit, otherwise the OT saints are all lost. One of the delights of reading the NKJV is that words that are not in the original are put in italics. The second 'became' in 1 Cor. 15:46 is not found in any Greek MS.
This is a rabbit hole down which I have no intention of disappearing since it has little relevance to the question we are discussing. It was foolish of me to bring it up.

Indeed so, and we received His righteousness. 'that we might become the righteousness of God in Him. See also 2 Peter 1:1. Penal Substitution.

You keep saying this, but never produce a quote from Augustine. It appears that Augustine (wrongly) had problems with the idea that our guilt was transferred to Christ, but he had no problems that Christ bore our curse (the curse of God against sinners), that He died in our place and suffered our punishment. I have previously produced a quote from Augustine to this effect. I am quite happy to trot it our again.

 

No, that (your claim) is not what not scripture says or suggests.

Rom 5:10
For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life.​

Note the "we" which refers to Paul and his audience, who had been saved (positionally sanctified) but were in the present being saved (progressive sanctification) and would be saved in the future (ultimate sanctification) at Christ's second coming.

To turn the we into all the elect (past present and future) ignores the stated need of some to be (in the future) reconciled. Thus an errant view.