Featured God's Two Pictures of the Atonement in the Sacrifices

Penal Substitution theorists will claim Clement of Rome taught the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement by offering this:

By love have all the elect of God been made perfect; without love nothing is well-pleasing to God. In love has the Lord taken us to Himself. On account of the Love he bore us, Jesus Christ our Lord gave His blood for us by the will of God; His flesh for our flesh, and His soul for our souls.

Clement of Rome

But all Christians believe that in love has the Lord taken us to Himself. We all believe it was on account of the Love he bore us, Jesus Christ our Lord gave His blood for us by the will of God; His flesh for our flesh, and His soul for our souls.

What I am arguing is not that penal and substitution is foreign to Scripture....far from it.

What I am arguing is that the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement is a false doctrine.

By this theory I mean the idea that Christ suffered divine wrath so we would not.

The problem with the theory is it blinds people to Scripture. Some have even gone so far as to hold what the ECF's considered heresy - that the Father separated from the Son.

 

I offered no insults.

I agree with the ECF's on this one. There are two biblical ways to look at it.

Punishment was inflicted by the "powers of evil" (that we all suffer under) through the hands of men by the will of God.

But more than that, it was Christ Himself, in obedience, laying down His life (His flesh).

 

I agree with everything in the above quote.

What I reject is not Penal and substitution in Scripture or the Atonement.

What I reject is the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement.

That is, that God punished our sins on Christ instead of punishing us. That God separated from Christ on the cross.

You constantly provide passages we agree on and call it "Penal Substitution", but you NEVER provide any passages supporting what you actually refer to as Penal Substitution.

 

God was not, I agree. God offered Himself. And the Father offered the Son who lay down His life. God remained on the Cross.

It means sharing in our infirmity, bearing our sins, experiencing the wages of sin.

 

No. Jesus Christ was not damned.

 

No. Because He is God and is sinless.

That is the point of the Cross. He suffered under the curse but never sinned.

 

No, it isn't. But to be damned is to be cursed.

 

You? No. Your idea of sacrifice is identical to ANE, Roman and Greek paganism. But I do not think you are a pagan. You just have carried over pagan ideas into your faith.

And you are deliberately misrepresenting what I said about reinventing history. I said you rape history (you violate history, which should be preserved as pure as possible, l for the edification of the future, for your own gain).

 

I agree that it pleased the LORD to bruise Him; He has put Him to grief. I disagree this means that God was punishing Christ.

Look, I understand your tradition. I shared it for a very long time.

But you need to understand that others who disagree with your interpretation do not do so at the expense of Scripture.

The ECF's you quoted viewed the Father as forsaking the Son to suffer and die on the cross. They taught that this was Christ suffering in the flesh (not the Spirit, not abandonment, not a separation, but it being necessary that Christ suffer and physically die).

You disagree, which is fine. But then you pretend your view is the only possible understanding, that the Early Church was stupid, that the ECF's were biblically illiterate, and that most of Christianity has ignored most of Scripture.

You are wrong.

 

This is a sin. You are intentionally making false claims against a brother in Christ.

Scripture tells us that God hates a lie. John tells us he gave his account of Christ that we would not sin.

Do you not fear God? How can you do casually forfeit your integrity simply to slander another person on an internet forum?

You sell your character far too cheaply. Do you not realize you were purchased with a price, with the blood of Christ? Yet you mock God, trample Christ's blood, simply because you do not like it that I disagree with you?

I know we do not get along, but I do care about you. I urge you to examine yourself, to recover from your transgression. Your sin against me does not matter, but your sin against God is a serious issue. You are better than this.

If you need a break from the forum then take it. If not, then stay. But please consider your posts more carefully. We will be held accountable for every word, even if we think our true identity is unknown. And you just made a false accusation.

For the members - Martin and I both hold our views strongly. To my knowledge he is not prone to make outright false accusations. I do not know what made him do so in this instance.

For the record I will restate my view, which has been stayed dozens of times already.

Christ was forsaken. He was forsaken to suffer and die on the Cross. And God was faithful to deliver Him, not from death but through death.

 

I do not believe in the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement. I do not believe that Christ experienced God's wrath instead of us experiencing God's wrath.

But Christ is our Substitute (Ontological Substitution). And He did experience the wages of sin for us (which is a penalty).

But this is because you seem not to understand, not an intentionally misrepresenting. I encourage people to argue their views, but I hate to see Christians lie to try and "win" arguments. Thank you, at least, for not lying with this post.