An Alternate View (to the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement

[JonC]

We must pay much closer attention to what we have heard, so that we do not drift away from it.

We see Christ, who was made for a little while lower than the angels, because of His suffering death crowned with glory and honor, so that by the grace of God He might taste death for everyone. It was fitting for Him, in bringing many sons to glory, to perfect the originator of their salvation through sufferings. Both He who sanctifies and those who are sanctified are all from one Father; for this reason He is not ashamed to call them brothers , saying, “I will proclaim Your name to My brothers, in the midst of the assembly I will sing Your praise.” ;“I will put My trust in Him.” ;“Behold, I and the children whom God has given Me.”

Therefore, since the children share in flesh and blood, He Himself likewise also partook of the same, so that through death He might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, and free those who through fear of death were subject to slavery all their lives.

Therefore, in all things He had to be made like His brothers so that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. For since He Himself was tempted in that which He has suffered, He is able to come to the aid of those who are tempted.

 

[DaveXR650]

That shows qualifications of Jesus to be Christ. He was fully human. I don't know of anything in that post that would cause someone who believed in penal substitution to say "wrong". Hebrews goes into this further and indeed He makes propitiation for the sins of his people, by his own blood. And in that area I think you come face to face with the concept of penal substitution. You seem to be trying to make the case that the fact that Jesus Himself was tempted, thus he he able to come to the aid of those who are tempted. That, while true, is not complete. Your own post adds "propitiation" which, without getting into to an argument about exactly what that means, suggests that the death of Christ does something on our behalf - more than just qualifying Christ to be our advocate, even though it truly does.

If Christ died "for our sins according to the scriptures" then more of an explanation is needed than the above. Something was done for us and on account of our sins, directly, and ample scriptural evidence is that it somehow appeased the Father.

 

[Van]

Did Christ die for all, or just a per-selected few? General Atonement or Particular Atonement.

The OP clearly presents scripture indicating Jesus died for all mankind.

On the other side of the Ledger, we have Christ died for the church, with the interpretation He died only for the church and not for those never to be saved. 2 Peter 2:1 runs counter to that.

We also have Ephesians 1:4, with the interpretation the verse says God chose foreseen individuals before the foundation of the world, therefore, logically Christ would die only for them, as the others would not obtain salvation.

The dirty little secret is PSA is really just a Trojan horse for Particular Atonement, Christ dying only for the specific sins of those chosen before the foundation of the world.

Since scripture says individuals are chosen through faith in the truth, and we come to faith through hearing God's word, obviously we were NOT chosen individually as foreseen individuals, but were chosen as the target group Christ as Redeemer might redeem. Thus we were chosen in Him corporately, rather than individually before we were created.

 

[JonC]

That shows qualifications of Jesus to be Christ. He was fully human. I don't know of anything in that post that would cause someone who believed in penal substitution to say "wrong". Hebrews goes into this further and indeed He makes propitiation for the sins of his people, by his own blood. And in that area I think you come face to face with the concept of penal substitution. You seem to be trying to make the case that the fact that Jesus Himself was tempted, thus he he able to come to the aid of those who are tempted. That, while true, is not complete. Your own post adds "propitiation" which, without getting into to an argument about exactly what that means, suggests that the death of Christ does something on our behalf - more than just qualifying Christ to be our advocate, even though it truly does.

If Christ died "for our sins according to the scriptures" then more of an explanation is needed than the above. Something was done for us and on account of our sins, directly, and ample scriptural evidence is that it somehow appeased the Father.

It does show how Jesus is qualified. Is that really all you think that passage shows?

I did not mean it to be compleye (just addressing the readon Christ died) And it is from one perspective.

Why did Jesus have to become one of us?
Why did Jesus have to suffer the powers of Satan?

Those two questions are answered in the passage, and that exolains the Atonement.

I think what you mean is it does not address the law.

Calvinistic theology holds that the Atonement is centered on divine justice.
We sin and miss the mark of what God's law requires.
The demands of justice must be met.
God meets this demands, and we are saved.

But traditional Christianity views the Atonement differently.
Rather than all sinning and missing the mark of God's law it is ontological.
All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.

The difference is whether God's law is the focus or God Himself (God's glory).
A lot of the ideas are the same, but there are differences

An Atonement based on divine justice does not address falling short of God's glory.

BUT an Atonement based on God's glory (God Himself) fulfills the law and justice.