Atonemet (Not PSA....my position)

[JonC]

@Armchair Apologist asked about my position on the Atonement and I had not gotten back with him (sorry man).

Let's start at the very beginning. A very good place to start.

Here is a summary (not all inclusive...and I am not sure how far I will get tonight).

 

[JonC]

God created man, Adam. God took Adam and placed him in the Garden He had planted. There God walked with Adam. Adam existed in a unique place in God’s presence. God told Adam that he could eat from any tree except the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.

God told Adam that in the day he eats of that Tree he would surely die. Now, the fruit itself was appealing to the flesh. It was pleasing to the eye and it was desirable as it would make one wise as God is wise. Adam ate the fruit.

This act of Adam constitutes a transgression. He directly violated a direct command from God. It was a sin.

God tells us that sin is the result from being carried away by one’s own evil desire. After this desire has conceived it gives birth to sin. And sin gives birth to death.

We see this with Adam. Perhaps his desire was to please Eve, but the fruit itself was also appealing. Adam was carried away by evil desire – it was evil because it directly contradicted God’s command. This resulted in Adam sinning, and sin begats death.

God said to the Serpent that because of his actions he would be cursed. God would put enmity between the Serpent and the woman, between his seed and her seed. He (the seed of the woman) shall bruise the Serpents head and the Serpent will strike (or bruise) His heel.

I understand the Serpent in this passage to be Satan. I view the seed of the Serpent those who align themselves with Satan. I base this on Jesus referring to those who opposed Him as “children of your father the devil”. I view the seed of the woman as Christ. Satan will strike the heel of the Messiah but the Messiah will crush his head.

To Adam God said that the ground will be cursed because of him. He would toil to eat until he returns to the ground, because from the ground he was taken (“for you are dust, and to dust you shall return”).

Adam and Eve’s eyes were opened to know good and evil. Having eaten of the fruit, became like God knowing good and evil. God cast them out of the Garden, out of that unique relationship they shared with Him, lest they eat of the Tree of Life and live forever

 

[JonC]

The problem that the Atonement addresses is twofold.

First, it is the consequences of sin. Sin produces death. Sin gives birth to death.

But more importantly, it is appointed man once to die and then the Judgment. This finality of death was like a “sting”. One would die and then be judged. But within Genesis there was hope. The seed of the woman would crush Satan’s head.

So how does the Atonement address both the death produced by sin and the judgment of God that follows?

First, let’s consider OT passages.

In Exodus we read of God delivering His people out of bondage from Egypt. The Israelites slaughtered a lamb. They took the blood of the lamb and applied it on their doors. Because of the applied blood death would pass over that home. In the home they ate the flesh of the lamb.

This foreshadows Christ as the Lamb of God. It is by His blood that we are delivered from death. And we also partake in His “flesh”, in Christ Himself.

Then we have the sacrificial system. God instituted a system of sacrifices, to include a way to make atonement for sin. This had to be repeated, but it foreshadowed Christ.

The priest would take the blood of the animal that had been slain to the alter. He would apply (sprinkle blood on the side of the alter and pour the remaining at its base) the blood to make atonement for sins (first his own, then the sins of the people).

Looking at the sacrifice system I believe it is obvious (if the sacrifice system points to Christ) that it is not Christ’s death where men are forgiven but the application of His blood. There is life in the blood. His blood cleanses from all unrighteousness.

 

[JonC]

Isaiah 53 tells us of Jesus and His sufferings. He was a man of sorrows, despised by those around Him. But He bore our griefs and sorrows. The people considered Him as stricken and smitten of God and afflicted, however He was pierced for our transgressions, crushed for our iniquities. The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him and by His scourging we were healed. All of us have gone astray, but God has caused the iniquity of us all to fall on Him.

He was oppressed and afflicted, but He did not open His mouth. By oppression and judgment He was taken away. He was killed for the transgressions of the people, who had earned death. God was pleased to crush Him, putting Him to grief, that if He would render Himself as a guilt offering He will see the fruits of His work and He will justify the many as He bore their iniquities.

Psalm 22 foreshadows the Cross. This psalm begins “My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me? Far from my deliverance are the words of my groaning”. The picture is God’s Servant suffering while deliverance has not yet come. The Servant then turns to God’s faithfulness. He knows that God will never abandon Him. Instead God will deliver Him. The Servant appeals to God’s faithfulness to His forefathers as they were forsaken to suffer. He appeals to God’s own character. Those who trust in the Lord will not be disappointed. Towards the end of the psalm we see that God has not despised the Servant, nor has He hidden His face. When He cried for Help God heard.

Psalm 4 speaks of God answering when the righteous call out in destress. God hears when they call.

Deuteronomy 15 describes justice as justifying the righteous and condemning the wicked.

Psalm 37 tells us that God will never abandon or condemn the just.

Proverbs 12 tells us that the righteous will obtain favor but God will condemn the evil man.

Proverbs 17 tells us that one who justifies the wicked and one who condemns the righteous are both abominations to God.

Ezekiel 18 teaches us that the person who sins will be accountable for their sin. Sins cannot pass from one person to another. If a man lives righteously but then repents of good and does evil then he will be held guilty. But if a man does evil and repents of that evil then God is faithful to forgive. God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but instead wants that he should turn from wickedness and live. Rebellious men will object and say “the way of the Lord is not right”. But it is their ways that is not right. They view sins as transferrable, and they reject God’s declaration that should one repent He will be faithful to forgive. Therefore God will judge them by their own conduct. God declares that they should repent and turn away from all of their transgressions so that iniquity may not become a stumbling block to them. He takes no pleasure in the death of anyone. Therefore, repent and live.

 

[Armchair Apologist]

Jon, when you write it out like this, I'm not finding too much in which I would disagree. I am still out of town and out of pocket though so I am unable to go through this and pick things apart or whatever. Been a busy week and looks like a busy weekend coming up but I will get a better look.

Perhaps I will write out my position on the atonement (laying aside all of the "theories") and you can tell me where you disagree.

Blessings,

 

[JonC]

Jon, when you write it out like this, I'm not finding too much in which I would disagree. I am still out of town and out of pocket though so I am unable to go through this and pick things apart or whatever. Been a busy week and looks like a busy weekend coming up but I will get a better look.

Perhaps I will write out my position on the atonement (laying aside all of the "theories") and you can tell me where you disagree.

Blessings,

Be safe traveling.

I am not in a hurry for a reply. I just told you that I would give you a summary (and I will continue it...I think I gave a fairly adequate summery through the OT).

If you have any questions about my belief just ask.

Jon

 

[JonC]

@Armchair Apologist

Here is a shorter summary of my view -

In the Old Testament a sacrifice of atonement was made. The high priest entered the Most Holy Place with the blood of an animal offered as an atoning sacrifice and with that blood he made atonement for his sins.

The people offered a sacrifice of atonement. The animal's blood was shed (the animal was killed). The high priest entered the Most Holy Place with the blood and made atonement for the people's sins.

I believe this is an illustration foreshadowing the work of Christ.

When Christ came as High Priest He went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not made with human hands. He entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood. This is how He obtained eternal redemption.

The Cross was God reconciling mankind to Himself, not taking sins into account. Jesus is the Firstborn, the second Adam (man and God reconciled in the Person of Christ).

God set forth Christ as an atonement through His blood to be applied, or recieved, by faith. It is Christ's blood that cleanses from all unrighteousness.

And it is because of this Atonement, this eternal redemption obtained by Christ, this Reconciliation of mankind to God in Christ, that we plead with men to be reconiled to God.

The Atonement in terms of Christ obtaining redemption for mankind, for Christ being the Propitiation for all mankinds sin, for Christ being the Mediator for those who believe, for Christ interceding for us when we do sin, for Christ being the second Adam, the representative of new man, being our High Priest, being the Firstborn...all of this os accomplished on the Cross. Christ IS the reconciliation of God and man - the Son of God and the Son of Man.

But OUR atonement is not accomplished on the cross. The cross was God setting forth His Son as a Propitiation through His blood. BUT the blood must be applied. We must be cleansed of all unrighteousness. We must be washed in the blood.

God set forth His Son as a Propitiation through His blood to be received by faith. Through faith this blood is applied. This is "making atonement for our sins".



Rather than an atonement theory based on satisfying God's justice I believe that Christ's blood cleanses us from all unrighteousness, that we are made new creations in Christ, that the old ends and the new begins.

The New Covenant is God's righteousness manifested apart from the Law. The law is fulfilled not by punishing the just to clear the guilty. It is fulfilled by cleansing us from all unrighteousness, removing the sin and the guilt, conforming us into the image of Christ.



Christus Victor is incompatable with Penal Substitution Theory because if one is true the other is obsolete.

There is no need to punish the sins of the guilty if the guilty will not exist at judgment, if the guilty will perish before that time and be made into a new creation, conformed into the image of Christ.

There is no need to make us new creations, cleanse us of unrighteousness, conform us into the image of Christ if we can be cleared of all sin by the legal action of punishing the Righteousness for what the wicked have done.

 

[DaveXR650]

In the Old Testament a sacrifice of atonement was made. The high priest entered the Most Holy Place with the blood of an animal offered as an atoning sacrifice and with that blood he made atonement for his sins.

The people offered a sacrifice of atonement. The animal's blood was shed (the animal was killed). The high priest entered the Most Holy Place with the blood and made atonement for the people's sins.

I believe this is an illustration foreshadowing the work of Christ.

No problem with that. Unless one would be trying to build a case that the death of the animal was not important, only the application of the blood. And the problem would be that the application of the blood doesn't show the whole picture. Aside from the obvious points about having the blood was because of the death of an animal, the scripture points out that by the Lord's supper we show his death till he comes.

When Christ came as High Priest He went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not made with human hands. He entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood. This is how He obtained eternal redemption.

"This is how he obtained eternal redemption" for us I assume you mean, not himself. Here you with your theory would have to explain further because this must have some significance beyond and above the idea that if a person is recreated then they never had sin in the first place. There is a logical disconnect and this statement of yours does not tie in the handling of our situation logically, with our new birth or recreation in any way.

The Atonement in terms of Christ obtaining redemption for mankind, for Christ being the Propitiation for all mankinds sin, for Christ being the Mediator for those who believe, for Christ interceding for us when we do sin, for Christ being the second Adam, the representative of new man, being our High Priest, being the Firstborn...all of this os accomplished on the Cross. Christ IS the reconciliation of God and man - the Son of God and the Son of Man.

I'm not a theologian but I see nothing wrong with this at all.

But OUR atonement is not accomplished on the cross. The cross was God setting forth His Son as a Propitiation through His blood. BUT the blood must be applied. We must be cleansed of all unrighteousness. We must be washed in the blood.

I often don't follow your logic, but the key here, which I would agree with, is that we don't in any way have any more than a passive relationship to the atonement. So when you say we must be washed in the blood you are right. But the basis for our reconciliation IS accomplished on the cross, for us, by Christ.

God set forth His Son as a Propitiation through His blood to be received by faith. Through faith this blood is applied. This is "making atonement for our sins".

I believe that too. This is the standard non-Calvinist explanation. Strict Calvinists believe the same thing but the explanation is a little different because they have to handle the inevitableness of one thing necessarily leading to another and that simultaneously man has a responsibility and duty (or not) to participate.

Rather than an atonement theory based on satisfying God's justice I believe that Christ's blood cleanses us from all unrighteousness, that we are made new creations in Christ, that the old ends and the new begins.

Here is a big disagreement. I believe God's justice MUST be satisfied. I do also believe that his blood cleanses us from all unrighteousness, and so on, but these are NOT exclusive. Now, what will happen is that you will say "Ummm, no", which you are allowed to do. But all I can say is that this is repeatedly stated as inclusive by PSA advocates so you need to take that up with them.

The New Covenant is God's righteousness manifested apart from the Law. The law is fulfilled not by punishing the just to clear the guilty. It is fulfilled by cleansing us from all unrighteousness, removing the sin and the guilt, conforming us into the image of Christ.

Once again, scripture has a lot to say about the unique qualifications of Christ as both man and God, his obeying the Law perfectly, his vicarious death. No, it's not punishing the just to clear the guilty as it was put forth in the scriptural context, but yes, in a sense that is what happened to Christ, and like I said, this was a once in a universe thing.

Christus Victor is incompatable with Penal Substitution Theory because if one is true the other is obsolete.

I'd refer you back above. I have not found anyone proposing PSA who denies Christus Victor. The glaring deficiency in Christus Victor by itself is only that without PSA you can't explain why God could not simply defeat Satan outright. The problem is of course that many who he would save, without the cross, would be destroyed too if God acted justly in attacking Satan without having a legitimate reason to absolve some of us (all of whom are at least somewhat guilty).

There is no need to punish the sins of the guilty if the guilty will not exist at judgment, if the guilty will perish before that time and be made into a new creation, conformed into the image of Christ.

There is no need to make us new creations, cleanse us of unrighteousness, conform us into the image of Christ if we can be cleared of all sin by the legal action of punishing the Righteousness for what the wicked have done.

This is an odd variant of being against PSA which I don't see anywhere else. I'm not saying it doesn't exist but it's not within normal anti PSA teaching. The whole purpose of PSA is that indeed the "guilty" won't be there, but because they are washed and redeemed by Christ's sacrificial death.

I think you have skillfully retained enough of the language of propitiation so that you can be properly offended at those who object to the explanations of a fellow believer, yet frankly, when you try to put your precepts together, they have serious variations and just don't work. I do thank you for stating your case directly but at the same time I urge everyone to really look at what you are saying along with the obvious deficiencies of it.

Sorry to be so long but you were long and I actually appreciate you taking the time to detail all this. I thought it deserved a point by point reply.

 

[DaveXR650]

Regarding the above, if you think about it, PSA will only come to be recognized, even though it was always in scripture, among people who are primarily viewing their relationship to God as one where the chief barrier is their personal sin as well as the sin of mankind overall. And there must be some "victory" already accomplished. At least enough to allow believers to contemplate these things. For the early church, with the chief debate being whether Jesus was God, part God, a blessed man, God in spirit only and so on, it would have been difficult to have coherent study on what it was that Christ did for us in the atonement. What would have been most important was that he really did rise from the dead and that he defeated the forces of darkness, and he is inviting us to follow him because the power to forgive sins is his. Fair enough.

I just caution people to resist the temptation to go back and try to adjust our theology to a different time which we have no way to contemplate accurately. I can see where a time could come where we might approach people with the idea that in spite of the way things look, Christ is the Lord and will return - and you can join in now, or be judged later, and have that be a major part of the gospel call. But I also think it is very right for us, in our modern day, to point out the barrier of sin, the problem of sin and what Jesus has done as a remedy for our sin - as the main focus. Just like we don't need to feel that something is lacking because we don't have the ornate fixtures and candles and incense, neither is our current theology lacking.

 

[JonC]

No problem with that. Unless one would be trying to build a case that the death of the animal was not important, only the application of the blood. And the problem would be that the application of the blood doesn't show the whole picture. Aside from the obvious points about having the blood was because of the death of an animal, the scripture points out that by the Lord's supper we show his death till he comes.

I think it is clear that the atoning sacrifice is important. Without the sheding of blood there is no forgiveness. My point has been that the the sacrifice is not the making of atonement itself. Life is in the blood. It is the blood that cleanses.

But yes, if you leave out one then you end up with an unbiblical view. The act of obedience - the sacrifice of atonement - the shedding of blood AND the "making atonement for the sins of the people", the "receiving by faith", the "cleansing of all unrighteousnesd" is also important.

 

[Armchair Apologist]

@Armchair Apologist

Here is a shorter summary of my view -

In the Old Testament a sacrifice of atonement was made. The high priest entered the Most Holy Place with the blood of an animal offered as an atoning sacrifice and with that blood he made atonement for his sins.

The people offered a sacrifice of atonement. The animal's blood was shed (the animal was killed). The high priest entered the Most Holy Place with the blood and made atonement for the people's sins.

I believe this is an illustration foreshadowing the work of Christ.

When Christ came as High Priest He went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not made with human hands. He entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood. This is how He obtained eternal redemption.

The Cross was God reconciling mankind to Himself, not taking sins into account. Jesus is the Firstborn, the second Adam (man and God reconciled in the Person of Christ).

God set forth Christ as an atonement through His blood to be applied, or recieved, by faith. It is Christ's blood that cleanses from all unrighteousness.

And it is because of this Atonement, this eternal redemption obtained by Christ, this Reconciliation of mankind to God in Christ, that we plead with men to be reconiled to God.

The Atonement in terms of Christ obtaining redemption for mankind, for Christ being the Propitiation for all mankinds sin, for Christ being the Mediator for those who believe, for Christ interceding for us when we do sin, for Christ being the second Adam, the representative of new man, being our High Priest, being the Firstborn...all of this os accomplished on the Cross. Christ IS the reconciliation of God and man - the Son of God and the Son of Man.

But OUR atonement is not accomplished on the cross. The cross was God setting forth His Son as a Propitiation through His blood. BUT the blood must be applied. We must be cleansed of all unrighteousness. We must be washed in the blood.

God set forth His Son as a Propitiation through His blood to be received by faith. Through faith this blood is applied. This is "making atonement for our sins".



Rather than an atonement theory based on satisfying God's justice I believe that Christ's blood cleanses us from all unrighteousness, that we are made new creations in Christ, that the old ends and the new begins.

The New Covenant is God's righteousness manifested apart from the Law. The law is fulfilled not by punishing the just to clear the guilty. It is fulfilled by cleansing us from all unrighteousness, removing the sin and the guilt, conforming us into the image of Christ.



Christus Victor is incompatable with Penal Substitution Theory because if one is true the other is obsolete.

There is no need to punish the sins of the guilty if the guilty will not exist at judgment, if the guilty will perish before that time and be made into a new creation, conformed into the image of Christ.

There is no need to make us new creations, cleanse us of unrighteousness, conform us into the image of Christ if we can be cleared of all sin by the legal action of punishing the Righteousness for what the wicked have done.

I know this was directed towards me and I probably haven't adequately responded as of yet and I do apologize. I have quite a few irons in the fire right now so please forgive me if I seem a little distracted.

One thing I would point out is that blood is emblematic of the fact that a death has taken place - The life of the flesh is in the blood (Lev 17:11) and the blood shall be to you for a token upon the houses where ye are: and when I see the blood, I will pass over you... (Exo 12:13). The blood offered at the mercy seat is emblematic of a righteous lamb that had died in place of the guilty, that such was in fact, a satisfactory payment. John MacArthur has received quite a bit of grief over the years regarding his position on the blood but I would have to agree with him! If it was only Jesus's blood that was important, perhaps he could've gone to a blood bank, make a few donations, and this blood could then be used to wash away our sins? Such would be wrong on so many levels and hopefully the absurdity of such an illustration proves the point: Christ had to DIE for our sins and the blood is emblematic of this death. I find it difficult not to see divine justice at work here!

You say that "our atonement is not accomplished on the cross" and I do understand there is dispute as to where atonement actually takes place. I believe all could agree with Dave's remark that the basis of our atonement most certainly was accomplished on the cross! We may disagree on matters regarding the intent, extent, and application but it is because of Christ's finished work on Calvary that I stand before him being declared righteous!

We understand that Christ was the lamb slain from the foundation of the world (Rev 13:8) meaning that for all of eternity, Christ IS the propitiation for sin. However, Christ's death and resurrection was a historic event that occurred 2,000 years ago and there was 4,000 years of history preceding this so how can both be correct? We understand this knowing that God dwells in the "Eternal Present" outside the realm of time and space. Same goes with our being "chosen in him" (Eph 1:4) and our names being written in the book of life before the foundation of the world (Rev 17:8) but we acknowledge a time in our life when we were dead in sin and where Christ has raised us to eternal life and we were gloriously saved (Eph 2:1-5)!

It will be a wonderful thing that our guilt will not exist on the day of judgment but how is this even possible? For us there is no condemnation because Christ came in the likeness of sinful flesh and for us, he was condemnned that we would stand in the righteousness of the law that he had fulfilled with his life!

Anyway, I probably missed a few things but hopefully I addressed the matters of importance.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

One vital point of the atonement is that something was bought and a price was paid.

Acts 20:28. "Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the Church of God which He purchased with His own blood.'

1 Cor. 6:20, NKJV. 'For you were bought at a price; therefore glorify God in your body and in your spirit, which are God's.'

Eph. 1:14. '...Who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory.

1 Peter1:18-19. '...Knowing that you were not redeemed with corruptible things, like silver or gold, from your aimless conduct received by tradition from your fathers, but with the blood of Christ , as of a lamb without blemish and without spot' [c.f. Exodus 12:5].

That which was bought was us, and the price was the blood of Christ, which signifies His life. To talk about our redemption being some priest sprinkling blood about the altar is to miss the wood for the trees.

 

[JesusFan]

Isaiah 53 tells us of Jesus and His sufferings. He was a man of sorrows, despised by those around Him. But He bore our griefs and sorrows. The people considered Him as stricken and smitten of God and afflicted, however He was pierced for our transgressions, crushed for our iniquities. The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him and by His scourging we were healed. All of us have gone astray, but God has caused the iniquity of us all to fall on Him.

He was oppressed and afflicted, but He did not open His mouth. By oppression and judgment He was taken away. He was killed for the transgressions of the people, who had earned death. God was pleased to crush Him, putting Him to grief, that if He would render Himself as a guilt offering He will see the fruits of His work and He will justify the many as He bore their iniquities.

Psalm 22 foreshadows the Cross. This psalm begins “My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me? Far from my deliverance are the words of my groaning”. The picture is God’s Servant suffering while deliverance has not yet come. The Servant then turns to God’s faithfulness. He knows that God will never abandon Him. Instead God will deliver Him. The Servant appeals to God’s faithfulness to His forefathers as they were forsaken to suffer. He appeals to God’s own character. Those who trust in the Lord will not be disappointed. Towards the end of the psalm we see that God has not despised the Servant, nor has He hidden His face. When He cried for Help God heard.

Psalm 4 speaks of God answering when the righteous call out in destress. God hears when they call.

Deuteronomy 15 describes justice as justifying the righteous and condemning the wicked.

Psalm 37 tells us that God will never abandon or condemn the just.

Proverbs 12 tells us that the righteous will obtain favor but God will condemn the evil man.

Proverbs 17 tells us that one who justifies the wicked and one who condemns the righteous are both abominations to God.

Ezekiel 18 teaches us that the person who sins will be accountable for their sin. Sins cannot pass from one person to another. If a man lives righteously but then repents of good and does evil then he will be held guilty. But if a man does evil and repents of that evil then God is faithful to forgive. God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but instead wants that he should turn from wickedness and live. Rebellious men will object and say “the way of the Lord is not right”. But it is their ways that is not right. They view sins as transferrable, and they reject God’s declaration that should one repent He will be faithful to forgive. Therefore God will judge them by their own conduct. God declares that they should repent and turn away from all of their transgressions so that iniquity may not become a stumbling block to them. He takes no pleasure in the death of anyone. Therefore, repent and live.

By what basis then is Holy God able to forgive lost sinners and stay Holy? Where is his stored up wrath against them, to be unloaded at judgement day go away to then?

 

[DaveXR650]

By what basis then is Holy God able to forgive lost sinners and stay Holy? Where is his stored up wrath against them, to be unloaded at judgement day go away to then?

I think that's true. No matter how you carefully pick scriptures and try to weave a theory of your own, even if what you say is true for the most part, if you don't consider this aspect you fall short of explaining the atonement.

 

[Jerome]

Where is his stored up wrath against them, to be unloaded at judgement day go away to then?

Well said!

 

[JesusFan]

Regarding the above, if you think about it, PSA will only come to be recognized, even though it was always in scripture, among people who are primarily viewing their relationship to God as one where the chief barrier is their personal sin as well as the sin of mankind overall. And there must be some "victory" already accomplished. At least enough to allow believers to contemplate these things. For the early church, with the chief debate being whether Jesus was God, part God, a blessed man, God in spirit only and so on, it would have been difficult to have coherent study on what it was that Christ did for us in the atonement. What would have been most important was that he really did rise from the dead and that he defeated the forces of darkness, and he is inviting us to follow him because the power to forgive sins is his. Fair enough.

I just caution people to resist the temptation to go back and try to adjust our theology to a different time which we have no way to contemplate accurately. I can see where a time could come where we might approach people with the idea that in spite of the way things look, Christ is the Lord and will return - and you can join in now, or be judged later, and have that be a major part of the gospel call. But I also think it is very right for us, in our modern day, to point out the barrier of sin, the problem of sin and what Jesus has done as a remedy for our sin - as the main focus. Just like we don't need to feel that something is lacking because we don't have the ornate fixtures and candles and incense, neither is our current theology lacking.

The Psa view on the Atonement is NOT just a Reformed/Calvinist view, its THE Reformed view, majority of Baptists, and many evangelicals who even despise Calvinism still hold to it

 

[JesusFan]

I think that's true. No matter how you carefully pick scriptures and try to weave a theory of your own, even if what you say is true for the most part, if you don't consider this aspect you fall short of explaining the atonement.

Its seems that onC view is that God forgives us based upon repentance, and since now saved, no longer any more wrath, but still where did it then go?

 

[DaveXR650]

The Psa view on the Atonement is NOT just a Reformed/Calvinist view, its THE Reformed view, majority of Baptists, and many evangelicals who even despise Calvinism still hold to it

Yes indeed. One of my favorites, although mostly unknown nowadays, is G. Campbell Morgan, who was not a Calvinist. His writings on the Cross are some of the most complete and possibly the most beautiful of any I have seen. I actually think some of the Calvinist defense of PSA is unhelpful because they are mainly trying to defend against Arminianism and they frame their arguments in a way that makes the predestination in their theology essential. And in doing so they leave themselves vulnerable to arguments that what they're saying isn't "scriptural". That's just my opinion. I have to admit that the most and some of the best writing is indeed by strict Calvinists. But you are correct in your observation.

 

[DaveXR650]

Its seems that onC view is that God forgives us based upon repentance, and since now saved, no longer any more wrath, but still where did it then go?

Yes. If one were to leave it at that as stated, that would be the argument of Socinus, and all modern groups who view our problem with sin before a holy God exactly the same as we would view some individual who sinned against us personally. And this is outside of orthodox (small "o") Christianity. But Jon isn't doing this, at least above:

And it is because of this Atonement, this eternal redemption obtained by Christ, this Reconciliation of mankind to God in Christ, that we plead with men to be reconiled to God.

What he does is confuse everyone by this in the same post:

The Cross was God reconciling mankind to Himself, not taking sins into account. Jesus is the Firstborn, the second Adam (man and God reconciled in the Person of Christ).

If the Cross was God reconciling mankind to Himself the fact of the Cross clearly to me is that God IS taking our sin into account. So you have a self contradictory statement. And then this causes further confusion:

Rather than an atonement theory based on satisfying God's justice I believe that Christ's blood cleanses us from all unrighteousness, that we are made new creations in Christ, that the old ends and the new begins.

I just don't see why the resistance to having a satisfaction of God's justice be the reason Christ's blood cleanses us from unrighteousness. Is he saying on one hand, there is no need for God to be satisfied and yet we need to be cleansed? For who? His theology leaves an obvious gap in explanation which looks to me to be a dancing around of the issue of exactly what it is that is separating us from God. This is what happens when you try to develop your own theology. If he is just reverently and prayerfully exploring the depths of God's grace to us then God bless him. But I would suggest in the meantime not trying to destroy PSA. We all (and should) explore ideas as we study God's word but we should give some credit to those who have come before us.

 

[JonC]

By what basis then is Holy God able to forgive lost sinners and stay Holy? Where is his stored up wrath against them, to be unloaded at judgement day go away to then?

Scripture gives us the basis that a Holy God is able to forgive lost sinners and stay holy. The basis is the blood of Christ that cleanses from all unrighteousness being received through faith.

This actually demonstrates God's righteousness where PSA fails. Not only will God never punish the Just but He will also never clear the guilty. Either would make God unjust and unholy, an abomination.

So the basis is Christ. The "how" God remains just and holy is an act of recreation, requiring the guilty to perish without exception.

The idea that the wrath, that the wrath, when the saved were children of wrath, have stored up for themselves must be unloaded is not logical.


If you are angry at your wife and she apologizes, do you exercise that wrath against her or do you forgive her.

If you forgive her where does that wrath go.


It is not a logical question.