• 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 Theories

Status
Not open for further replies.
Y

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Steve Allen said:
The one place "satisfaction" is mentioned in the Scripture with regard to God is Isaiah 53:



We should be careful not to read in what isn't there. It doesn't say why he shall be satisfied, or what particularly in him shall be satisfied. If it said what you say it says, it would say, "He shall see the travail of his soul, and his wrath shall be satisfied." But it doesn't say that. It just says, "and [he] shall be satisfied".

Could it be that He will be satisfied because by means of His death He will accomplish all the Father's will, namely the undoing of the works of the Devil, the plundering of Hades? By this act, the barren one who did not bear nor travail with child will break forth into singing and cry aloud, and more will be the children of the desolate than the children of the married wife!

God saw of His own labor and was satisfied on the sixth day, then rested the seventh.





What a great reversal! Instead of the lust of the enemy being satisfied upon the people of God, rather the people of God are redeemed by His right arm, pouring out His wrath upon the enemy, satisfying Himself out of this labor, and dashing him to pieces, and dividing the spoil Himself!

In what was the LORD pleased? In the pain of His servant? In the pouring out of His wrath unjustly upon Him... His own arm? His own Son?

Such blasphemy!

No, the very coming of the Holy One constitutes the beginning of the pouring out of the wrath of God upon His enemies and the enemies of His people: namely, sin, the devil, and the final enemy -- death itself!



The last enemy is death.



He was not satisfied by seeing the pain and suffering of His Son twisting in agony on the Cross. He was satisfied by seeing that by this labor and travail, ending in death, sin would be destroyed and death, the enemy of His people, would itself be slain by His life!

No atonement theory that has the Father taking some kind of sick pleasure in the pain and suffering and death of His own Son as punishment or payment for sins in itself (because He needs to see pain because He's been offended) -- for He has no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that he turn from his wickedness and live! -- is worthy of consideration by any lover of God and His Word.
Click to expand...
God was placed to crush to the point of death Jesus, as both of them knew by Hios willing death as atonement for sins his own would get saved!
 
Steve Allen

Steve Allen

Member
Yeshua1 said:
God was pl[eas]ed to crush to the point of death Jesus, as both of them knew by Hios [sic] willing death as atonement for sins his own would get saved!
Click to expand...

200w_d.gif


200w_d.gif


200w_d.gif

correct-exactly-supernatural-s92f9UTsinNDy.gif]
 
Last edited:
Steve Allen

Steve Allen

Member
Yeshua1 said:
You see no wrath of God towards sin in bible? No Bowls/Cups of wrath?
Click to expand...

You're moving the goal-posts here. You said, originally, that the crushing involved Jesus taking and bearing the wrath of God which is to be poured out on sinners at the final judgment.

No one is arguing that the wrath of God will not be poured out on sinners at the final judgement, or that hell doesn't include the wrath of God towards lost sinners.

We are saying that the crushing didn't involve "Jesus taking and bearing [that] wrath".
 
Steve Allen

Steve Allen

Member
The cup that Jesus drank and the cup of the wrath of God are two different cups.

Matthew said:
But Jesus answered and said, " ... Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?" They say unto him, "We are able." And he saith unto them, "Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with ..."
Click to expand...

Mark said:
But Jesus said unto them, " .... can ye drink of the cup that I drink of? and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?" And they said unto him, "We can." And Jesus said unto them, "Ye shall indeed drink of the cup that I drink of; and with the baptism that I am baptized withal shall ye be baptized..."
Click to expand...

Unless you're claiming that at least two of the three most prominent disciples will not be saved? (I doubt you mean that.)
 
M

Martin Marprelate

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Steve Allen said:
My question for the PSA people is: what exactly do you mean by "substitutionary"?
Click to expand...
Hello Steve! Welcome to the forum. I hope you have a blessed time here. "The doctrine of Penal Substitution states that God gave Himself in the person of His Son to suffer instead of us the death, punishment and curse due to fallen humanity as the penalty of sin" (from Pierced for our Transgressions by Jeffrey, Ovey and Sach. IVP 2007).
To substitute something means to put something else in its place and take away the thing being substituted. In this case (if I understand PSA correctly) Jesus in ours. i.e. Jesus dying so we don't have to.
Click to expand...
You are correct. You don't understand Penal Substitution. 'For He [God the Father] made Him who knew no sin [Christ] to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him' (2 Cor. 5:21). On the cross, our Lord bore the sins of all His people (Isaiah 53:6; 1 Peter 2:24), and the Father punished sin in Him (Isaiah 53:5), and His perfect righteousness and obedience are credited to us who believe.

I am not interested in playing word games, but I'm happy to discuss the Scriptures with you. :) This topic has been discussed previously in mind-numbing detail and I have put my various arguments on my blog. You can find the links on Post #28, though I can cut and paste any particular points you may want to raise..
 
M

Martin Marprelate

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Steve Allen said:
You're moving the goal-posts here. You said, originally, that the crushing involved Jesus taking and bearing the wrath of God which is to be poured out on sinners at the final judgment.

No one is arguing that the wrath of God will not be poured out on sinners at the final judgement, or that hell doesn't include the wrath of God towards lost sinners.

We are saying that the crushing didn't involve "Jesus taking and bearing [that] wrath".
Click to expand...
So what do you suppose that the Lord Jesus was doing on the cross? You are in danger of turning Him into a sort of autistic teenager who tells his girlfriend, "I love you so much I'm going to jump off the Golden Gate Bridge for you." To which she might reply, "That's very impressive, but how would it show how much you love me?"

God tells us that He is, 'merciful and gracious, and abounding with goodness and truth, keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, by no means clearing the guilty.......' (Exodus 34:6-7). How does God forgive iniquity, transgression and sin if He by no means clears the guilty?
 
Steve Allen

Steve Allen

Member
Martin Marprelate said:
And what cup was that?
Click to expand...
I have an answer, but before I give it, I want you to acknowledge on the record that under your scheme, where the cup is the cup of the wine of the wrath of God, that He did say that James and John (at least) would also drink of that cup.

You may/should also provide an explanation of how that doesn't mean they are co-redeemers (on the one hand) and it doesn't mean they will not be saved (on the other).

(Note: I read your blog post on PSA and the Trinity, and you do explicitly say, there, that the cup He was talking to them about is the same cup He's asking the Father to take from Him in the garden, which is, you say, that cup of the wine of the wrath of God against sin. You don't, however, mention the fact that He said they would drink the same cup, or how that jives with your theory. That's why I'm asking you to do so here. Once we get this straightened out, then we can look at another option, and find out if maybe it's actually the same option in different terms, or something different.)

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
 
Steve Allen

Steve Allen

Member
Martin Marprelate said:
So what do you suppose that the Lord Jesus was doing on the cross? You are in danger of turning Him into a sort of autistic teenager who tells his girlfriend, "I love you so much I'm going to jump off the Golden Gate Bridge for you." To which she might reply, "That's very impressive, but how would it show how much you love me?"

God tells us that He is, 'merciful and gracious, and abounding with goodness and truth, keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, by no means clearing the guilty.......' (Exodus 34:6-7). How does God forgive iniquity, transgression and sin if He by no means clears the guilty?
Click to expand...
We'll get to that when we look at the cup He actually drank.

As a preview, the verse you quoted, and particularly the part you underline, betrays you. It says, "by no means". Does "by no means" mean what it says as absolutely as it seems to be saying it? If so, then even the means of crushing an innocent person wouldn't do it. So that needs to be unpacked a bit before we just go assuming things.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top