Atonement theories?

[Michael Wrenn]

Isaiah 53:6 - "the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all."
Isaiah 53:12 - "yet he bore the sin of many, and makes intercession for the transgressors."
Romans 3:25 whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins.
2 Corinthians 5:21 - "For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God."
Galatians 3:13 - "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us -- for it is written, Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree."

None of these teach penal substitution. The earliest churches didn't see it in these verses or any others. No one saw it until Calvin, the legalist and murderer.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Michael why did you avoid this post?

I didn't see it.

I didn't say that God could not be or never was angry. I said He did not torture, punish, and kill His innocent Son as the means to forgive guilty humans. That's what penal substitution teaches. I deny it, the early church knew nothing of it, and it was not known until Calvin invented it. And it fit right in with his character.

 

[Revmitchell]

None of these teach penal substitution. The earliest churches didn't see it in these verses or any others. No one saw it until Calvin, the legalist and murderer.

Look you are going to have to quit bringing up Calvin and stand on your own two feet.

 

[Revmitchell]

I didn't see it.

I didn't say that God could not be or never was angry. I said He did not torture, punish, and kill His innocent Son as the means to forgive guilty humans. That's what penal substitution teaches. I deny it, the early church knew nothing of it, and it was not known until Calvin invented it. And it fit right in with his character.

It fits right in with the character of most Christians as most hold to that position. You seem to have your own moral code beyond what God does because those verses make it very clear. What part of "the Lord laid on Him our iniquity." does not apply to penal substitution.

Do you know what propitiation means?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I didn't see it.

I didn't say that God could not be or never was angry. I said He did not torture, punish, and kill His innocent Son as the means to forgive guilty humans. That's what penal substitution teaches. I deny it, the early church knew nothing of it, and it was not known until Calvin invented it. And it fit right in with his character.

Calvin did not persecute Jews like Marty Luther did, setting the tone in Germany for centuries & prepared its people for genocidal holocausts. ML was also a great friend of his fellow reformer Zwingli, right.

 

[OldRegular]

I didn't see it.

I didn't say that God could not be or never was angry. I said He did not torture, punish, and kill His innocent Son as the means to forgive guilty humans. That's what penal substitution teaches. I deny it, the early church knew nothing of it, and it was not known until Calvin invented it. And it fit right in with his character.

I have said earlier that don't adhere to any particular doctrine of the atonement. Rather I look to see what Scripture tells me. You keep whining about penal substitution. Why not address the multitude of Scripture that has been posted.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Calvin did not persecute Jews like Marty Luther did, setting the tone in Germany for centuries & prepared its people for genocidal holocausts. ML was also a great friend of his fellow reformer Zwingli, right.

I agree that all the Magisterial Reformers were persecutors and murderers.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

It fits right in with the character of most Christians as most hold to that position. You seem to have your own moral code beyond what God does because those verses make it very clear. What part of "the Lord laid on Him our iniquity." does not apply to penal substitution.

Do you know what propitiation means?

Most Christians hold to penal substitution? I beg to differ. The EOC does not; the RCC does not; most Anabaptists do not; most Wesleyans do not; many General Baptists do not; most Pentecostals do not; most Anglicans do not; most Quakers do not; most Lutherans do not.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Look you are going to have to quit bringing up Calvin and stand on your own two feet.

I'm standing on my own two feet; that's why I don't believe penal substitution. It's those who believe in penal substitution who are leaning on Calvin, the originator of the theory.

 

[Revmitchell]

Most Christians hold to penal substitution? I beg to differ.

I know you do but that does not change facts. But you still are not dealing with the scripture I presented.

 

[Revmitchell]

I'm standing on my own two feet; that's why I don't believe penal substitution. It's those who believe in penal substitution who are leaning on Calvin, the originator of the theory.

No one is leaning on Calvin. And since Calvin is your whole argument means you cannot reasonably support your view scripturally.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

I have said earlier that don't adhere to any particular doctrine of the atonement. Rather I look to see what Scripture tells me. You keep whining about penal substitution. Why not address the multitude of Scripture that has been posted.

Whining? Is that your accusatory word for anyone who dares to disagree with you?

I have addressed the scriptures. I said I don't see penal substitution there, just as the earliest churches did not and no one else did until Calvin.

But just to show you, and to repeat, that I do not just disagree with penal substitution, I also don't agree with the other Latin Western-contrived theories: Satisfaction, governmental, etc. All of these are based on the faulty presupposition that God is an angry vengeful feudal lord, monarch, or governor whose wrath must be appeased, and it could only be appeased by His torturing, punishing, and killing His innocent Son so He could forgive us and pardon us. Not only is this unscriptural, it gives a false picture of the nature of God, distorting His true character as a loving Father working through restorative justice and not punitive justice.

This is what penal substitution, satisfaction, and other Latin theories propose: God beat His Son unmercifully and then killed him; that satisfied his wrath against sin, so then he could forgive us since he took out all his anger and vengeance on Jesus. This is not only unscriptural, it is ridiculous and immoral.

 

[Revmitchell]

I have addressed the scriptures. I said I don't see penal substitution there,

That does not address the scriptures posted.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

No one is leaning on Calvin. And since Calvin is your whole argument means you cannot reasonably support your view scripturally.

You are leaning on Calvin, and all those who believe penal substitution are because the theory is to be found nowhere else.

Christus Victor is all through the NT; I have cited scriptures that support it. The earliest churches found it there, and so did Christians for the first millennium. It is the oldest atonement view.

I've got to go to bed, Rev; will field more of your accusations tomorrow, Lord willing that I am still here.

 

[12strings]

MICHAEL WREN: What I object to in number 6 is the statement that affirms penal substitution: "."...being punished on the cross in our place".

So, it is the "being punished" part you disagree with...not necessarily the substitution that he "Died in our place," correct?

What of the following?

"But if those who are under this law appear to be under a curse for not having observed all the requirements, how much more shall all the nations appear to
be under a curse who practise idolatry, who seduce youths, and commit other crimes? If,then, the Father of all wished His Christ for the whole human family to take upon Him the curses of all, knowing that, after He had been crucified and was dead, He would raise Him up, why do you argue about Him, who submitted to suffer these things according to the Father’s will, as if He were accursed, and do not rather bewail yourselves? For although His Father caused Him to suffer these things in behalf of the human family, yet you did not commit the deed as in obedience to the will of God." - Justin Martyr

“And the Lamb of God not only did this, but was chastised on our
behalf, and suffered a penalty He did not owe, but which we owed because of the
multitude of our sins; and so He became the cause of the forgiveness of our sins, because
He received death for us, and transferred to Himself the scourging, the insults, and the
dishonour, which were due to us, and drew down upon Himself the appointed curse, being
made a curse for us." - Eusebius of Caesarea

"Thus He offered Himself to the death of the accursed that He might break the curse of the Law, offering Himself voluntarily a victim to God the Father, in order that by means of a voluntary victim the curse which attended the discontinuance of the regular victim might be removed." - Hilary of Poitiers (c. 300-368)

"Thus, taking a body like our own, because all our bodies were liable to the corruption of
death, He surrendered His body to death in place of all, and offered it to the Father. This
He did out of sheer love for us, so that in His death all might die, and the law of death
thereby be abolished because, having fulfilled in His body that for which it was appointed,
it was thereafter voided of its power for men." - Athanasius

"If one that was himself a king, beholding a robber and malefactor under punishment, gave
his well-beloved son, his only-begotten and true, to be slain; and transferred the death and
the guilt as well, from him to his son (who was himself of no such character), that he
might both save the condemned man and clear him from his evil reputation; and then if,
having subsequently promoted him to great dignity, he had yet, after thus saving him and
advancing him to that glory unspeakable, been outraged by the person that had received
such treatment: would not that man, if he had any sense, have chosen ten thousand deaths
rather than appear guilty of so great ingratitude? This then let us also now consider with
ourselves, and groan bitterly for the provocations we have offered our Benefactor; nor let
us therefore presume, because though outraged he bears it with long-suffering; but rather
for this very reason be full of remorse." - John Chrysostom

"But as Christ endured death as man, and for man; so also, Son of God as He was, ever living in His own
righteousness, but dying for our offences, He submitted as man, and for man, to bear the curse which accompanies death. And as He died in the flesh which He took in bearing our punishment, so also, while ever blessed in His own righteousness, He was cursed for our offences, in the death which He suffered in bearing our punishment." - Augustine of Hippo

(all citations from this article: http://www.tms.edu/tmsj/tmsj20i.pdf [admittedly, a pro-penal substitution article...but the quotations should stand and be dealt with on their own])

This is not to say other models of Atonement are invalid, but that a discussion of what Christ did on the cross has always INCLUDED speaking of his punishment on our behalf.

 

[12strings]

And one more biblical argument that I'm not sure has been made yet on this thread (if so, i missed it):

Hebrews 10:29 How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has trampled underfoot the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know him who said, “Vengeance is mine; I will repay.” And again, p“The Lord will judge his people.” 31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.


Theses verses seem to speak of a God who
a. Judges sin, punishes sinners, takes vengeance (in this context, not for someone else, but for himself, when his sacrifice is rejected).
b. is "outraged" at those who spurn the salvation he offers.
c. we should be fearful of falling into his hands when he is angry with us.

It raises the question: Did Jesus' sacrifice deal with these problems, or not? and in what way?

Or is this passage to be taken as ONLY applicable to those who reject Christ's sacrifice...Which I think from a Christus Victor view would be something like this.
1. There is no divine Wrath toward sin that must be satisfied by Christ's sufferings...but there is our own sin and the bondage & death it brings, which must be dealt with on the cross by Christ defeating death and evil.
2. This sacrifice makes it possible, no for God to forgive, but for men to be freed from their bondage to sin and be reconciled.
3. BUT...according to Heb. 10...IF someone then rejects the sacrifice of Christ, THEN there IS divine wrath toward that person? (IF I got 1 & 2 right, then how does Hebrews 10 fit in with that?)

 

[OldRegular]

Whining? Is that your accusatory word for anyone who dares to disagree with you?

Not usually!

 

[OldRegular]

But just to show you, and to repeat, that I do not just disagree with penal substitution, I also don't agree with the other Latin Western-contrived theories: Satisfaction, governmental, etc. All of these are based on the faulty presupposition that God is an angry vengeful feudal lord, monarch, or governor whose wrath must be appeased, and it could only be appeased by His torturing, punishing, and killing His innocent Son so He could forgive us and pardon us. Not only is this unscriptural, it gives a false picture of the nature of God, distorting His true character as a loving Father working through restorative justice and not punitive justice.

I believe that you have identified the source of your problem. You have let your inadequate, perhaps false, belief regarding

Latin Western-contrived theories: Satisfaction, governmental, etc

obscure what Scripture teaches about the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ. That is the reason I asked you earlier to address the Scripture that many have posted in response to your emotional outbursts against

Latin Western-contrived theories: Satisfaction, governmental, etc.

I have no idea where you got your ideas concerning Latin Western-contrived theories but you do yourself and all on this Forum a disservice when you paint all with the broad brush of your mistaken views. Forget penal satisfaction. I do! That concept is simply the attempt of fallible man to understand what God did for us in Jesus Christ! Consider those Scripture that have been presented and address them.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I have no idea where you got your ideas concerning Latin Western-contrived theories but you do yourself and all on this Forum a disservice when you paint all with the broad brush of your mistaken views. Forget penal satisfaction. I do! That concept is simply the attempt of fallible man to understand what God did for us in Jesus Christ! Consider those Scripture that have been presented and address them.

Well done....good discussion. No rancor, just an honest attempt to cut through & clarify. Thank you!

 

[Revmitchell]

You are leaning on Calvin, and all those who believe penal substitution are because the theory is to be found nowhere else.

Christus Victor is all through the NT; I have cited scriptures that support it. The earliest churches found it there, and so did Christians for the first millennium. It is the oldest atonement view.

I've got to go to bed, Rev; will field more of your accusations tomorrow, Lord willing that I am still here.

At this point you can respond or not. You have na inability to have a discussion without saying someone is attacking or accusing you. Yet it is your posts that get edited. Your liberal view is not orthodox and you have the right and freedom to be wrong as along as you want.