Atonement Theories

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Finally, I want to thank you all for this topic. In replying to it I've once again been reminded -- by having to go back and search the Scriptures yet again (great swaths of them) -- how unified and glorious God's work really is.

Steve, I read somewhere that the Orthodox Church rejects Origional Sin... if so, they are going to come to different conclusions than Reformed churches with “Total Depravity” doctrine. Then Jesus is the incarnate Christ, not the victim that must suffer an die to appease a just god. Nowhere is He more telling when Jesus quotes the prophet, “ go and learn the meaning of the words: Mercy is what pleases me, not sacrifice”. Matthew 9:13 .

 

[Martin Marprelate]

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

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

Thank you for reading my blog, but do you actually intend to answer any of my questions? I did ask first. If not, I don't really see much point in answering any of yours. If so, why don't you get on with it?

 

[JonC]

Thank you for reading my blog, but do you actually intend to answer any of my questions? I did ask first. If not, I don't really see much point in answering any of yours. If so, why don't you get on with it?

Steve is correct. Until you address the issue of the "cup" it would be very difficult to move forward (it would be easy to talk past each other).

I hope you do choose to respond to his inquiry and the conversation progresses as I'm very interested in how he addresses your concerns.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Steve is correct. Until you address the issue of the "cup" it would be very difficult to move forward (it would be easy to talk past each other).

I hope you do choose to respond to his inquiry and the conversation progresses as I'm very interested in how he addresses your concerns.

I have no issues with the 'cup.' I asked Steve two questions, both of which he has declined to answer. Before I go any further I want to know if I'm going to get a proper discussion or not. I want to know what he thinks the 'cup' is. That doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

 

[JonC]

I have no issues with the 'cup.' I asked Steve two questions, both of which he has declined to answer. Before I go any further I want to know if I'm going to get a proper discussion or not. I want to know what he thinks the 'cup' is. That doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

And what cup was that?

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?

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

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

 

[Steve Allen]

@Martin Marprelate ,

Don't worry, we will discuss my answers to your questions, I promise. In fact, we are discussing them, just apophatically at the moment.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

 

[Martin Marprelate]

@Martin Marprelate ,

Don't worry, we will discuss my answers to your questions, I promise. In fact, we are discussing them, just apophatically at the moment.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

Well I suppose I am going to have to take the professed will for the deed.

With regard to the cup in Mark 10:35ff, there is no problem and precious little to discuss. All one has to do is to read to the end of the section. Mark 10:45. "For even the Son of Man did not come to be served but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many."
Now, did James and John give their lives as a ransom for many? Of course not! They will have their share in the cup of Christ's sufferings in that they too will suffer for the sake of the Gospel, but their sufferings will not be vicarious.

There is a slight parallel in Colossians 1:24, when Paul speaks of rejoicing 'in my sufferings for you, and fill up in my flesh what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ.' Yet in I Corinthians 1:13, he askes, 'Was Paul crucified for you?' Plainly expecting the answer 'no.' There is more suffering to be done-- indeed, Paul speaks of 'the fellowship of His sufferings-- but not to redeem mankind because that operation has plainly been accomplished (John 19:30).

Just a few words on the concept of the 'cup.' Figuratively speaking, drinking a cup, or rather, its contents, means fully undergoing a certain experience, which may be good (Psalms 16:5; 23:5; 116:13; Jeremiah 16:7) as well as bad. But in its negative sense, it almost always means receiving the wrath and/or judgement of God (e.g. Psalms 11:6; 75:8; Isaiah 51:17-22; Jeremiah 25:15; Lamentations 4:21; Ezekiel 23:32; Habakkuk 2:16; c.f. also Psalms 60:3). It's also found frequently in Revelation. 'All the wicked of the world' are going to have to drink this cup (Psalms 75:8); that means you and I in our natural state (Ephesians 2:3). But this cup is going to be given by the Father to the Lord Jesus Christ (John 18:11) to be drunk down to the dregs vicariously on behalf of sinners, and it involved not only suffering and death, but also separation from the Father (1 Thessalonians 1:9; Mark 15:34). This last is what so horrifies the Lord Jesus that on a night when it was cold enough for a fire to be lit in the high priest's courtyard (Luke 22:55) He sweated copiously-- the psychosomatic response of a human to impending trauma.

The reason that you and I and all the readers of this post are not going to have to drink the wine of God's wrath is because the Lord Jesus Christ has drunk it on our behalf (Isaiah 53:5). The idea that James and John could drink the same cup in that respect is ridiculous.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

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.

This is actually the wonder of the Atonement. God does not crush an innocent person. The Lord Jesus was made sin for us, which does not mean that He was made a sinner-- He was never that-- but it means that the sins of all those whom the Father had given Him were laid by imputation upon His sinless shoulders (Isaiah 53:6), and God the Father punished our sins in Him. He was personally innocent but judicially guilty.

FWIW, that is why in Psalm 69, which is clearly messianic (e.g. v.9), the Christ can say, "O God, You know My foolishness, and My sins are not hidden from You" (v.5). Our foolishness (in respect of our foolish rejection of God-- Romans 1:18ff) and our sins were laid upon Christ as if they were His own. He was numbered with the transgressors (Isaiah 53:11-12).

 

[Yeshua1]

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".

Jesus experienced hell upon the Christ, as he tasted seperation from the father and bore the sin debt of lost sinners, correct?

 

[Yeshua1]

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

Paul drank of the cup of suffering for sake of jesus, but the Cup jesus drank was the one that reprsented the wrath of god towards sins!

 

[Yeshua1]

This is actually the wonder of the Atonement. God does not crush an innocent person. The Lord Jesus was made sin for us, which does not mean that He was made a sinner-- He was never that-- but it means that the sins of all those whom the Father had given Him were laid by imputation upon His sinless shoulders (Isaiah 53:6), and God the Father punished our sins in Him. He was personally innocent but judicially guilty.

FWIW, that is why in Psalm 69, which is clearly messianic (e.g. v.9), the Christ can say, "O God, You know My foolishness, and My sins are not hidden from You" (v.5). Our foolishness (in respect of our foolish rejection of God-- Romans 1:18ff) and our sins were laid upon Christ as if they were His own. He was numbered with the transgressors (Isaiah 53:11-12).

This is the glory of the Cross, in that God Himself chose to become a man, and to bear on Himself the very curse/penalty/wrath of God that was owed and due for lost sinners!

 

[Steve Allen]

Well I suppose I am going to have to take the professed will for the deed.

Thank you (sincerely!) for hanging with me here. I'm keeping track of the questions I've been asked, and I'm doing my best to understand fully the breadth/depth of your mindset before rushing off into words that will not profit either of us. I really appreciate the trust you're putting in me, and I hope (by God's grace) to be able to offer something profitable as well. But I'm sometimes kind of entish [sic] when it comes to this kind of thing. (LOTR reference. )

Allow me some time while I digest and compose a respectfully thorough response to what you've posted. If possible, I'll begin to include my answers. (I may need one or two more points of clarification before proceeding to that, but I'll try.)

 

[Steve Allen]

(As a P.S. it's possible I didn't fully understand all the possible versions of PSA. I do understand what I was taught as an IFB, and the spirit with which it was taught, and the practical and doctrinal results. It's that that I've been fighting against, and I want to make that clear. Because in that paradigm at least there is a false image of God, and also a false cutting short of the work of God, and a far too shallow and optimistic view of the work of salvation, which leads to an incomplete Gospel being preached (at best). I think we can both agree, at least, that if this is the case, such a system should be enlightened with the rest of the story -- and flat out corrected where it's got things actually wrong.

You asked me what exactly I thought Jesus was doing on the Cross, and I can confidently and with full assurance of Scripture say that it was far, far more than just getting God "off our backs", as it were.)

 

[Martin Marprelate]

(As a P.S. it's possible I didn't fully understand all the possible versions of PSA. I do understand what I was taught as an IFB, and the spirit with which it was taught, and the practical and doctrinal results. It's that that I've been fighting against, and I want to make that clear.

I make no comment on American Fundamentalism save to say that I have seen several varieties of it on this board and really respect the theology of some of them.
FYI, I class myself as a Reformed Baptist.

You asked me what exactly I thought Jesus was doing on the Cross, and I can confidently and with full assurance of Scripture say that it was far, far more than just getting God "off our backs", as it were.)

With respect, I'm expecting you to do a bit better than that. Slagging off someone else's theology is the easy bit; I want to know your position. Surely you must have one?

 

[Steve Allen]

I make no comment on American Fundamentalism save to say that I have seen several varieties of it on this board and really respect the theology of some of them.
FYI, I class myself as a Reformed Baptist.

Yeah, given the depth of your responses I didn't expect IFB ... lol. (I don't mean that as an insult; just an observation based on my experiences.)

Given that (and to save us some time going over things we already agree on, or arguing about things we're never going to agree on) -- as Reformed, do you hold the bread and wine as mere symbols, or more than that? (It's relevant to the conversation.) If not, are you open to consideration of that as part of this discussion, or is it a closed issue? (If it's closed, we might not get very far.)

With respect, I'm expecting you to do a bit better than that. Slagging off someone else's theology is the easy bit; I want to know your position. Surely you must have one?

Oh, I know. That's why I mentioned the side note. It's also why I'm taking so much time and gathering so much information: yes, I have an understanding, but no, it's not an easy one to grok -- a bit of a paradigm shift. And I want to make sure I'm not short-changing you to the extent of my limited abilities.

I'm also double-checking my own beliefs and sources (Scripture primarily, of course) to make sure that I'm not accidentally saying things that aren't true or making a difference where there isn't really one. I'm using your own Scriptures (copious -- thanks!) and posts to double-check that. And all that takes time, too, and I'm doing in the context of also doing my day job and caring for a family, so I'm not that quick. Forgive my slowness!

 

[Yeshua1]

Yeah, given the depth of your responses I didn't expect IFB ... lol. (I don't mean that as an insult; just an observation based on my experiences.)

Given that (and to save us some time going over things we already agree on, or arguing about things we're never going to agree on) -- as Reformed, do you hold the bread and wine as mere symbols, or more than that? (It's relevant to the conversation.) If not, are you open to consideration of that as part of this discussion, or is it a closed issue? (If it's closed, we might not get very far.)



Oh, I know. That's why I mentioned the side note. It's also why I'm taking so much time and gathering so much information: yes, I have an understanding, but no, it's not an easy one to grok -- a bit of a paradigm shift. And I want to make sure I'm not short-changing you to the extent of my limited abilities.

I'm also double-checking my own beliefs and sources (Scripture primarily, of course) to make sure that I'm not accidentally saying things that aren't true or making a difference where there isn't really one. I'm using your own Scriptures (copious -- thanks!) and posts to double-check that. And all that takes time, too, and I'm doing in the context of also doing my day job and caring for a family, so I'm not that quick. Forgive my slowness!

I too am a Reformed Baptist, and would see the Ordiances as means of grace to wards us when we partake with faith , NOT sacramental saving grace as Rome teaches they have in them, but more experiencing the spiritual presense of the Lord with us and among us when we as an assembly partake of them. That would be the communion, as I still woudl see baptism exactly as Baptists would, regardless if reformed or not!

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Given that (and to save us some time going over things we already agree on, or arguing about things we're never going to agree on) -- as Reformed, do you hold the bread and wine as mere symbols, or more than that? (It's relevant to the conversation.) If not, are you open to consideration of that as part of this discussion, or is it a closed issue? (If it's closed, we might not get very far.)

I have wobbled a bit on this over the years, but I am now happy to support the 1689 Confession XXVIII & XXX. I think Para. VII may be the bit that interests you most.

Worthy receivers, outwardly taking the visible elements in this ordinance, also receive them inwardly and spiritually by faith, truly and in fact, but not carnally and corporally [i.e. They do not receive real human flesh] and feed upon Christ crucified, and all the benefits of His death. The body and blood of Christ is not present corporally or carnally but it is spiritually present to the faith of believers in the ordinance, just as the elements are present to their outward senses.

 

[Yeshua1]

I have wobbled a bit on this over the years, but I am now happy to support the 1689 Confession XXVIII & XXX. I think Para. VII may be the bit that interests you most.

Worthy receivers, outwardly taking the visible elements in this ordinance, also receive them inwardly and spiritually by faith, truly and in fact, but not carnally and corporally [i.e. They do not receive real human flesh] and feed upon Christ crucified, and all the benefits of His death. The body and blood of Christ is not present corporally or carnally but it is spiritually present to the faith of believers in the ordinance, just as the elements are present to their outward senses.

Which to me, seems to be stating that "while we do NOT hold with there being saving grave infused to us, as Catholics and Lutheryns would see it, still is something beyond what traditional Baptists see it as being."

 

[Steve Allen]

I have wobbled a bit on this over the years, but I am now happy to support the 1689 Confession XXVIII & XXX. I think Para. VII may be the bit that interests you most.

Worthy receivers, outwardly taking the visible elements in this ordinance, also receive them inwardly and spiritually by faith, truly and in fact, but not carnally and corporally [i.e. They do not receive real human flesh] and feed upon Christ crucified, and all the benefits of His death. The body and blood of Christ is not present corporally or carnally but it is spiritually present to the faith of believers in the ordinance, just as the elements are present to their outward senses.

Ok, I think I can work with that. As Orthodox, we "believe and confess that this is truly Thine own immaculate Body, and that this is truly Thine own precious Blood" -- although we don't go so far as the Romans or the Lutherans in attempting to define how this is the case, nor do we fail to discern His body and blood by denying their presence. We just take His Word for it and leave it at that.

I think the sense of the 1689 Confession regarding the faithful feeding upon Christ crucified (although we would add and risen) and by such feeding receiving the benefits of His death comports well enough the Orthodox understanding of what's going on in communion for us to move forward. (We can always revisit it if necessary.)

(I would place outside the bounds, for now, our potential disagreement over the words "but not carnally and corporally".)

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Ok, I think I can work with that.

Good. I have no objections to a discussion on the Lord's Supper, but I think it would be better to open a new thread.