• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

The Early Atonement View

easternstar

Active Member
The Scripture had the opposite effect on me through the years.

I look back at the early Christians throughout several centuries and wonder if they actually understood the seriousness of sin and how that God hates it for man's sake. It's so serious that only His Son could take it away through a horrible, suffering death.
So you believe that 'modern' Christians -- those who have lived since 1500 -- have had a better understanding of the atonement than those early Christians did, many of whom knew Jesus personally or knew the apostles. Amazing.
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
I agree with his view in the video what "you shall surly die" means vs God "killing you" as he put it.

As I see it when Adam sinned, the death sentence of spiritual death fell on Adam, this is separation from God, the fractured relationship through disobedience.

The physical death would follow as the result of sin. Plus God placed a general time limit on man later, actually He shortened it the final time to 70 years, approximately.
I appreciate your observations, @Charlie24 , even if we never agree on the precise workings of the Atonement.

What I am trying to do is difficult. It was very hard for me, initially, to set aside that framework I was taught. But I had to do it because God convicted me and led me to do it.

This does not mean God convicts everyone to do the same. But He did me as I realized my view was foreign to the biblical text.

The hard part now is communicating ftom one worldview (Early Church understanding) into another framework (Pensl Substitution Theory).

NT Wright does well at this as he maintains PSA.

But I am trying to arrive at a more concise way to present the Classic view to people who hold an entirely different framework. So your observations and questions about anything not covered is very helpful, and appreciated.
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
The Scripture had the opposite effect on me through the years.

I look back at the early Christians throughout several centuries and wonder if they actually understood the seriousness of sin and how that God hates it for man's sake. It's so serious that only His Son could take it away through a horrible, suffering death.
When I held your view I thought the same. I concluded that they had an underdeveloped theology (not their fault, they were "in the fight" for the faith).

Now I believe that their belief more adequately addresses the seriousness of sin. They did not believe sins could be removed or punished on another. The sinner literally had to be destroyed completely and created anew.
 

Charlie24

Well-Known Member
So you believe that 'modern' Christians -- those who have lived since 1500 -- have had a better understanding of the atonement than those early Christians did, many of whom knew Jesus personally or knew the apostles. Amazing.

Yes, I think it's amazing too.

Why did it take so long for man to realize his entire problem with God is sin?

And that God's plan of redemption revolves around the problem of sin?
 

Charlie24

Well-Known Member
When I held your view I thought the same. I concluded that they had an underdeveloped theology (not their fault, they were "in the fight" for the faith).

Now I believe that their belief more adequately addresses the seriousness of sin. They did not believe sins could be removed or punished on another. The sinner literally had to be destroyed completely and created anew.

We agree on what actually counts. We have no problems, Jon.

It's just me with my thing against sin. I take my sin as the means in which those nails were driven into His hands.

As if there were no other sin in this world but mine, and I'm the reason He hung on that Cross.

Sin is a terrible thing, and it cost God dearly to remove it from us.
 

easternstar

Active Member
Yes, I think it's amazing too.

Why did it take so long for man to realize his entire problem with God is sin?

And that God's plan of redemption revolves around the problem of sin?
PSA was a product of its time. God had come to be viewed not so much as a merciful Father but instead as a harsh judge. To discount early Christian views and 1500 years of Christian history in favor of a 'johnny-come-lately' theory based on a terribly wrong view of the nature of God is highly presumptuous. To discard the early church views of the atonement in favor of a theory invented by such men as Calvin and Luther is terribly misguided.
 

Charlie24

Well-Known Member
PSA was a product of its time. God had come to be viewed not so much as a merciful Father but instead as a harsh judge. To discount early Christian views and 1500 years of Christian history in favor of a 'johnny-come-lately' theory based on a terribly wrong view of the nature of God is highly presumptuous. To discard the early church views of the atonement in favor of a theory invented by such men as Calvin and Luther is terribly misguided.

PSA can be whatever you want it to be, I have no problem with that.

To me it's a product I find in between the lines of Scripture., the best fit I can find according to the Jehovah God found in the OT.
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
We agree on what actually counts. We have no problems, Jon.

It's just me with my thing against sin. I take my sin as the means in which those nails were driven into His hands.

As if there were no other sin in this world but mine, and I'm the reason He hung on that Cross.

Sin is a terrible thing, and it cost God dearly to remove it from us.
I have no problems with disagreeing.

If everybody agreed with me it would be boring. They would be right, but it would be boring :Biggrin .

The thing we agree on is that Christ bore our sins, died for us, purchased us with His blood and by His stripes we are healed. That is enough for us to be brothers.

Ironically, the reason you disagree with me is the reason I disagree with you. I see sin as such an offense to God's righteousness that merely collecting a sin debt by punishing Christ fails to even come close to addressing our sins. I believe the sinner has to be completely destroyed, cast out from God's presence. If not in this lifetime through the blood of Christ shed for us then in the next as the second death.


Anyway, I am trying to read and work through this (and your objections) to be able to form a more articulate way of explaining the Classic view to thise who hold another system. I do appreciate your critiques.
 

Charlie24

Well-Known Member
I have no problems with disagreeing.

If everybody agreed with me it would be boring. They would be right, but it would be boring :Biggrin .

The thing we agree on is that Christ bore our sins, died for us, purchased us with His blood and by His stripes we are healed. That is enough for us to be brothers.

Ironically, the reason you disagree with me is the reason I disagree with you. I see sin as such an offense to God's righteousness that merely collecting a sin debt by punishing Christ fails to even come close to addressing our sins. I believe the sinner has to be completely destroyed, cast out from God's presence. If not in this lifetime through the blood of Christ shed for us then in the next as the second death.


Anyway, I am trying to read and work through this (and your objections) to be able to form a more articulate way of explaining the Classic view to thise who hold another system. I do appreciate your critiques.

Hey Jon, Calvin wasn't wrong about everything!
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
Hey Jon, Calvin wasn't wrong about everything!
I don't know. Just look at his beard. Being a Calvinist is like turning to one of the Duck Dynasty guys for theology.

I am going to post my notes, what I believe. If you do not mind and have the time (it is short, just one post) I would greatly appreciate an evaluation.

I know we won't agree. I just want to know if it helps to make sence to somebody who views the Atonement in a different way.
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
The Fall

God told Adam not to eat of the fruit, for in the day he eats of it he will surely die - literally, “dying you shall die” (Gen 2:16). God describes this consequence to Adam after his sin as physical death - you will return to the ground, for dust you are and to dust you shall return (Gen 3:146). Adam has fallen short of God’s glory and God cast’s him out of His presence, out from the Garden, lest he eat of the tree of life and live forever (Gen 3:23). Adam’s sin had two consequences. First there was the wages of sin, the death that is produced by sin, which Adam could not of himself escape as he was enslaved. Second there was the judgment of God. Adam was no longer fitted to be in the presence of God and was cast out. He fell short of the glory of God.

God also proclaimed a gospel in cursing the Serpent. Satan would crush the heel of the Seed of the woman and the Seed would crush Satan’s head (Gen 3:15). This, I believe, is a prophesy of a time when Jesus would be put to death by Satan in the body, but be made alive in the spirit (1 Peter 3:18).

The Problem

The problem of man is twofold: man sins, and man falls short of the glory of God (Rom 3:23). Sin produces death (James 1:15). Death carries with it a sting. It is appointed to man once to die and then the Judgment (Heb 9:27). There is none who are righteous (Rom 3:10-12; Psalm 14:1-3, 53:1-3) and all have sinned (Rom 3:23). Flesh and blood cannot enter the kingdom of God (1 Cor 15:50). That which is born of flesh is flesh (John 3:6).

Man was in bondage to Satan, under the bondage of sin and death. But because of sin we man was also the objects of God’s wrath and would perish when God judged the world.

The Solution

Two things had to be addressed because man’s problem had two very distinct aspects. Man’s enslavement to Satan, to the one who holds the power of death, to sin and death itself, had to be addressed. Also, man’s unrighteousness because of sins had to be addressed. These had to be addressed in a way that does not violate God’s own righteousness (God will not justify the wicked and God will not condemn the righteous, God will not punish the just, and God is a God who forgives sins).

We are born into this world in the image of Adam, who was made flesh and blood. The solution is more substantial than the payment of a debt. The solution is making man anew, making a new or Second Adam.

Our sins were laid on Christ, He bore our sins, as a substitute (representing the whole human race). Since we were flesh He too shared our humanity so that by His death He might break the power of him that holds the power of death – that is, the devil. He suffered the wages of sin, the consequences that sin produces. Christ suffered under the power of Satan because of our sin, however death could not hold Jesus. Jesus suffered what is appointed to man, death and then the judgment. He was raised on the third day.

Christ suffered for sins once for all time, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit (1 Pet 3:18). Where the first man (Adam) was made a living soul, the last Adam (Jesus) was made a life giving Spirit (1 Cor 15:45).

This solution addresses the twofold problem.

Christ was put to death in the flesh (1 Pet 3:18). He suffered under the power of Satan and broke the bondage that man suffered under. He suffered for our sins, but He is eternally righteous. Satan no longer had hold over man.

Christ was made alive in the spirit (1 Pet 3:18) and was made a life giving Spirit (1Cor 15:45). Although we die, yet shall we live (John 11:25). And this is a newness of life (Rom 6:4), it is being made a new creation in Christ (2 Cor 5:17), it is dying to sin and being made alive in Christ (Rom 6), it is doing away with the “old self” and putting on the “new self” which in the likeness of God has been created in righteousness and holiness of truth (Eph 4:23-24).

We are forgiven based on the blood of Christ which cleanses from all unrighteousness by making us new creations in Him, in Whom there is no condemnation.

Justice

When we are saved, are “in Christ” and “Christ in us” we are justified by declaration. We still struggle with sin, however Christ is the surety or guarantor of a better covenant. God can look at Christ as the guarantee of what we will be. He has predestined us to be conformed into the image of His Son, to be justified, and to be glorified. We will be refined, and if saved we are now in the process of being refined. But at Judgment there will be no wickedness found in us. No part of the “old self” which is guilty of sin will stand before God at judgment.

This view takes sin more seriously than a debt that must be paid. The wicked will perish. The wickedness in us has to perish, has to suffer the consequences of sins. Christ bore our sins bodily, and we must bear our sins bodily and die to the flesh.

God is just. God will never punish the righteous in order to clear the guilty (Prov 17:15). God will never punish the righteous (Prov 17:26). To do so would make God unjust. But God will recreate man, completely destroy the “old self” in us and make us new creations in Christ.

Rather than God punishing Jesus to pay our sin debt, Christ's blood cleanses us of all unrighteousness.

Conclusion

We see the salvation of the world in Christ’s death on the cross, because in His suffering and death Jesus freely took upon Himself the penalty of the sin of every human being that has ever walked the face of the Earth. He took upon Himself our bondage that we might be freed from those bonds. He took upon Himself our oppression that we might share in His victory over evil. He took upon Himself the consequences of our unrighteousness that we might be given freely the gift of His righteousness. He took upon Himself our condemnation that we might be granted His justification. He took upon Himself our death, that we might receive His eternal life.
 

Charlie24

Well-Known Member
I don't know. Just look at his beard. Being a Calvinist is like turning to one of the Duck Dynasty guys for theology.

I am going to post my notes, what I believe. If you do not mind and have the time (it is short, just one post) I would greatly appreciate an evaluation.

I know we won't agree. I just want to know if it helps to make sence to somebody who views the Atonement in a different way.

LOL, you missed your calling somewhere along the line for standup.
 

Charlie24

Well-Known Member
The Fall

God told Adam not to eat of the fruit, for in the day he eats of it he will surely die - literally, “dying you shall die” (Gen 2:16). God describes this consequence to Adam after his sin as physical death - you will return to the ground, for dust you are and to dust you shall return (Gen 3:146). Adam has fallen short of God’s glory and God cast’s him out of His presence, out from the Garden, lest he eat of the tree of life and live forever (Gen 3:23). Adam’s sin had two consequences. First there was the wages of sin, the death that is produced by sin, which Adam could not of himself escape as he was enslaved. Second there was the judgment of God. Adam was no longer fitted to be in the presence of God and was cast out. He fell short of the glory of God.

God also proclaimed a gospel in cursing the Serpent. Satan would crush the heel of the Seed of the woman and the Seed would crush Satan’s head (Gen 3:15). This, I believe, is a prophesy of a time when Jesus would be put to death by Satan in the body, but be made alive in the spirit (1 Peter 3:18).

The Problem

The problem of man is twofold: man sins, and man falls short of the glory of God (Rom 3:23). Sin produces death (James 1:15). Death carries with it a sting. It is appointed to man once to die and then the Judgment (Heb 9:27). There is none who are righteous (Rom 3:10-12; Psalm 14:1-3, 53:1-3) and all have sinned (Rom 3:23). Flesh and blood cannot enter the kingdom of God (1 Cor 15:50). That which is born of flesh is flesh (John 3:6).

Man was in bondage to Satan, under the bondage of sin and death. But because of sin we man was also the objects of God’s wrath and would perish when God judged the world.

The Solution

Two things had to be addressed because man’s problem had two very distinct aspects. Man’s enslavement to Satan, to the one who holds the power of death, to sin and death itself, had to be addressed. Also, man’s unrighteousness because of sins had to be addressed. These had to be addressed in a way that does not violate God’s own righteousness (God will not justify the wicked and God will not condemn the righteous, God will not punish the just, and God is a God who forgives sins).

We are born into this world in the image of Adam, who was made flesh and blood. The solution is more substantial than the payment of a debt. The solution is making man anew, making a new or Second Adam.

Our sins were laid on Christ, He bore our sins, as a substitute (representing the whole human race). Since we were flesh He too shared our humanity so that by His death He might break the power of him that holds the power of death – that is, the devil. He suffered the wages of sin, the consequences that sin produces. Christ suffered under the power of Satan because of our sin, however death could not hold Jesus. Jesus suffered what is appointed to man, death and then the judgment. He was raised on the third day.

Christ suffered for sins once for all time, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit (1 Pet 3:18). Where the first man (Adam) was made a living soul, the last Adam (Jesus) was made a life giving Spirit (1 Cor 15:45).

This solution addresses the twofold problem.

Christ was put to death in the flesh (1 Pet 3:18). He suffered under the power of Satan and broke the bondage that man suffered under. He suffered for our sins, but He is eternally righteous. Satan no longer had hold over man.

Christ was made alive in the spirit (1 Pet 3:18) and was made a life giving Spirit (1Cor 15:45). Although we die, yet shall we live (John 11:25). And this is a newness of life (Rom 6:4), it is being made a new creation in Christ (2 Cor 5:17), it is dying to sin and being made alive in Christ (Rom 6), it is doing away with the “old self” and putting on the “new self” which in the likeness of God has been created in righteousness and holiness of truth (Eph 4:23-24).

We are forgiven based on the blood of Christ which cleanses from all unrighteousness by making us new creations in Him, in Whom there is no condemnation.

Justice

When we are saved, are “in Christ” and “Christ in us” we are justified by declaration. We still struggle with sin, however Christ is the surety or guarantor of a better covenant. God can look at Christ as the guarantee of what we will be. He has predestined us to be conformed into the image of His Son, to be justified, and to be glorified. We will be refined, and if saved we are now in the process of being refined. But at Judgment there will be no wickedness found in us. No part of the “old self” which is guilty of sin will stand before God at judgment.

This view takes sin more seriously than a debt that must be paid. The wicked will perish. The wickedness in us has to perish, has to suffer the consequences of sins. Christ bore our sins bodily, and we must bear our sins bodily and die to the flesh.

God is just. God will never punish the righteous in order to clear the guilty (Prov 17:15). God will never punish the righteous (Prov 17:26). To do so would make God unjust. But God will recreate man, completely destroy the “old self” in us and make us new creations in Christ.

Rather than God punishing Jesus to pay our sin debt, Christ's blood cleanses us of all unrighteousness.

You must be a work with nothing to do.

I just got up for some milk and brownies, going back to bed.

To late for all of this till morning.
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
You must be a work with nothing to do.

I just got up for some milk and brownies, going back to bed.

To late for all of this till morning.
Yea....had a couple of jobs but not much. We did have a contamination incident, which is never fun. But in a 12.5 shift....a lot of downtime.
 

easternstar

Active Member
JonC, do you ever feel out of place in the Baptist denomination? You could join one of the Wesleyan churches and get a Governmental view of the atonement, although it is only marginally better than PSA, in my opinion.
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
JonC, do you ever feel out of place in the Baptist denomination? You could join one of the Wesleyan churches and get a Governmental view of the atonement, although it is only marginally better than PSA, in my opinion.
I don't feel out of place. Many Baptist churches do not hold PSA. Most who do really just hold it in benign form.

Take the SBC. Its primary architect and first president (and president if the state baptist convention for 27 years) argued strongly against PSA. But the SBC statement of faith allowed for traditional atonement and PSA.

Lately the SBC (the convention) issued a resolution affirming PSA (to the objection of many). BUT how they define PSA is a belief common to all positions (exceot maybe Moral Influence).

PSA to most Baptists simply means thar Christ bore our sins. They watch or read CS Lewis' Chronicles of Narnia and see it as a good allegory of salvation rather than a contrast to PSA. Many hold PSA (as they view it) while defining it as Christ suffeting Satan's oppression on the cross.

Now, would I be a member of a church that taught PSA (actual PSA) as the gospel? No.
 

easternstar

Active Member
I don't feel out of place. Many Baptist churches do not hold PSA. Most who do really just hold it in benign form.

Take the SBC. Its primary architect and first president (and president if the state baptist convention for 27 years) argued strongly against PSA. But the SBC statement of faith allowed for traditional atonement and PSA.

Lately the SBC (the convention) issued a resolution affirming PSA (to the objection of many). BUT how they define PSA is a belief common to all positions (exceot maybe Moral Influence).

PSA to most Baptists simply means thar Christ bore our sins. They watch or read CS Lewis' Chronicles of Narnia and see it as a good allegory of salvation rather than a contrast to PSA. Many hold PSA (as they view it) while defining it as Christ suffeting Satan's oppression on the cross.

Now, would I be a member of a church that taught PSA (actual PSA) as the gospel? No.
Thanks. What you wrote encourages me. I had been wondering if I needed to find a Quaker or Mennonite church. But there are none in my area.
Considering the variety that you just described, how would you know if you were in a church that taught actual PSA as the gospel?
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
Thanks. What you wrote encourages me. I had been wondering if I needed to find a Quaker or Mennonite church. But there are none in my area.
Considering the variety that you just described, how would you know if you were in a church that taught actual PSA as the gospel?
I would listen to their teachings, and if in doubt I'd ask.

A baptist church (a true Baptist church) would not be dogmatic about what is not in the text of Scripture. You would probably have members believing both the Classic and PSA views without hostility.
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
@Charlie24

Did my explosion make sense (show how the Classic view is biblical, but a different understanding of the biblical text)?

The difference is not the Scriptures (we all have that in common) but how God's Word is understood (we understand differently).

I think of Anselm's theory. Looking back we would say it is unbiblical (Christ dying to restore the honor of God that was lost in Adam). But it is not unbiblical as being unfaithful to the biblical text. In that time it made sense (their worldview was centered on honor, an evil child robs his father and family of honor). It is how they understood the text.


Some say the Early Church understood the cross through their experience, viewing their oppression as being wrought by Satan, therefore viewing Christ as having suffered Satan's wrath on the cross for their sins.

Others say John Calvin understood the cross through his concept of justice, Calvin being educated in law rather than theology and judicial reform being a significant movement of his time.

Both are probably true to an extent (we cannot help but understand through our worldviews as they form our understanding of reality).
 

Charlie24

Well-Known Member
@Charlie24

Did my explosion make sense (show how the Classic view is biblical, but a different understanding of the biblical text)?

The difference is not the Scriptures (we all have that in common) but how God's Word is understood (we understand differently).

I think of Anselm's theory. Looking back we would say it is unbiblical (Christ dying to restore the honor of God that was lost in Adam). But it is not unbiblical as being unfaithful to the biblical text. In that time it made sense (their worldview was centered on honor, an evil child robs his father and family of honor). It is how they understood the text.


Some say the Early Church understood the cross through their experience, viewing their oppression as being wrought by Satan, therefore viewing Christ as having suffered Satan's wrath on the cross for their sins.

Others say John Calvin understood the cross through his concept of justice, Calvin being educated in law rather than theology and judicial reform being a significant movement of his time.

Both are probably true to an extent (we cannot help but understand through our worldviews as they form our understanding of reality).

I didn't notice the explosion, but I haven't read all the posts either. Obviously the matter is heart-felt or you wouldn't stand by it. I admire the standing by the stuff whether right or wrong!

Jon, the Scripture is not clear on all matters, in fact it's just the opposite. What we desperately need to know from God is clear though.

With the lesser matters for our information we have to read between the lines, that can be a dangerous endeavor for us. In some cases it can lead to a place where we don't want to go.

I agree PSA is not found clearly written in Scripture, and in my dangerous endeavors to read between the lines I can plainly see the concept of it.

The early Christians were doing the same reading between the lines as we are doing, and I believe the Reformers such as Calvin came as close to a correct reading between the lines that I have seen.
 
Top