• 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!

Atonement Continued

Status
Not open for further replies.

agedman

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
[continued]
So now we can look at our Lord’s cry of dereliction. ‘Now when the sixth hour had come, there was darkness over the whole land until the sixth hour. And at the ninth hour, Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying “Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?” Which is translated, “My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?”‘ (Mark 15:33-34).

We will first look at the supernatural darkness that came over the land. There are several places in the O.T. where darkness denotes God’s wrath and judgement, especially connected to the ‘day of the Lord,’ e.g. Joel 2:31; Amos 5:18-20; Zephaniah 1:14-15 and particularly Isaiah 13:9-11 (quoted in Mark 13:24-25). so the darkness indicates the righteous anger of God, but against whom? The Lord Jesus Himself tells us that it is against Himself as the sin-bearer. ‘Then Jesus said to them, “All of you will be made to stumble because of Me this night, for it is written, ‘I will strike the Shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered'”‘ (Mark 14:27). The quotation is from Zechariah 13:7 and makes it perfectly clear that God Himself is the One who will strike the Shepherd. The Lord Jesus was made sin, and God’s righteous anger against sin was poured out upon Him instead of us, with His full knowledge and consent.

We now come to the dereliction of Christ. As I have said elsewhere, I cannot possibly accept that “My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me” can possibly be read as “My God, My God, You haven’t forsaken Me.” Nor can I accept that David, who is described as a prophet in Acts 2:30, was actually a false prophet in that he made an error in Psalm 22:1 (c.f. Deuteronomy 18:20-22). Nor is it a case of ‘God forsaking God’ any more than God prays to God (e.g. John 17). The Son prays to the Father, although the Father does not pray to the Son, and on the cross, the Father temporarily forsakes the Son.

I know that some people find this hard to accept, but it must be true because the Holy Spirit has preserved His words for us. “My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me? Why are You so far from helping Me, and from the words of My groaning? O My God, I cry in the daytime, but You do not hear; and in the night season, and am not silent” (Psalms 22:1-2). Although it was 3 o’clock in the afternoon, it was the ‘night season’ for darkness had fallen upon the land, as if to hide the shame of the God-man made sin. For those hours, as a Man, He was quite literally God-forsaken. To be sure, we need to be careful here. We must not suggest that the Father was not present at Calvary for the very good reason that He is Omni-present. ‘”Do I not fill heaven and earth?” Declares the LORD’ (Jeremiah 23:23-24; c.f. Psalms 139:7-12). Rather it means that the Son, who had enjoyed the constant and closest possible relationship with His Father, now lacked completely any sense of His presence until the sun appeared once more and He cried, “It is finished!” The Greek word tetelestai can also mean, ‘It is paid’ (c.f. Matthew 17:14) or ‘it is accomplished (c.f. Luke 9:31). In fact, our Lord’s cry meant all those things. The ransom was paid in full, reconciliation between Man and God was accomplished, and His suffering was about to be ended. This agrees with Psalms 22:21b; 'You have answered Me.' The Father heard the Son's cry and deemed that atonement had been made

This forsaking of Christ is an integral part of the atonement. Christ ‘is able to save to the uttermost those who come to God through Him.’ His is a complete salvation. I shall not be condemned for my sins because Christ was made sin for me. I shall not suffer the pains of hell because Christ has suffered them on my behalf on the cross. I shall not be shut out from the presence of God (2 Thessalonians 1:9) because Christ was shut out from the felt presence of His Father on my behalf.
Although I may agree in part with much of this presentation, it is wrong in this manner.

The trinity can NEVER be divided. The unity of the trinity cannot ever be undone, and in particular by something of human event oriented. If one part of the trinity is impacted the whole is. One cannot be sinful and the rest remain without sin. Neither can one part of the trinity punish the other part. Any suggestion that such things can occur are at best misguided and at worst deceitfully wicked.

Too often the narrow focus of the crucifixion does not take into consideration that what we can perceive is but the surface, and as an iceberg great conflicts of the spiritual world powers and authorities were in great battle. Paul states that, "For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this world’s darkness, and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms."

At no point did God abandon the Son. The Son underwent the crucifixion with the full trinity well aware.

Did not the Christ call out to God, saying, "MY God" How then is God far way and not there, for He did not stop with addressing God, but related the concern, "Why have you forsaken me." God did not abandon the Son, but withheld support so that the physical death may occur.

Btw, something for another thread. There are those who are well versed in Aramaic who have compared this to the language of the psalms and come up with something else. It might be an interesting discussion for another thread. Is it possible that just as in other places of dispute, someone added an interpretation that was not accurate to the Aramaic? Again for another thread. Might be interesting.
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
Although I may agree in part with much of this presentation, it is wrong in this manner.

The trinity can NEVER be divided. The unity of the trinity cannot ever be undone, and in particular by something of human event oriented. If one part of the trinity is impacted the whole is. One cannot be sinful and the rest remain without sin. Neither can one part of the trinity punish the other part. Any suggestion that such things can occur are at best misguided and at worst deceitfully wicked.

Too often the narrow focus of the crucifixion does not take into consideration that what we can perceive is but the surface, and as an iceberg great conflicts of the spiritual world powers and authorities were in great battle. Paul states that, "For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this world’s darkness, and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms."

At no point did God abandon the Son. The Son underwent the crucifixion with the full trinity well aware.

Did not the Christ call out to God, saying, "MY God" How then is God far way and not there, for He did not stop with addressing God, but related the concern, "Why have you forsaken me." God did not abandon the Son, but withheld support so that the physical death may occur.

Btw, something for another thread. There are those who are well versed in Aramaic who have compared this to the language of the psalms and come up with something else. It might be an interesting discussion for another thread. Is it possible that just as in other places of dispute, someone added an interpretation that was not accurate to the Aramaic? Again for another thread. Might be interesting.
Another point I would add is Scripture states that we were saved by Christ's life, not His death (we were purchased by His blood, saved by His life).

Perhaps this is a small distinction.

As far as God forsaking Christ, Psalm 22 foretells this. And you are correct. Christ was forsaken to suffer and die. This by no means points to a division or separation between the Father and Son (again, this is the point of Psalm 22).
 

SavedByGrace

Well-Known Member
Another point I would add is Scripture states that we were saved by Christ's life, not His death (we were purchased by His blood, saved by His life).

Perhaps this is a small distinction.

As far as God forsaking Christ, Psalm 22 foretells this. And you ate correct. Christ was forsaken to suffer and die. This by no means points to a division or separation between the Father and Son (again, this is the point of Psalm 22).

As I have said before you don't know what you are talking about :rolleyes:

For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth. Hebrews 9.16,17
 

37818

Well-Known Member
Although I may agree in part with much of this presentation, it is wrong in this manner.

The trinity can NEVER be divided. The unity of the trinity cannot ever be undone, and in particular by something of human event oriented. If one part of the trinity is impacted the whole is. One cannot be sinful and the rest remain without sin. Neither can one part of the trinity punish the other part. Any suggestion that such things can occur are at best misguided and at worst deceitfully wicked.

Too often the narrow focus of the crucifixion does not take into consideration that what we can perceive is but the surface, and as an iceberg great conflicts of the spiritual world powers and authorities were in great battle. Paul states that, "For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this world’s darkness, and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms."

At no point did God abandon the Son. The Son underwent the crucifixion with the full trinity well aware.

Did not the Christ call out to God, saying, "MY God" How then is God far way and not there, for He did not stop with addressing God, but related the concern, "Why have you forsaken me." God did not abandon the Son, but withheld support so that the physical death may occur.

Btw, something for another thread. There are those who are well versed in Aramaic who have compared this to the language of the psalms and come up with something else. It might be an interesting discussion for another thread. Is it possible that just as in other places of dispute, someone added an interpretation that was not accurate to the Aramaic? Again for another thread. Might be interesting.
The distinct Persons who are God, not parts, made the atonement to happen by way of the Son. He, the Son, did not cease to be God and His soul did die. Hebrews 1:3, ". . . upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, . . ." Of course His soul did not remain dead. We disagree over words.
 

agedman

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
As I have said before you don't know what you are talking about :rolleyes:

For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth. Hebrews 9.16,17
This getting beyond the topic of the thread.

But I will mention that the death of the testator allowed for the covenant to be established, just as the first with the blood.
 

agedman

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
The distinct Persons who are God, not parts, made the atonement to happen by way of the Son. He, the Son, did not cease to be God and His soul did die. Hebrews 1:3, ". . . upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, . . ." Of course His soul did not remain dead. We disagree over words.
I think you are right.

The physical died but the eternal soul (life breath) did not. The Christ showed himself to all in paradise.

Christ met with the thief in Paradise as He said he would, while His body lay in the tomb, not decaying at all as normal bodies would.

Christ did not go to the place of torment. I have heard so very many teaching and preaching the PSA thinking that express that he descended into the torments of hell.

Not, true. No innocent ever went to that place.
 

agedman

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
As I have said before you don't know what you are talking about :rolleyes:

For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth. Hebrews 9.16,17


There is a distinction that I need to make.

Christ died physically, but He never went to the place of torment but to paradise just as He said to meet the thief.

So, just as believers do when the physical body ceases to be viable, we change into His likeness.
 

Silverhair

Well-Known Member
# 8 answers you and the others.

It is very clear that the early Church, like the Bible, taught PSA. It is only not there for the likes of you, Jon and Atpollard, who don't want to admit that you are WRONG!

Christ Jesus went to the cross of His own volition. He was the lamb of God that bled for the sins of the world. Christ Jesus did the same thing that the lambs slain in the OT did, He shed His blood to appease the anger of God in regard to sin. Can you not see this?

God is angry at the sin, Christ Jesus is the propitiation for those sins.

Some here see PSA in the text of the bible, I do not. What I do see is that God loves us so much that He was willing to shed His blood so that we could live.

Was Christ Jesus victorious over sin, death? Yes. Did He provide for the redemption of those that trust in Him? Yes. Did He meet the blood atonement demands of God? Yes.

According to Isa_53:10, God did crush [bruise] his servant. Verse 5 indicates that he "was crushed [bruised] for our iniquities." This emphasizes the emotional and spiritual suffering of the Savior as he became sin for us. TWOT #427
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
As I have said before you don't know what you are talking about :rolleyes:

For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth. Hebrews 9.16,17
Nobody is denying the necessity of Christ's death and the New Covenant. The Cross was God reconciling mankind to Himself.

But you are correct that Penal Substitution Theory denies that we are saved by Christ's life.

Romans 5:10 For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life.
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
There is a distinction that I need to make.

Christ died physically, but He never went to the place of torment but to paradise just as He said to meet the thief.

So, just as believers do when the physical body ceases to be viable, we change into His likeness.
I agree.

Christ shared in our infirmity. His death reconciled man. But it is His life that saves men.
 

atpollard

Well-Known Member
Nobody is denying the necessity of Christ's death and the New Covenant. The Cross was God reconciling mankind to Himself.

But you are correct that Penal Substitution Theory denies that we are saved by Christ's life.

Romans 5:10 For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life.
What does this mean?
"God reconciling mankind to Himself."

How did His death "reconcile" us?

[I am curious about what YOU mean when you use these terms ... it always comes down to the details - the meaning of the words.]
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
What does this mean?
"God reconciling mankind to Himself."

How did His death "reconcile" us?

[I am curious about what YOU mean when you use these terms ... it always comes down to the details - the meaning of the words.]
His death (I believe this is His entire earthly ministry culminating in His death) reconciled man. He shared in our infirmity....completely. God and man was reconciled on the Cross in a co.pleye and finished sence.

Man being reconciled through Christ's death, men are saved by His life. He "became a life-giving spirit".
 

JesusFan

Well-Known Member
It is fine to copy and take from other sources, and I enjoyed the read. However, I left a portion of the post in which I disagree.

This cup is for the wicked. NOT for the Christ who NEVER sinned, and remained pure and innocent.

This is one of the continued difficulties with many who present the PSA, for it does oblige that in some manner the Lord Jesus became dirty, covered over and within with sin, and as such had to be removed from the trinity.

That is not EVER what the Scriptures present.

When the the Lord ask concerning the cup, did He not say, "You will indeed drink my cup."

Therefore, it was NOT some cup that could not be withstood by the disciples, for they and even many have drunk of the cup of sorrow and torture.
Jesus had our sins imputed to Him, as then the ftaher can freely impute His righteousness to us!
 

JesusFan

Well-Known Member
His death (I believe this is His entire earthly ministry culminating in His death) reconciled man. He shared in our infirmity....completely. God and man was reconciled on the Cross in a co.pleye and finished sence.

Man being reconciled through Christ's death, men are saved by His life. He "became a life-giving spirit".
How did His death atone for our sins, as was not due just to Him physically put to death!
 

JesusFan

Well-Known Member
Although I may agree in part with much of this presentation, it is wrong in this manner.

The trinity can NEVER be divided. The unity of the trinity cannot ever be undone, and in particular by something of human event oriented. If one part of the trinity is impacted the whole is. One cannot be sinful and the rest remain without sin. Neither can one part of the trinity punish the other part. Any suggestion that such things can occur are at best misguided and at worst deceitfully wicked.

Too often the narrow focus of the crucifixion does not take into consideration that what we can perceive is but the surface, and as an iceberg great conflicts of the spiritual world powers and authorities were in great battle. Paul states that, "For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this world’s darkness, and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms."

At no point did God abandon the Son. The Son underwent the crucifixion with the full trinity well aware.

Did not the Christ call out to God, saying, "MY God" How then is God far way and not there, for He did not stop with addressing God, but related the concern, "Why have you forsaken me." God did not abandon the Son, but withheld support so that the physical death may occur.

Btw, something for another thread. There are those who are well versed in Aramaic who have compared this to the language of the psalms and come up with something else. It might be an interesting discussion for another thread. Is it possible that just as in other places of dispute, someone added an interpretation that was not accurate to the Aramaic? Again for another thread. Might be interesting.
Jesus did indeed experience being forsaken in his humanity while upon that Cross, as he felt what a lost sinner will in hell apart from presense of God!
 

Martin Marprelate

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
How did His death atone for our sins, as was not due just to Him physically put to death!
[on a break from sermon prep. Just time for a drive-by shooting]
Good question! 1 John 3:8, 'For this reason the Son of God was manifested, that He might destroy the works of the devil.' So any victory by our Lord Jesus Christ must involve the defeat of Satan. Satan is the 'accuser of our brethren, who accused them before God day and night....' (Revelation 12:10). Therefore, in order to destroy the works of the devil, our Lord must defeat those accusations, which apparently was done 'by the blood of the Lamb.'

That's all for now. Give it some thought.
 

JesusFan

Well-Known Member
"Atonement" means reconciliation. By His death man was reconciled to God and by His Life men are saved.
Still does not give the basis to have sins forgiven though, as any could die "mere" physical death! What being forsaken by the Father mean?
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
Still does not give the basis to have sins forgiven though, as any could die "mere" physical death! What being forsaken by the Father mean?
Scripture is again fairly clear. Man is RECONCILED by Christ's death, SAVED by His life.

Christ certainly did not die a spiritual death, and the Father, of course, did not leave or abandon Him (see Psalm 22).

He was forsaken to die at the hands of the wicked. God raised Him from the grave, having won victory over sin and death. Man is reconciled, and so we have the ministry of reconciliation, urging men to be reconciled to God.

Your sins are forgiven because there is no condemnation in Christ, in Whom all judgment has been given.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top