Atonement theories

[Matt Black]

I have several problems with Penal Substitutionary Atonement being the only theology of the cross. One is that PSA has not been the only atonement theory held by Christendom throughout its history,as TP has highlighted. The other is that I have the following problems with PSA itself:-

1. How can it be in anyway just and logical for finite and time-limited sin to result in infinite and eternal punishment?

2. If I am wrong about #1 above, how does anything less than infinite and eternal punishment of Jesus 'pay for' our sin by way of that substitution ? Jesus' death and 'punishment' were finite - how does that square with #1 above?

3. In addition, doesn't the whole PSA thing turn God the Father into some kind of Divine child abuser or something?

4. If just PSA is a sufficient explanation of what happened on the cross, then why the Resurrection - what's the point of Christ rising again?

A quick point on the subtle but important difference between Substitutionary Atonement and Penal Substitutionary Atonement. Substitutionary Atonement is a fairly general term, basically Christ died in our place. Penal Substitution is more specific in explaining how substitution works, with a legal meaning - ie: comparing sin to crime, and death as the punishment in a law court, with Christ paying the penalty for us.

There is also a civil model of substitutionary atonement that I "prefer" if one has to have substitutionary atonement.

E.g. God sues me in civil court for the harm that my sins have done to his Kingdom, but I can't give God anything that makes up for the seriousness of my sin, so his Son pays the price instead. In my understanding, this was the original model of substitutionary atonement and it was meant to address the shortcoming of the Christus Victor (Christ is victorious over sin and death) which didn't take sin seriously enough.

My problem with penal substitutionary atonement is that it makes God a cosmic bully who revels in the spilling of human blood instead of the Creator God who told us to forgive seventy times seven. It also goes totally against the Jewish understanding of the story of Moses and Isaac which Jews understand as YWH abolishing the sacrificing of one's children to the gods.

There is no need to believe in PSA to believe in SA. I don't believe in PSA because I believe it is not taught in Scripture and makes God out to be unjust. It undermines precisely what it seeks to uphold, the justice of God.

However, I equally believe that it is essential to uphold the idea of God's wrath against sin because His anger proceeds out of His love. It is not possible to see God as loving unless the messed up, hideous state of the world really hacks God off. If rape, torture, poverty and the like don't make him angry then how can He really love the people he has made?

God's anger does not proceed out of an arbitrary sense of justice which must be satisfied but out of a passionate love for humanity. The cross must therefore deal with sin on two levels to achieve atonement (i.e. reconciliation, the restoration of good relationship between God and humanity): it must somehow deal with the righteous and loving anger of God against sin, and it must subjectively transform human rebelliousness and ignorance, in which we have rejected God.


Yours in Christ

Matt

[ May 06, 2005, 10:56 AM: Message edited by: Matt Black ]

 

[TexasSky]

Remember that old song, "What can wash away my sin? Nothing but the blood of Jesus."

Well, I honestly believe that hymn is literally accurate.

God is Holy.

The bible teaches that unholiness cannot survive in the presence of pure holiness. A lot of people read that as God won't allow it, but I read the passages as simple statement of fact, like a physics law. The Holiness of Almighty God is so great, that it overpowers and destroys unholiness like sunlight destroys darkness.

Man is unholy.

Somehow, blood sacrifice of pure cleansed. I don't know how, or why, but that is how Jews atoned for sin, the sacrifice of a lamb or other creature. That is how they cleansed. Take a long walk through the books of the law and you'll see over and over that the blood sacrifice is what was used to cleanse from sin.

You see a connection to blood and forgiveness in the passover also. Houses marked by the blood of the lamb were untouched by the angel-of-death that night. The blood itself somehow protected them. Those who obeyed God and used that protection were spared the loss of their child.

Christ was the blood sacrifice that atoned for all of us. He was the Passover Lamb for us. The purest, the most valuable. The blood that washed away sin for over 2000 years. We're marked to be spared by His blood. His sacrifice, his blood, is why, on the final judgement day, we are passed over by the angel of death.

You implied or stated that this makes God cruel. I disagree. I've known God for a long time now, and I've never, ever seen any aspect of God that is cruel. The longer I know Him, the more convinced I am that He is more loving, more forgiving, than we have yet to comprehend. This leads me to believe that contrary to, "God hates sin, so he deliberately smites sinners," theory, that "God hates sin because it results in the death of sinners, and God loves people, and people are sinners." Instead of, "God set up impossible rules," I see a God that said, "Okay, if unholy can't survive my Holiness, how can we make you unholy people holy enough to survive? I know. I'll give a part of my holiness to you via Christ."

I know that whole theory sounds nuts to most of you, but ... I just do NOT know a cruel God. I know a just God that gave the world and mankind so many more chances than man would give men for no reason other than He loves us. Even when we are rude, disobedient, spiteful, and cruel to one another - He looks past our flaws and says, "If we can get rid of that sin, ...... " ....

 

[Matt Black]

I'd honestly rather that someone who understand PSA and its associated theology try to directly answer these questions:

1. How is justice served if God suffers the punishment due to me for my sins?
2. If the punishment for my sins is eternal death why is God not eternally dead, as he suffered my punishment?
3. If the punishment for my sins is temporal death why have no Christians evaded it?

That'll do for starters.

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[billwald]

Say one on my kids sassed his mom. Instead of punishing him I should hit my thumb with a hammer and my pain will satisfy my anger?

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by Matt Black:
I have several problems with Penal Substitutionary Atonement being the only theology of the cross. One is that PSA has not been the only atonement theory held by Christendom throughout its history,as TP has highlighted. The other is that I have the following problems with PSA itself:-

1. How can it be in anyway just and logical for finite and time-limited sin to result in infinite and eternal punishment?

That has nothing to do with PSA. You are arguing against the "magnitude" of the debt owed - not against the principle of "PSA".

(BTW - I agree with your magnitude of debt argument -- but it is out of place as an argument against atonement).

Matt said
2. If I am wrong about #1 above, how does anything less than infinite and eternal punishment of Jesus 'pay for' our sin by way of that substitution ? Jesus' death and 'punishment' were finite - how does that square with #1 above?

Jesus is "infinite God" so he has "infinite capacity" to suffer.

However adding up a bunch of "infinities" is probably not what is happening - so "Finite punishment" with some having LESS punishment than others (see Luke 12:45-49) is what really happens.

In any case - that still leaves us with a debt that CAN be measured and paid.

But here again you are arguing about God's "Ability" to measure and pay -- rather than the principle of paying as a substitute (regardless of how difficult it is to tally the debt owed).

Matt Black said --
3. In addition, doesn't the whole PSA thing turn God the Father into some kind of Divine child abuser or something?

That would only be true if sentient beings that God made were never "Actually" responsible for their actions. AND it would also require that God "be paid".

But in this case it is GOD PAYING FOR the children (ALL OF THEM) so that NONE of them NEEDs to suffer death - the debt OWED by sin (the suffering of the second death).

But here you are arguing about the "Fairness" of even HAVING debt. Still it is clear from scripture that we DO have debt of sin "For the wages of sin IS DEATH" Rom 6 (the second death).

Matt Black
4. If just PSA is a sufficient explanation of what happened on the cross, then why the Resurrection - what's the point of Christ rising again?

Christ refuses the worship of Mary until AFTER He ascends to the Father. The resurrection and approval of the Father that all is balanced (that the demands of the Law have been met) confirm that the sacrifice was equal to the debt owed.

Again - I don't see the point of questioning the resurrection when debating whether God is using PSA as a "solution" or not.

Surely God the Son has "Some purpose for living" other than "paying other people's debt" in your view. He is the Creator after all.

Matt Black --
A quick point on the subtle but important difference between Substitutionary Atonement and Penal Substitutionary Atonement. Substitutionary Atonement is a fairly general term, basically Christ died in our place. Penal Substitution is more specific in explaining how substitution works, with a legal meaning - ie: comparing sin to crime, and death as the punishment in a law court, with Christ paying the penalty for us.

Absolutely correct.

God (the Trinity) is the authority behind the Law of the Universe.

Each time someone violates the Law - the Law is tested and by extension the authority of the Law Giver.

Failure to maintain law results in dissolution of the society. "Chaos" in the created realm.

God is King - Sovereign and Law Giver. His Law "stands".

The easy way out was simply to toss all the law-breakers in hell. Satan and his angels being a good example of such a solution.

The Law stands and the universe is purged of sin.

The "hard part" is when the Sovereign King decides that "forgiveness" is also an option.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Matt said --
There is also a civil model of substitutionary atonement that I "prefer" if one has to have substitutionary atonement.

E.g. God sues me in civil court for the harm that my sins have done to his Kingdom, but I can't give God anything that makes up for the seriousness of my sin, so his Son pays the price instead. In my understanding, this was the original model of substitutionary atonement and it was meant to address the shortcoming of the Christus Victor (Christ is victorious over sin and death) which didn't take sin seriously enough.

There are two problems with that.

#1. Christ IS GOD not some third party who could "PAY GOD" on our behalf.
#2. God never "gets paid" in this deal.

You can not pay God by torturing Him.

You can not "pay God" by tormenting even ONE of His children in the fires of hell (And that includes Satan).

God says "AS I LIVE I HAVE NO PLEASURE in the death of the wicked" -- "OH why will you die - TURN to Me and LIVE!"

If God WAS getting PAID by hell or death or suffering then he would be portraying himself as the petty deity you were talking about initially rather than a loving Creator God.

His act in "punishing sin" is NEEDED to maintain order and show that the Law is not to be violated. It is NOT needed "so He can have joy" or "get paid".

If God "was getting PAID" by watching Christ (God the SON) suffer then there is a "cosmic monster" picture far worse than anything you have suggested so far.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Matt said --

God's anger does not proceed out of an arbitrary sense of justice which must be satisfied but out of a passionate love for humanity. The cross must therefore deal with sin on two levels to achieve atonement (i.e. reconciliation, the restoration of good relationship between God and humanity): it must somehow deal with the righteous and loving anger of God against sin, and it must subjectively transform human rebelliousness and ignorance, in which we have rejected God.

That is true in PSA.

The "reason" that the law has "teeth" is that sin causes more damage, suffering and harm than simply enforcing the Law (or not breaking it to start with).

It is only because sin is a cancer that destroys that boundaries are needed (the Law of God).

So once you observe that the Law is "not arbitrary" then it is apparent that it stands even as God's throne stands for justice AND Mercy.

He is no more willing to show Unjust Mercy than to show unmerciful justice. He is both JUST and the Justifier of those who diligently seek Him.

The justice of God is a theme that appears repeatedly in scripture. The same is true of His Love and Mercy.

Even the 7th day Sabbath memorial of His creative Act in making us was "made FOR mankind".

Rather than being an arbitrary dictator that is simply looking to chop off some toes - God is creating a safe boundary in the form of His Law of Love - His "royal law" the "Law of Liberty".

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by billwald:
Say one on my kids sassed his mom. Instead of punishing him I should hit my thumb with a hammer and my pain will satisfy my anger?

Funny!

What if you had God's ability to "make a NEW creaetion" of your child supernaturally and to also supernaturally "crucify the old self" - thus putting an end to the one that was hostile to his mother and creating one for whom "all things had become new" one who "By the spirit was putting to death the deeds of the flesh".

Surely having such "supernatural power" you would choose to "use it" rather than simply beating your kids hoping for some change over time.

But what if you ALSO had to show that the penalty - or violation "had a painful consequence"? The "new creation" that now "loves their parent with all their heart and soul" would NOT want to see their parent have to "suffer" for something that the child did.

Agreed?

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Marcia]

Originally posted by TP:
Greetings,

You said: Satan is not owed anything

Response: Granted, God does not owe Satan anything. However, scripture seems to imply that satan has some sort of dominion over the world. When Jesus was tempted, Satan offered quite a lot of worldly power: Jesus didn't say he didn't have the power to give what he promised, rather jesus said that he would not worship him. What sort of control, or dominion did Satan have before Jesus?

peace

I think the only dominion Satan has is that which we are willing to give him, and that is plenty. Just because Jesus did not say to Satan that he couldn't offer him worldly power does not mean Satan had worldly power. That is faulty argument called an argument from silence. Jesus' silence on that does not mean Satan had worldly power.

Satan has the kind of power that we, in our fallen state, give him. We want what he likes to tempt us with and are willing to lie, cheat, rationalize, be deceived, maybe even steal and kill to have whatever (speaking generally here of mankind).

Satan does not need to coerce us to sin but he tempts us. That is another area of power he has.

Satan does not own anything; all of creation belongs to the Lord.

 

[Matt Black]

What about the consequences of the Fall, then - was not the dominion over the earth given to Adam forfeited to Satan?

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[BobRyan]

Yes - Adam gave that dominion that "he had" over to Satan. But this has nothing to do with "payment to Satan".

Satan is the leader of sin and rebellion and is not "owed the debt of sin" as if sin is some violation of his rights and he is "owed" because of it.

Satan's dominion is merely a "legal" technicality. Lets say someone conns your child into signing away their citizenship and becoming a citizen of some bogus country. Then they say "since I am king of this new country all that you had as yours - is now mine".

However if you can show that they are still a cicitzen of the US and that they are minors - and under US law their contract is not binding without a parent's signature -- you can void the claims of the conn artist.

This is closer to what is happening with the "dominion of the earth". Satan claims that the fall of Adam puts Adam out of God's kingdom and into Satan's kingdom because GOD demans death for sinners so GOD will not continue to accept man as a member of HIS kingdom.

(Remember the only one that "actually" has authority in the universe is God. So Satan's ploy is simply manipulating God's own system of justice.)

God shows that IN HIS kingdom there is a way for sinners to be "Redeemed" in a way that satisfies the demands of HIS Law (death of the sinner) while still accomplishing redemption.

Basically Satan was charging that God's system is inflexible and can not accomodate the idea of redemption once a free will being has sinned (As did Lucifer and the angels).

Surprise surprise - eh?

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by Matt Black:

1. How is justice served if God suffers the punishment due to me for my sins?
2. If the punishment for my sins is eternal death why is God not eternally dead, as he suffered my punishment?
3. If the punishment for my sins is temporal death why have no Christians evaded it?

#1. What does justice demand?

In the case of theft or loss of monetary resources - "repayment" plus "punishment" to discourage future offenders. But that is not the "kind of offense" we have with sin.

Sin is like the "offense" of murder - because sin takes a child of God away from Him. Justice demands the "death of the offender" in this case and it demands that it be done in such a distasteful way that it discourages future offense. (in this case the suffeirng and torment of the 2nd death)

So for the Law of God to be satisfied God had to get rid of the sinner, and had to pay the 2nd-death price of the torment and suffering of the second death.

(We can talk about "how" this happens in the Gospel later).

However in this case Satan is not the "Law" nor the "Law giver" so "he is not getting paid".

God is the one 'suffering and paying' so "HE is not getting paid".

God as judge is validating that the price paid (price HE paid) is equal to the debt owed by the Law (His Law). However this is nothing like "propitiating a pagan deity until he relents and you obtain his favor". God does not "torture Himself until He finally feels better about you".

2. If the punishment for my sins is eternal death why is God not eternally dead, as he suffered my punishment?


The "punishment" is the suffering and death of the "second death" which involved "torement" in the presence of God and of His holy ones (Rev 14:10). With the smoke of that torment (the reminder) going up forever and ever.

Christ had to die the SECOND DEATH for all mankind.

If the "price" was "infinite torment over infinite time" then you are right - by definition "infinite God" could only atone for ONE person's debt and even then -- He could never be raised from the dead.

However - the price is not "infinite". Notice that in Luke 12:45-49 Some owe more and some owe less.

Notice also that in Matt 18 Christ says that the debt of sin will be fully paid. (instead of NEVER getting paid until infinity is up).

Notice that in Matt 10 it is BOTH BODY AND Soul that are "destroyed" in fiery hell.

Sinners are never promised "immortal life in hell" or even "immortal bodies in hell that can not be destroyed".

And as we all know - no text says "man is immortal" or "man has an immortal soul". But there are texts that say the opposite.


3. If the punishment for my sins is temporal death why have no Christians evaded it?

The first death is not considered to be "real" death in the economy of God. We see that in John 11 where Christ says that believers "never die" because in God's mind - the first death (temporal death) does not even count at all as the "wages of sin" which is REAL death - eternal death.

In Christ,

Bob

[ May 11, 2005, 08:43 AM: Message edited by: BobRyan ]

 

[BobRyan]

Getting back to the legal issues in the fall of man. Notice that in Daniel 7 -- there is a great judgment scene where the court sits and the books are opened. Only AFTER judgment is passed "in favor of the saints" does the persecution of the saints end and the Kingdom get turned OVER to the saints.

The fact that this earth is still not turned over to the saints and the saints are still suffering persecution tells us that the judgment of Daniel 7 has not reached the point of "Judgment passed in favor of the saints" (if in fact that judgment scene has already started).

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Matt Black]

But the 2nd death is eternal; Jesus was only in the grave 3 days. Hardly eternal, is it?

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[BobRyan]

Which is what leads us to believe that the "suffering" of the 2nd death is the more "essential part".

Death is simply a dormant state - according to the Bible no suffering or joy or thought takes place in it. The "suffering is over" once death takes place.

Isaiah 57
1The righteous man perishes, and no man takes it to heart;
And devout men are taken away, while no one understands
For the righteous man is taken away from evil,
2He enters into peace;
They rest in their beds,
Each one who walked in his upright way.

When "Jesus Christ the righteous" was resting in the tomb - He was indeed one who had during life "Walked in His upright way".

His was the "ultimate" rest for the one who is obedient until death.

More time in the dormant state would not "pay more suffering owed by sin". Once He had died - the "paying time" had ended.

The only thing left was the "sign of approval" in the form of the resurrection.

The payment-in-kind exchange where Christ pays our debt ends with the "Suffering of the 2nd death" and that alone is sufficient to satisify that part of justice that says punishment is distasteful so as to "discourage" would be offenders.

You are right that "another aspect" of the punishment of the lost is that in addition to "sufferings of the 2nd death" they also never go to heaven - something that is not applicable to Christ and which Christ does not "experience".

But since the dormant state is to "experience nothing" -- His having died is certainly taking on all that could be done - or that the law could demand for justice to be 'satisfied'.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Matt Black]

Hmmm...not sure I agree. Orthodox (with a small 'o'!) Christian theology teaches that sin demands eternal torment - the fires of Hell. That is the 'Second Death'.Christ's death alone does not achieve the necessary 'satisfaction' on that front.

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[BobRyan]

Well there is no substitute for reading the text.

If "infinite suffering" is the "price for ONE sinner" than the infinite God gets to "pay the price" for "ONE".

In the mean time Matt 10 still says "destroy" and includes BOTH "Body AND SOUL".

In the mean time Luke 12:45-49 still says some suffer more than others rather than all suffer "infinite torment".

In the mean time Rev 10:14 still says that ALL that suffering "takes place IN THE PRESENCE of the Lamb AND of His Holy Ones".

If you are asking for way to violate all these scriptures and then insert that "idea" into the Bible concept of "atonement" only to ask "Now how can that really work" -- then I am not the guy to play the game.

 

[Matt Black]

OK, what's your concept of Hell, then?

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[Marcia]

SDA followers (like Bob) believe in annihilationism. That means that trusting in Christ does not really save us from suffering the wrath of God; it means we saved from annihilation. If one is annihilated, one ceases to exist and is not suffering the eternal separation from God.

Annihilationism diminishes the sacrifice of Christ on our behalf, and diminishes the wrath of God on sin.

Here is a good refutation of annihilationism:
http://www.tektonics.org/af/annix.html

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by Matt Black:
OK, what's your concept of Hell, then?

Yours in Christ

Matt

My concept is that Christ was right when He said that "BOTH BODY AND Soul are destroyed in fiery hell" Matt 10:28

Matt 10
28 ""Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

And by "My concept" I don't mean that I wrote Matt 10:28.

The view I accept is that Rev 14:10 is 100% accurate when it says that the TORMENT of those who SUFFER the fire and brimstone of the 2nd death will be torment "IN THE PRESENCE of the Lamb and of His Holy Ones".... So however long you want to say it lasts - we are all right there for it.

My understanding is that after the Millennium of Rev 20 - those over whom "The second death" DOES have power are raised from the dead and judged and sent into the lake of fire. There they experience the torment described in Rev 14:10. There they experience the "destruction of both Body AND soul" as Christ stated in Matt 28:10 because "Fiery hell" is in fact "The lake of Fire" the "second death".

Each soul suffers "according to his works" with the suffering "in proportion" to the deeds done in the body. For the books are opened (As we see in Rev 20) and the dead are judged out of those things written in the books.

As we see in Colossians 2 the Law of God generates a "certificate of debt" for each one of us. If we reject the full and complete satisfaction of that debt paid by Christ - then "The debt remains" and we must pay it.

In Matt 18 you see this spelled out in Parable form. The DEBT is large - but finite. The debtor can not pay - and so the debt is paid for him. But if he rejects that payment - HE must pay his OWN DEBT even though payment was fully available for him from the King.

In Christ,

Bob