Atonement

[JonC]

God determined/caused Jesus to die in the place of us, correct?
The Father used sinners to accomplish that, but He ordained it to occur before that, correct?

It was God's will that Christ suffer and die at the hands of godless men. This was His predetermined plan. But I think it vitally important that when we consider the topic we understand that it is the love of God manifested in the sending of His only Son that we may live through Him. God loved us and sent Christ to be the propitiation for our sins.

 

[Yeshua1]

It was God's will that Christ suffer and die at the hands of godless men. This was His predetermined plan.

It was His will to have Jesus suffer and die for our sakes, correct?

 

[JonC]

It was His will to have Jesus suffer and die for our sakes, correct?

Yes, this was God’s will. Isaiah 53 tells us “the Lord was pleased to crush him, putting him to grief; if He would render Himself as a guilt offering... the good pleasure of the Lord will prosper in His hand.” Christ's death itself was faithful obedience to God.

The cross was not outside of the will of God.

 

[Yeshua1]

Yes, this was God’s will. Isaiah 53 tells us “the Lord was pleased to crush him, putting him to grief; if He would render Himself as a guilt offering... the good pleasure of the Lord will prosper in His hand.” Christ's death itself was faithful obedience to God.

The cross was not outside of the will of God.

I am trying to see if you agree with me that God Himself placed Jesus upon the Cross, and that he used the sinners to accomplish that feat!

 

[JonC]

I am trying to see if you agree with me that God Himself placed Jesus upon the Cross, and that he used the sinners to accomplish that feat!

I don't.

It was God's will, His predetermined plan. But it was the actions of godless men, acting in ignorance, that placed Christ upon the Cross. It was Jesus, in loving and faithful obedience, who accomished the feat.

 

[Yeshua1]

It was God's will, His predetermined plan. But it was the actions of godless men, acting in ignorance, that placed Christ upon the Cross. It was Jesus, in loving and faithful obedience, who accomished the feat.

God caused Jesus to die there, correct? he determined and directly cause it, was not just permitting that to happen, correct?

 

[JonC]

God caused Jesus to die there, correct? he determined and directly cause it, was not just permitting that to happen, correct?

God did not prevent Jesus from suffering and dying, this was His will. Nothing happens apart from His will. He suffered in obedience to the Father, by God's predetermined plan, at the hands of godless men who acted in ignorance (they believed Jesus stricken and afflicted by God and numbered Him among the transgressors).

 

[Yeshua1]

God did not prevent Jesus from suffering and dying, this was His will. Nothing happens apart from His will. He suffered in obedience to the Father, by God's predetermined plan, at the hands of godless men who acted in ignorance (they believed Jesus stricken and afflicted by God and numbered Him among the transgressors).

So God caused ut to happen directly, correct?

 

[JonC]

So God caused ut to happen directly, correct?

Godless men put Christ to death, which was an abomination before God as they convicted the Righteous and killed God’s Anointed. But they acted in ignorance, and this was not outside of God's predetermined plan, so even this horrible sin is forgivable. But God raised Him up again, putting an end to the agony of death.

Nothing happens outside of God’s providence. But I do not believe it correct to say that God “caused” evil in that He “authored” evil. On God's part, He gave His Son as the "spotless Lamb" who takes away the sins of the world. God's will was for Christ to suffer and die at the hands of the godless. And God raised Him again.

 

[Yeshua1]

Godless men put Christ to death, which was an abomination before God as they convicted the Righteous and killed God’s Anointed. But they acted in ignorance, and this was not outside of God's predetermined plan, so even this horrible sin is forgivable. But God raised Him up again, putting an end to the agony of death.

Nothing happens outside of God’s providence. But I do not believe it correct to say that God “caused” evil in that He “authored” evil. On God's part, He gave His Son as the "spotless Lamb" who takes away the sins of the world. God's will was for Christ to suffer and die at the hands of the godless. And God raised Him again.

The Cross, with death of the Son of God, was ordained when the fall happened though, and the entire trinity approved, so it was the will of God, that the father Himself placed Jesus there, and Jesus fully agreed!
Your position seems to be that there was no direct wrath of the father upon Christ, so He was not causing the death of Jesus, correct?

 

[JonC]

The Cross, with death of the Son of God, was ordained when the fall happened though, and the entire trinity approved, so it was the will of God, that the father Himself placed Jesus there, and Jesus fully agreed!
Your position seems to be that there was no direct wrath of the father upon Christ, so He was not causing the death of Jesus, correct?

No. It was ordained before the Fall, not as a reaction to Adam's sin. When we start to view God as reactionary, as if His plans have been defeated so He must devise an alternate course of action, we have to stop and look again at our theories. Christ is the Lamb slain from the foundations of the world.

I believe that on the Cross the Father looked upon His Son as His beloved, His Holy One, in Whom He is well pleased; His righteous Son in obedience taking upon Himself the sin of mankind and bearing this sin in His flesh.

I do not believe that God was wrathful to Jesus, but rather that the Father offered His Son as a propitiation for us.

 

[The Biblicist]

[Edited, Insults Removed] There is no love of God without holiness and so to argue that it is God's love rather than God's holiness that needed satisfaction is a godless love.

The wrath of God was vented upon Christ with regard to his POSITION as satisfaction of God's holiness. not toward his PERSON. This is seen in the symbolism of an innocent lamb taking the legal position of sinners by laying on of hands. This is seen in the blood of sacrifices stopping the wrath of God in the midst of destroying Israel many times.

When a person pits the love against the holiness of God in defining the atonement you can mark it up as sure error.

 

[thatbrian]

In the view presented by the OP there is simply no reason for Christ to die. A suicidal display would make Christ mentally unstable, not loving.

Christ's death is a loving act only if it was necessary. The OP gives us no reason for Christ's death other than the Father decided that it was a good idea. This provokes no worship of Christ.

Once we see that Christ died as our substitute and that He bore the wrath of the Father that we know we deserve, then we respond with praise and thanksgiving.

 

[Aaron]

Please provide the statement that you are addressing (provide the quote) so that I can address your misunderstanding. While I understand what you are saying, I do not know how you wring it out of my stated belief.

Thanks.

Your statement is ambiguous, and allows for the notion that Jesus took all sins away, except the sin of unbelief. It's a common notion among noncalvinists and those who deny that Jesus is our substitute.

 

[JonC]

[Edited, Insults Removed] When a person pits the love against the holiness of God in defining the atonement you can mark it up as sure error.

I agree. I'd expound on your comment to say that you cannot pit God's love, His holiness, and His wrath against each other. They all point to the One True God. When we look at God's wrath against sin as an expression of God's holiness, we cannot divorce this from His love.

But I do not believe that salvation came through the Law in order to give us a righteousness apart from it (not because I cannot comprehend the notion but because I find it foreign to Scripture). I believe that the Law was a witness testifying not only to our sinfulness but also (and primarily) to Christ Himself. So we do disagree on this point.

 

[JonC]

Your statement is ambiguous, and allows for the notion that Jesus took all sins away, except the sin of unbelief. It's a common notion among noncalvinists and those who deny that Jesus is our substitute.

I see how the OP was incomplete. Thank you for pointing that out.

But yes, God sent Christ so that all who believe would have eternal life. Those who do not believe, although they seek Him, will die in their sins unless they believe that He is the Christ. Jesus is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe. So there is an emphasis not only that salvation has come but also on those who are saved (Christ lay down his life for the sheep, He died to save those who believe). The judgment, therefore, for those who do not believe is that the Light has come into the world and they loved darkness rather than the Light.

 

[JonC]

In the view presented by the OP there is simply no reason for Christ to die. A suicidal display would make Christ mentally unstable, not loving.

Christ's death is a loving act only if it was necessary. The OP gives us no reason for Christ's death other than the Father decided that it was a good idea. This provokes no worship of Christ.

Once we see that Christ died as our substitute and that He bore the wrath of the Father that we know we deserve, then we respond with praise and thanksgiving.

Perhaps I didn't break it down enough in the OP. I apologize if my lack of articulation caused you to miss the reasons.

Christ died for our sake, for us. He became flesh to share in our humanity so that by His death He might break the power of Satan – that the prince of this world would be cast out and all men would be drawn unto Him. Christ had to suffer and die, to take upon Himself sinful flesh, and be raised to become the “firstfruits” of those who die. Since death came by man, also by man came the resurrection of the dead.

Again, sorry the OP was not complete enough. This is one reason for the thread, to compile my belief more completely in one place. I'm sure that now you can see why Christ was not "mentally unstable", why His death was necessary, and why He is worthy of all praise, honor, and glory.

Thanks again for pointing out the need to put the cookies on the bottom shelf. I took for granted several doctrines that you and @Aaron were gracious enough to point out as absent. I hope this helps to clarify.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Sorry to be coming late onto this thread. I have been reading it but haven't found time to write anything until now.

Christ died for our sake, for us. He became flesh to share in our humanity so that by His death He might break the power of Satan – that the prince of this world would be cast out and all men would be drawn unto Him. Christ had to suffer and die, to take upon Himself sinful flesh, and be raised to become the “firstfruits” of those who die. Since death came by man, also by man came the resurrection of the dead.

I don't see that this addition is a great help.
You are just quoting bits of Scripture at us, but we already know them. Since you have begun the thread, we would like your interpretation of them. How has Christ's death broken the power of Satan? Why is Satan cast out? In what way has Christ died 'for our sake'?
On what basis does the resurrection of the dead come by man?

How does the Atonement enable God to be 'just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus'? In other words, what is the legal basis for justification?

'Many divines say that Christ did something when He died on the cross that enabled God to be just and yet the justifier of the ungodly. What that something is they do not tell us......Why, my brethren, if we were only so far atoned for by the death of Christ that any one of us might afterwards save himself, Christ's atonement were not worth a farthing, for there is no man of us can save himself-- no, not under the Gospel' [C.H. Spurgeon on Isaiah 53:10]

 

[JonC]

Sorry to be coming late onto this thread. I have been reading it but haven't found time to write anything until now.
I don't see that this addition is a great help.
You are just quoting bits of Scripture at us, but we already know them. Since you have begun the thread, we would like your interpretation of them. How has Christ's death broken the power of Satan? Why is Satan cast out? In what way has Christ died 'for our sake'?
On what basis does the resurrection of the dead come by man?

I do not see such problems with Scripture. Through Adam's transgression sin and death entered the world. Christ came to break the power of Satan and to liberate us from the bondage of sin and death - to free us from the law of sin so that we would live to the law of God. Christ came in the likeness of sinful flesh, took upon Himself all it is to be human. By the predetermined plan of God, Christ suffered under the power of sin and death (He died at the hands of godless men). God vindicated Him by raising Him from the grave and the Christian hope is in this resurrection.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I do not see such problems with Scripture. Through Adam's transgression sin and death entered the world. Christ came to break the power of Satan and to liberate us from the bondage of sin and death - to free us from the law of sin so that we would live to the law of God. Christ came in the likeness of sinful flesh, took upon Himself all it is to be human. By the predetermined plan of God, Christ suffered under the power of sin and death (He died at the hands of godless men). God vindicated Him by raising Him from the grave and the Christian hope is in this resurrection.

Wonderful! How did Christ break the power of Satan and liberate us from the bondage of sin and death? On what legal basis did He do so? If God will not clear the guilty (Exodus 34:7) or justify the wicked (Proverbs 17:15), how does Christ coming in the flesh and dying on the cross change that situation?