Atonement theories?

[awaken]

The question is: Jesus atoning sacrifice was a ransom to WHOM? God? Satan? Someone else?

Here's another way to look at it. The Bible tells us that Jesus was ruthlessly tortured and humiliated, and then He was brutally executed on a cross, and His body stayed in a tomb for 3 days, and it appears that He spent some time in Hades but without suffering, and then He rose from the dead and spent a period of time on the earth in His glorified body (John 20:19, 24-28, Acts 1:1-4), and then He visibly rose up into the sky and took His place beside the Father in heaven. Notice that none of those things which Jesus experienced after He died will be experienced by any sinners after they die. So again, Jesus did not experience the same punishment that sinners deserve, and sinners will not experience what Jesus experienced.

 

[12strings]

Jesus never sinned during His life on earth, and He did not become a sinner on the cross. He paid our ransom by becoming our Substitute, and His ruthless torture and brutal execution on the cross perfectly satisfied the Father's righteous requirement.

The Father did not punish Jesus as a sinner, but instead the Father punished sin itself through Jesus' atoning sacrifice.

Since Jesus did not become a sinner on the cross, He did not experience the same punishment that sinners deserve, and sinners will not experience what Jesus experienced.

So did God punish Jesus or not? IF not, why did he have to die?

And WHO was the ransom paid TOO?

 

[12strings]

Here's another way to look at it. The Bible tells us that Jesus was ruthlessly tortured and humiliated, and then He was brutally executed on a cross, and His body stayed in a tomb for 3 days, and it appears that He spent some time in Hades but without suffering, and then He rose from the dead and spent a period of time on the earth in His glorified body (John 20:19, 24-28, Acts 1:1-4), and then He visibly rose up into the sky and took His place beside the Father in heaven. Notice that none of those things which Jesus experienced after He died will be experienced by any sinners after they die. So again, Jesus did not experience the same punishment that sinners deserve, and sinners will not experience what Jesus experienced.

Got it, its not the same. Agreed...But I don't see how it disproves penal substitution.

Did Jesus not die to pay the penalty for our sin? Did we not deserve to be punished for that sin ourselves?

Could that not be accurately described as both substitutionary atonement and penal substitution? (And if someone could explain how these two are different, I would be grateful...they seem the same to me.)

 

[SovereignMercy]

The earliest Christians had those scriptures, and yet they didn't see them as teaching penal substitution. It took 1000 years for anyone to see "Satisfaction" (Anselm) in the Bible, and 1500 years before someone (Calvin) saw Penal Substitution there.

Don't know if you want me on this thread; I'll probably bring out discord.

What's new?

 

[SovereignMercy]

How about scriptural fact.

And they sang a new song, saying: "You are worthy to take the scroll, and to open its seals; for You were slain, and have redeemed us to God by Your blood out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation, and have made us kings and priests to our God; and we shall reign on the earth."

And she will bring forth a Son, and you shall call His name JESUS, for He will save His people from their sins.

"Nevertheless I will remember My covenant with you in the days of your youth, and I will establish an everlasting covenant with you. Then you will remember your ways and be ashamed, when you receive your older and your younger sisters; for I will give them to you for daughters, but not because of My covenant with you. And I will establish My covenant with you. Then you shall know that I am the LORD, that you may remember and be ashamed, and never open your mouth anymore because of your shame, when I provide you an atonement for all you have done," says the Lord GOD.'"

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Jesus never sinned during His life on earth, and He did not become a sinner on the cross. He paid our ransom by becoming our Substitute, and His ruthless torture and brutal execution on the cross perfectly satisfied the Father's righteous requirement.

That is Anselm's Satisfaction Theory, which I equally reject as strongly (well, maybe not quite) as Penal Substitution.

The Father did not punish Jesus as a sinner, but instead the Father punished sin itself through Jesus' atoning sacrifice.

Since Jesus did not become a sinner on the cross, He did not experience the same punishment that sinners deserve, and sinners will not experience what Jesus experienced.

Se my answer above in red.

 

[SovereignMercy]

Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise Him; He has put Him to grief. When You make His soul an offering for sin, He shall see His seed, He shall prolong His days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in His hand. He shall see the labor of His soul,and be satisfied. By His knowledge My righteous Servant shall justify many, for He shall bear their iniquities. Therefore I will divide Him a portion with the great, and He shall divide the spoil with the strong, because He poured out His soul unto death, and He was numbered with the transgressors, and He bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Got it, its not the same. Agreed...But I don't see how it disproves penal substitution.

Did Jesus not die to pay the penalty for our sin? Did we not deserve to be punished for that sin ourselves?

Could that not be accurately described as both substitutionary atonement and penal substitution? (And if someone could explain how these two are different, I would be grateful...they seem the same to me.)

I'm sometimes hesitant to use Wikipedia as a source, but the following article is actually quite good. It addresses your questions well, I believe:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substitutionary_atonement

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Could you give us a summary of the Christus victor view of why Christ had to die?

Also, do you reject all substitutionary theories? what then does it mean when the bible says christ is a propitiation, or atonement? or that our sin was laid on him?

I would like you on this thread...Hopefully we can have a civil discussion. I will keep searching the net for good descriptions of Christus victor?

I think the best way for me to answer this for now is to ask you to read up on the Eastern Orthodox views of God, man, sin, and salvation, particularly their view of the atonement, which is a Christus Victor view -- a wholistic view which intimately connects Jesus's birth (Incarnation), life, ministry, death (atonement) and resurrection; it does not isolate the atonement from His resurrection or other aspects of his life and work which the West does and other views of the atonement do. Also, the Eastern church focuses on the Resurrection as the culmination of Jesus's life and death - it is what makes the Christian faith different from all others.

Eastern views are wholistic, personal, mystical, internal and based on the view of God as a loving father; Western views are compartmental, external, legalistic and based on the idea of God as a feudal lord or judge.

 

[awaken]

Se my answer above in red.

I am too tired tonight to reply...will get back to this later..

 

[Van]

Sorry, I guess I fail to see the distinction between Penal Substitution and Substitution atonement. Did Christ not pay the penalty (penal) for our sin?

Sorry, but I explained that, read my posts. Substitutionary Atonement is the theory that God accepted Christ's sacrifice as the propitiation or means of salvation for the whole world, not individually but corporately. Then, when God puts an individual person spiritually in Christ, they undergo the circumcision of Christ and arise in Christ a new creation. Thus for everyone placed in Christ, their sins were washed away by regeneration.

So when were my sins forgiven? When Christ died or when I underwent the circumcision of Christ and my body of flesh (sin) was removed? This is simply another example, 12 Strings, where Calvinism has made a muddle of the gospel.

Picture it this way, when God puts you in Christ you are placed in a spring of living water. Thus once in the spring, when you do something that you see as sinful, does that sin cause a separation, a spiritual death? Nope, because of the constant washing of regeneration in the spring of living water. Just saying...

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Sorry, but I explained that, read my posts. Substitutionary Atonement is the theory that God accepted Christ's sacrifice as the propitiation or means of salvation for the whole world, not individually but corporately. Then, when God puts an individual person spiritually in Christ, they undergo the circumcision of Christ and arise in Christ a new creation. Thus for everyone placed in Christ, their sins were washed away by regeneration.

So when were my sins forgiven? When Christ died or when I underwent the circumcision of Christ and my body of flesh (sin) was removed? This is simply another example, 12 Strings, where Calvinism has made a muddle of the gospel.

Picture it this way, when God puts you in Christ you are placed in a spring of living water. Thus once in the spring, when you do something that you see as sinful, does that sin cause a separation, a spiritual death? Nope, because of the constant washing of regeneration in the spring of living water. Just saying...

I like that!

 

[Van]

Lets consider a few verses:

1) Isaiah 53:5 But He was pierced through for our transgressions,
He was crushed for our iniquities; The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, And by His scourging we are healed.

2) 2 Corinthians 5:14-15 "For the love of Christ controls us, having concluded this, that one died for all, therefore all died; 15 and He died for all, so that they who live might no longer live for themselves, but for Him who died and rose again on their behalf.

3) 2 Corinthians 5:21 “For He hath made Him to be a sin offering for us, who knew no sin: that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him.”

4) 1 Peter 2:24 “And He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed.”

5) Romans 5:6 For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.

6) Romans 5:8 "But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

7) 1 Corinthians 15:3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures.

8) 1 Corinthians 8:11 And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died?

9) Romans 14:15 "For if because of food your brother is hurt, you are no longer walking according to love. Do not destroy with your food him for whom Christ died."

So the concept of substitutionary reconciliation, Christ providing infinite satisfaction as God's Lamb, the concept of God's sin offering for mankind is solid as the Rock upon which it stands.

Look carefully at those verses where specific individuals of the audience are in view. There are born again brethren, thus the model of Christ dying for all mankind to provide the propitiation or means of salvation and the individual receiving that reconciliation through faith when Christ puts them individually in Christ.

Behold Biblical Substitutionary Atonement

 

[12strings]

Sorry, but I explained that, read my posts. Substitutionary Atonement is the theory that God accepted Christ's sacrifice as the propitiation or means of salvation for the whole world, not individually but corporately. Then, when God puts an individual person spiritually in Christ, they undergo the circumcision of Christ and arise in Christ a new creation. Thus for everyone placed in Christ, their sins were washed away by regeneration.

So when were my sins forgiven? When Christ died or when I underwent the circumcision of Christ and my body of flesh (sin) was removed? This is simply another example, 12 Strings, where Calvinism has made a muddle of the gospel.

Picture it this way, when God puts you in Christ you are placed in a spring of living water. Thus once in the spring, when you do something that you see as sinful, does that sin cause a separation, a spiritual death? Nope, because of the constant washing of regeneration in the spring of living water. Just saying...

Mmm...perhaps I have used the words penal substitution to describe what you call substitutionary atonement.

Is the primary argument against penal substitution that it seem to be too individualistic, as Christ making payment for specific sins of specific people (limited atonement)...as opposed to making sufficient sacrifice to atone for all people's sins...which is then applied upon conversion?

So, you would say that if I say, "Christ's death made atoning payment sufficient to remove the punishment for the sins of the whole world, but which is only applied to the individual when they place their faith in Christ and are converted"....but I call that Penal Substitution...am I just using the wrong words to describe it?

To answer your question...You are correct, My sins were forgiven when I placed my faith in Christ's death and Resurrection, and God accepted that faith and credited it as righteousness. Before that, as John says, I did not have the son, but the wrath of God remained on me.

 

[12strings]

I like that!

So is would van's description of substitutionary atonement be one you accept?

 

[OldRegular]

Also, the Eastern church focuses on the Resurrection as the culmination of Jesus's life and death - it is what makes the Christian faith different from all others.

So what is it that the "western world" celebrates on Easter Sunday?

I would simply say: No Incarnation, No Cross; No Cross, No Resurrection; No Resurrection, No Hope.

Without the resurrection the cross is just another tragedy in a world full of tragedies and we are still in our sins and are of all people most miserable and deluded.

1 Corinthians 15:17. And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.

Eastern views are wholistic, personal, mystical, internal and based on the view of God as a loving father; Western views are compartmental, external, legalistic and based on the idea of God as a feudal lord or judge.

And when were you "chosen", "elected", to be Pope of what the "western world" believes about God?

 

[Van]

Subsitutionary Atonement is not Penal Substitution

Mmm...perhaps I have used the words penal substitution to describe what you call substitutionary atonement.

Is the primary argument against penal substitution that it seem to be too individualistic, as Christ making payment for specific sins of specific people (limited atonement)...as opposed to making sufficient sacrifice to atone for all people's sins...which is then applied upon conversion?

So, you would say that if I say, "Christ's death made atoning payment sufficient to remove the punishment for the sins of the whole world, but which is only applied to the individual when they place their faith in Christ and are converted"....but I call that Penal Substitution...am I just using the wrong words to describe it?

To answer your question...You are correct, My sins were forgiven when I placed my faith in Christ's death and Resurrection, and God accepted that faith and credited it as righteousness. Before that, as John says, I did not have the son, but the wrath of God remained on me.

Yes 12 Strings, as you can see from the verses I quoted Christ died for all, and Christ died for the ungodly. Calvinism must rewrite all to read all the elect, and what they do with ungodly I do not know. However, if we just read those two verses, it is easy to see that Christ died for all the ungodly, i.e. fallen mankind. So rather than dying for this person's or that person's individual sins, Christ died for the sins of mankind corporately, providing infinite satisfaction. Thus anyone can be placed in Christ and receive the reconciliation provided by Christ's sacrifice on the cross.

Yes, unless you are being clever with your words, you have stated the biblical position correctly. But Penal Substitution, the Reformed Doctrine, does not mesh with that view. It asserts Christ died for the specific sins of the previously individually chosen before creation elect only. This is because if He died for the unchosen, and paid their sin penalty, then when they suffer in Hades and Gehenna, that would be double payment. Thus the Reformed Doctrine of Penal Substitution is simply a Trojan horse for Limited Atonement. Whereas the Biblical doctrine fits with Christ dying for all, for the many, for the ungodly, for sinners and on and on.

You can trace all the reversals of sequence by Calvinism to the concept that God chose individuals before creation. The whole NT cries out against that view. With this view, everything fits, Christ died for all, but only those who "receive" the reconciliation benefit from Christ's death, thus not double payment.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

So what is it that the "western world" celebrates on Easter Sunday?

I would simply say: No Incarnation, No Cross; No Cross, No Resurrection; No Resurrection, No Hope.

Without the resurrection the cross is just another tragedy in a world full of tragedies and we are still in our sins and are of all people most miserable and deluded.

1 Corinthians 15:17. And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.



And when were you "chosen", "elected", to be Pope of what the "western world" believes about God?

Having trouble with church history, are you? Because that's what I'm telling. If you don't think the Latin West -- RCC and Protestant -- believes differently from the Greek East, you need to do some studying.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

So is would van's description of substitutionary atonement be one you accept?

I am comfortable with some forms of substitution -- such as what the Christus Victor view encompasses. But I do not like or agree with any Western formulation that I know of: Satisfaction, penal substitution, the governmental theory, etc. These are all formed around the idea of God as judge, feudal lord, stern lawgiver, etc.

 

[OldRegular]

Having trouble with church history, are you? Because that's what I'm telling. If you don't think the Latin West -- RCC and Protestant -- believes differently from the Greek East, you need to do some studying.

I am not having trouble with Church History you are. I realize there are differences between the Orthodox communion and western Churches. However,
if you believe the following is the doctrine of the Church in the west you are sadly mistaken.

Western views are compartmental, external, legalistic and based on the idea of God as a feudal lord or judge.