Atonement Continued

[JesusFan]

I will try to help. Feel free to ask any questions.

For me it is simple.

Adam's transgression introduced sin and death (the wages, or consequences, of sin is death). Mankind was enslaved by sin and death. It is appointed man once to die (physical death) and then the Judgment. This does not change.

Christ shared in our infirmity. He became a curse, He bore our sins, He died. And He was judged by the Father - He was vindicated and raised to glory.

His death reconciled mankind to God. Christ is the "Last Adam", He became a "Life Giving Spirit". All Judgment has been given Him. And in Him there is no condemnation (those "in Him" escape the wrath to come).

Mankind was reconciled to God by Christ's death and men are saved by His life. God is just and the justifier of sinners.

Those in Christ will also die physically, but in Him there is no condemnation (He gives life). Those not in Christ will die and then the Judgment - and this is the Judgment, that Light has come into the world and they rejected the Light.

So how was the wrath of the father Propitiated again?

 

[JesusFan]

Either translation is fine with me.

Christ made his soul an offering for sin. He bore our sins. God laid upon Him the iniquity of us all.

Christ is the "Last Adam". His death reconciled man to God, and men ate saved through His life. On the criss God was reconciling man to Himself, and we now have the ministry of reconciliation- begging men to be reconciled to God.

My point is Penal Substitution Theory is found nowhere in the Bibke. It is a humanistic theory that fit the worldview of the 16th century and is based on that philosophy rather than the Bible. It starts with secular philosophy, works out a theory, and then goes to Scripture to find "support".

What Christians should do is lay aside their presuppositions and traditions. Go to the Bible, and belueve what is written.

Unfortunately many, like Penal Substitution Theorists, cannot accept the simple truth of Scripture and reach back to the flesh and cinema up with theological systems and theories to "explain" what is plainly before them. They believe Scripture insufficient because it is too simple for them, and they dismiss "what is written" to defend what they believe is taught.

Psa was held and taught by Lord Jesus and the Apostles, so its you "reading own philosophy" into the Cross!

 

[37818]

Either translation is fine with me.

Christ made his soul an offering for sin. He bore our sins. God laid upon Him the iniquity of us all.

Christ is the "Last Adam". His death reconciled man to God, and men ate saved through His life. On the criss God was reconciling man to Himself, and we now have the ministry of reconciliation- begging men to be reconciled to God.

My point is Penal Substitution Theory is found nowhere in the Bibke. It is a humanistic theory that fit the worldview of the 16th century and is based on that philosophy rather than the Bible. It starts with secular philosophy, works out a theory, and then goes to Scripture to find "support".

What Christians should do is lay aside their presuppositions and traditions. Go to the Bible, and belueve what is written.

Unfortunately many, like Penal Substitution Theorists, cannot accept the simple truth of Scripture and reach back to the flesh and cinema up with theological systems and theories to "explain" what is plainly before them. They believe Scripture insufficient because it is too simple for them, and they dismiss "what is written" to defend what they believe is taught.

There are a number of issues. Again, on the premise your understanding is fully correct. It would not matter if in fact I understand there to be a penal substitution of some kind in Scripture. It would not be there no matter how convincing an argument I could put forth from Scripture. While there is much we agree on, I honestly do not understand yet your understanding. I do not even know what to ask you.

 

[JesusFan]

There are a number of issues. Again, on the premise your understanding is fully correct. It would not matter if in fact I understand there to be a penal substitution of some kind in Scripture. It would not be there no matter how convincing an argument I could put forth from Scripture. While there is much we agree on, I honestly do not understand yet your understanding. I do not even know what to ask you.

Seems that while we are using same terms, totally different vested meanings!

 

[37818]

Seems that while we are using same terms, totally different vested meanings!

That is my take on this. But from the premise that @JonC view is correct that take would have to be false.
There are two questions that need to be asked though. Which I did not think of at the time I posted that I could not think of any questions to ask @JonC.
On the basis that @JonC understanding is correct, what is the benefit of believing that view? And on the premise that penal subsitution is an unBiblical view, what are the consequences in believing it?

 

[JonC]

There are a number of issues. Again, on the premise your understanding is fully correct. It would not matter if in fact I understand there to be a penal substitution of some kind in Scripture. It would not be there no matter how convincing an argument I could put forth from Scripture. While there is much we agree on, I honestly do not understand yet your understanding. I do not even know what to ask you.

In a way, it does not matter (towards salvation).

I studied, held, preached, and taught Penal Substitution Theory for decades. I was no less saved then as I am now, having moved on from the Theory to a more literal acceptance of Scripture.

But Penal Substitution Theory does obscure so much of Scripture. Our view of the Cross is so basic to our faith that to accept what is not actually in the biblical text skews other truths.

Back then I did not even realize I was adding to Scripture. The realization Penal Substitution Theory is foreign to the text of God's Word is the easy part (it only takes honesty and a highlighter). The hard part is understanding Scripture without the philosophy, but that is only because we are conditioned by our traditions.

The best I can say is try to read the Bible for what it actually says (try to set aside Penal Substitution Theory and just attempt to understand how the Cross was recieved for the first millenia and a half of Christianity). Go slow and any time you see Penal Substitution Theory stop, really look and see if it is really in the text. Pray. Take notes.

 

[JonC]

That is my take on this. But from the premise that @JonC view is correct that take would have to be false.
There are two questions that need to be asked though. Which I did not think of at the time I posted that I could not think of any questions to ask @JonC.
On the basis that @JonC understanding is correct, what is the benefit of believing that view? And on the premise that penal subsitution is an unBiblical view, what are the consequences in believing it?

There are several benefits. Traditional Christianity has a distinct outlook on life that Penal Substitution Theory misses.

One major theme is we can look to the Cross and see God's faithfulness. Christ was forsaken to suffer and die, but God was faithful not to abandon Him. Likewise, we can find ourselves persecuted and know that God may forsake us to suffer trials in this life but He will never abandon us. God vindicated Christ and He will vindicate us in Christ. We may cry "how long", but He will see us through.

Traditional Chriatianity also holds a better understanding of sin in relation to a Holy and immutable God. Where Penal Substitution Theory spiritualizes away the consequences of sin, Traditional Christianity sees God's Word as immutable. The wages of sin I'd death, and thos remains. But God rendered death mute for the believer. Christ shared in our infirmaty. We will also die in the flesh. But then the Judgment.

I can go on but I want to hit the last part of your post.

What are the consequences if believing Penal Substitution Theory?

The most obvious issue is the Theory is not in Scripture so the Bible as a test for doctrine is forfeited. This may not impact you, but it can create unnecessary divisions and even become an obstacle to the faith. It opens the door to neoGnosticism (e.g. , the bible dies not mean what it says, but the Bible - when properly understood - teaches what we are telling you).

Another issue is it demonstrates a lack if faith in God to deliver His Word perfectly and completely.

 

[JonC]

Psa was held and taught by Lord Jesus and the Apostles, so its you "reading own philosophy" into the Cross!

Yeshua1???

How do you know since it is not actually in the Biblical text? Did the good idea fairy come down and tell you?

(I can't help but notice you are unable to actually provide a passage where Jesus says God will punish Him instead of punishing us).

 

[George Antonios]

he assumption that God poured OUR PUNISHMENT onto CHRIST when I cannot find actual scripture

Isa 53:5 the CHASTISEMENT of OUR peace was UPON HIM

 

[JonC]

Isa 53:5 the CHASTISEMENT of OUR peace was UPON HIM

Nobody is questioning this passage.

Well.....maybe Penal Substitution Theorists ate as it isn't quite good enough for them as written in the Word of God.

 

[George Antonios]

Nobody is questioning this passage.

Well.....maybe Penal Substitution Theorists are as it isn't quite good enough for them as written in the Word of God.

That's it? I'll take it.

 

[37818]

There are several benefits. Traditional Christianity has a distinct outlook on life that Penal Substitution Theory misses.

Please show this. The two side by side.

One major theme is we can look to the Cross and see God's faithfulness. Christ was forsaken to suffer and die, but God was faithful not to abandon Him.

That happend after the atonment was completed, and after John 19:28, ". . . Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished . . . ." Luke 23:46, ". . . Jesus had cried with a loud voice, . . ." John 19:30, "It is finished." And in Luke 23:46, ". . . he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: . . ."

What are the consequences if believing Penal Substitution Theory?

The most obvious issue is the Theory is not in Scripture so the Bible as a test for doctrine is forfeited.

It is not obvous to me.

 

[agedman]

I would like to suggest that much of the discussion concerning the atonement, PSA, and so forth would become null if folks would take Hebrew 9 to heart and look at what it presents.

I mentioned on a post in one of these threads that the crucifixion was far more reaching then just what took place here on earth.

Hebrews 9 presents these facts:

First: 1Now the first covenant had regulations for worship and also an earthly sanctuary.

Second: 9It is an illustration for the present time, because the gifts and sacrifices being offered were unable to cleanse the conscience of the worshiper.

Third: 11But when Christ came as high priest of the good things that have come,

Fourth: He went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not made by hands and is not a part of this creation.

Fifth: He entered the Most Holy Place once for all by His own blood, thus securing eternal redemption.

Sixth: 15Therefore Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, now that He has died to redeem them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant.

Seventh: 21In the same way, he sprinkled with blood the tabernacle and all the vessels used in worship. 22According to the law, in fact, nearly everything must be purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness

Eighth: 23So it was necessary for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these sacrifices, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.

Ninth: 24For Christ did not enter a man-made copy of the true sanctuary, but He entered heaven itself, now to appear on our behalf in the presence of God.

Tenth: But now He has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of Himself.

Eleventh: 27Just as man is appointed to die once, and after that to face judgment,

Twelfth: 28so also Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many; and He will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who eagerly await Him.
​

Too often folks focus so heavily upon the earthly cross as the finished work, when Hebrews points to it as the tool, the extremely sharp knife, that was used to blood let the sacrifice. That blood was then presented in heaven in the true tabernacle, not the copy found on earth. The copy on earth can be considered a forgery, a fake, that was useful for a short time, but the original, true,the archetype tabernacle was in heaven. There, in heaven, at the presence of God, is where the blood (the more perfect) was sprinkled.

There is not a single picture of PSA in this passage.

 

[JesusFan]

In a way, it does not matter (towards salvation).

I studied, held, preached, and taught Penal Substitution Theory for decades. I was no less saved then as I am now, having moved on from the Theory to a more literal acceptance of Scripture.

But Penal Substitution Theory does obscure so much of Scripture. Our view of the Cross is so basic to our faith that to accept what is not actually in the biblical text skews other truths.

Back then I did not even realize I was adding to Scripture. The realization Penal Substitution Theory is foreign to the text of God's Word is the easy part (it only takes honesty and a highlighter). The hard part is understanding Scripture without the philosophy, but that is only because we are conditioned by our traditions.

The best I can say is try to read the Bible for what it actually says (try to set aside Penal Substitution Theory and just attempt to understand how the Cross was recieved for the first millenia and a half of Christianity). Go slow and any time you see Penal Substitution Theory stop, really look and see if it is really in the text. Pray. Take notes.

I have, and still find that the Psa gives the best explanation for how a Holy God can freely justify a lost sinner and still remain true to his nature and be Holy!

 

[JesusFan]

Yeshua1???

How do you know since it is not actually in the Biblical text? Did the good idea fairy come down and tell you?

(I can't help but notice you are unable to actually provide a passage where Jesus says God will punish Him instead of punishing us).

Once again, how is the Wrath of God towards sin and the lost sinner propitiated for and by then?

 

[agedman]

Once again, how is the Wrath of God towards sin and the lost sinner propitiated for and by then?

Your question is answered in Psalm 103.

 

[37818]

Ezekiel 18:4, ". . . the soul that sinneth, it shall die. . . ."
Romans 6:23, ". . . For the wages of sin is death; . . ."

Isaiah 53:12, ". . . he hath poured out his soul unto death: . . ."
Romans 5:8, ". . . Christ died for us. . . ."
1 Corinthians 15:3, ". . . that Christ died for our sins . . . ."

This is what is called and defined as the penal substitution atonement.

 

[JonC]

Please show this. The two side by side.

That happend after the atonment was completed, and after John 19:28, ". . . Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished . . . ." Luke 23:46, ". . . Jesus had cried with a loud voice, . . ." John 19:30, "It is finished." And in Luke 23:46, ". . . he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: . . ."
It is not obvous to me.

When I say obvious I mean that Penal Substitution Theory is not in the text of Scripture itself (it is impossible to highlight passages that say Christ was punished instead of us, Christ experienced God's wrath, etc.).

That fact is what God used to show me the Theory was wrong (I believe Scripture is the test of doctrine).

Have ypu considered Psalm 22 as a whole? God never abandoned Christ.

 

[JesusFan]

When I say obvious I mean that Penal Substitution Theory is not in the text of Scripture itself (it is impossible to highlight passages that say Christ was punished instead of us, Christ experienced God's wrath, etc.).

That fact is what God used to show me the Theory was wrong (I believe Scripture is the test of doctrine).

Have ypu considered Psalm 22 as a whole? God never abandoned Christ.

the Father forsook Him when he paid the sin debt in full on our behalf!

 

[agedman]

Ezekiel 18:4, ". . . the soul that sinneth, it shall die. . . ."
Romans 6:23, ". . . For the wages of sin is death; . . ."

Isaiah 53:12, ". . . he hath poured out his soul unto death: . . ."
Romans 5:8, ". . . Christ died for us. . . ."
1 Corinthians 15:3, ". . . that Christ died for our sins . . . ."

This is what is called and defined as the penal substitution atonement.

But what is shown is not what is taught, for you do not show the divine wrath (judgement) that is the cornerstone of PSA.