Atonement

[Reformed]

As an overarching theme I believe the atonement has in view creating a people of God. So I think it focuses on the Kingdom.

On the cross God was reconciling the world to Himself, not counting men's sins against them. This speaks of forgiveness and Christ being put forward as a Propitiation for man's sins. Christ's work turns away or appeases God's wrath. Forgiveness deals with the "canceling" or mot holding liable for an offense. Here Scripture is speaking not of physical death as the wages of sin but of the Judgment to come "on that day". Those in Christ are not judged. Those not "in Christ" (who do not believe) are judged already because they have not believed in God's Son.

Those who perish at Judgment will ultimately experience Hell as sin and death are cast into the "lake of fire" (which is the second death). This is God's wrath from which the believer is delivered.

While this thread is not about P.S., so far I have not read anything contrary to that view. I guess I am looking for our differences, which I am sure will reveal themselves in short order.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I think he is right about the beginning point determines your conclusion. That is why I asked him if God's love is rooted in God's holiness or is God's holiness rooted in God's love. His atonement view has its beginning point in God's love rather than in God's holiness. If the atonement is rooted in God's love instead of God's holiness than that produces "sloppy agape" but if God's love is rooted in God's holiness that makes God's love holy and just and thus consistent with His law and His wrath.

I strongly agree with this. The literal meaning of hamartia is 'the missing of the mark.' We sin when we miss the mark of God's holiness (I Peter 1:15-16; Hebrews 12:14). In archery, one often misses the mark by falling short of it. 'For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.' God's glory is strongly intertwined with His holiness (Isaiah 6:1-3; John 12:41).
Therefore, if God cannot deny Himself (2 Timothy 2:13), whatever means He has devised for the salvation of guilty sinners cannot compromise His holiness, righteousness and justice. I believe that one of the most important texts with reference to the Atonement is Romans 3:26.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I have never introduced or encountered the idea of two Penal Substitution Theories. That is a very strange idea, and since I have no reference as to how you believe they would differ I can offer no comment. We give different theories different names so we can speak of them in short form. Is there a particular book you have in mind that teaches these two Penal Substitution Theories? How do they differ?

I also see Anselm's view (and treatment of the "Latin" theories) as flawed. But I do not recall him writing of two Penal Substitution Theories.

Over and over again you have declared that you believe in Penal Substitution but not Penal Substitution 'theory.' Over and over again I have denied any such bifurcation. I am delighted that you have now given up that particular aspect of your argument.

 

[JonC]

While this thread is not about P.S., so far I have not read anything contrary to that view. I guess I am looking for our differences, which I am sure will reveal themselves in short order.

In terms of wrath, I believe that the atonement focuses on the wrath to come at Judgement. This is a judgment that is Christ-focused. Mankind is condemned because of their sins and the atonement addresses forgiveness.

Here is where we start disagreeing. I can affirm Penal Substitution as held by those like Wright and McKnight. But their view is not Penal Substitution Theory in what it denies.

The atonement is penal substitution because it addresses sin as moral transgressions through Christ as the repressive (the second "Adam") of man in the context His work is substituted for our unrighteousness. There is no condemnation in Christ. God, on the Cross, was forgiving man's sins.

 

[The Biblicist]

As an overarching theme I believe the atonement has in view creating a people of God. So I think it focuses on the Kingdom.

On the cross God was reconciling the world to Himself, not counting men's sins against them. This speaks of forgiveness and Christ being put forward as a Propitiation for man's sins. Christ's work turns away or appeases God's wrath. Forgiveness deals with the "canceling" or mot holding liable for an offense. Here Scripture is speaking not of physical death as the wages of sin but of the Judgment to come "on that day". Those in Christ are not judged. Those not "in Christ" (who do not believe) are judged already because they have not believed in God's Son.

Those who perish at Judgment will ultimately experience Hell as sin and death are cast into the "lake of fire" (which is the second death). This is God's wrath from which the believer is delivered.

Ok, I now see what you meant with regard to the Kingdom of God. However, I still do not see any logical or Biblical connection between this redemptive goal and sin exceeding a moral issue.

 

[JonC]

So I view sin as a power that entered the world through Adam's transgression as the reason men sin. I see these as two different aspects that the atonement addresses.

The wages if sin is death. It is appointed to men once to die and then the Judgment.

I do not believe the death here is penal. It is the consequence of sin, and the consequence Jesus experienced on the cross.

So moving from the aspect of divine wrath, the atonement addresses the wages of sin which is a physical death. Where sin entered the world through Adam's transgression, Christ became a life-giving spirit. The wages of sin is death (which all men experience) but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ.

I believe Christ saves us not from death but through death. What God states will take place. Death (a physical death) is certain. But all will be raised because of Christ as the last "Adam" - some to life and some to judgement.

 

[JonC]

Over and over again you have declared that you believe in Penal Substitution but not Penal Substitution 'theory.' Over and over again I have denied any such bifurcation. I am delighted that you have now given up that particular aspect of your argument.

I was pointing to the elements and those theologians who state an affirmation of penal substitution in the atonement while denying Penal Substitution Theory (men like N.T. Wright and Scot McKnight who deny that the Christ was punished in our stead). I believe that this denial us a rejection of Penal Substitution Theory because I believe the Theory teaches that Christ took God's punishment in our place.

I can accept that Penal Substitution Theory is much broader than this. I just have not encountered it expressed in a way that denies the cross was Christ experiencing divine punishment in our place.

That was the distinction I was trying to make.

 

[The Biblicist]

So I view sin as a power that entered the world through Adam's transgression as the reason men sin. I see these as two different aspects that the atonement addresses.

You sin as "a power" rather than Satan as the power behind sin?

I do not believe the death here is penal. It is the consequence of sin, and the consequence Jesus experienced on the cross.

Here is where we have serious problems with each other's view of sin. You say death is not a "penal" consequence of sin but merely "the consequence of sin." It is merely something Jesus "experienced" on the cross but not a necessity for atonement due to legal condemnation of sin.

So, in the book of Leviticus death of the sacrifice has no legal significance for atonement? Without the shedding of blood (unto death) can there be any atonement in the book of Leviticus? Is death necessary of the sacrifice to satisfy legal condemnation for sin? So death is non-essential for LEGAL SATISFACTION OF SIN WITH REGARD TO LEGAL CONDEMNATION OF SIN?

 

[JonC]

You sin as "a power" rather than Satan as the power behind sin?





Here is where we have serious problems with each other's view of sin. You say death is not a "penal" consequence of sin but merely "the consequence of sin." It is merely something Jesus "experienced" on the cross but not a necessity for atonement due to legal condemnation of sin.

So, in the book of Leviticus death of the sacrifice has no legal significance for atonement? Without the shedding of blood (unto death) can there be any atonement in the book of Leviticus? Is death necessary of the sacrifice to satisfy legal condemnation for sin?

I see it as both. This is why Origen's Ransom Theory has become questionable. The thought is that Origen may have been using language contemporary to his day and by "Satan" was refering to the power of sin and death that held sway over man.

I do not think there will be enough information to prove their point.

But I do believe mankind was a slave to sin as a power.

 

[JonC]

Here is where we have serious problems with each other's view of sin. You say death is not a "penal" consequence of sin but merely "the consequence of sin." It is merely something Jesus "experienced" on the cross but not a necessity for atonement due to legal condemnation of sin.

IN?

You sin as "a power" rather than Satan as the power behind sin?





Here is where we have serious problems with each other's view of sin. You say death is not a "penal" consequence of sin but merely "the consequence of sin." It is merely something Jesus "experienced" on the cross but not a necessity for atonement due to legal condemnation of sin.

So, in the book of Leviticus death of the sacrifice has no legal significance for atonement? Without the shedding of blood (unto death) can there be any atonement in the book of Leviticus? Is death necessary of the sacrifice to satisfy legal condemnation for sin? So death is non-essential for LEGAL SATISFACTION OF SIN WITH REGARD TO LEGAL CONDEMNATION OF SIN?

I agree. Our view of sin probably dictates where we end up departing.

For decades I viewed sin as a moral issue only. But I have come to believe it includes but exceeds God's moral law. This, I believe, fits Scripture better (as you believe your view suits Scripture)

I do not see the imagry of the sacrifice as punishment, so that also comes into play.

 

[The Biblicist]

I do not see the imagry of the sacrifice as punishment, so that also comes into play.

In other words you do not see sin having penal consequences for anyone? If sinners refuse Christ would they have penal consequences for sin? I think you believe they do? However, Christ can satisfy the condemnation of sin without penal conseqences but the sinner cannot?

In Genesis 9 do you believe the law established by God that says if man sheds blood of another man then his blood must also be shed is a penal consequence of that sin? However, when it comes to the very same language with the sacrifices "without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins" you believe that does not convey penal satisfaction?

I believe if you remove satisfaction of the penal consequences from the atonement you have no atonement, you have no gospel but only a shell of "another gospel" that saves no one.

 

[The Biblicist]

For decades I viewed sin as a moral issue only.

But you still believe it is a "moral" issue right? You still believe it is a violation of moral law right? Is this a law that can be violated without penalization? For example, suppose you reject Christ and continue in your love and practice of sin, is there any legal penal consequence for violating God's moral law? If there is not, then lets eat drink and be merry for tomorrow we only suffer a non-penal consequence of sin - death.

On the other hand, if violation of God's moral law demands "condemnation" that carries penal consequences then how is that penal consequence satisfied? How is it satisfied for those who continue in sin and unbelief? Does God have a two teir justice system? Is there one kind of justice administered for sinners outside of Christ but another administered to Christ for sins?

Why does God demand "without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins" and require the death of the atoning sacrifice if its is merely a voluntary act of love that satisfies no legal demands against sin? Why not merely make a meal offering instead, a bloodless sacrifice and the corresponding application would be merely the just and righteous life of Christ if death is not necessary to satisfy sin? Is death merely a "consequence" of sin (which Christ had none) but a legal necessity due to legal "condemnation" of sin by law?

 

[Yeshua1]

When it comes to doctrine (any doctrine) where you begin determines where you end. If you begin with God’s wrath then you end up with wrath being satisfied. If you begin with death then you end up with death being overcome. If you begin with social injustice you will end with a just reign. If you begin with covenant community you will end with the Kingdom of God. This is the point I’ve been focusing on recently. Where you begin in your doctrine – what you presuppose – determines where you end in your doctrine.

In his book, Mere Christianity, C.S. Lewis speaks of the theories of Atonement and notes that the theories themselves are not the thing we are asked (by God) to accept. “Many of you no doubt have read Jeans or Eddington. What they do when they want to explain the atom, or something of that sort, is to give you a description out of which you can make a mental picture. But then they warn you that this picture is not what the scientists actually believe. What the scientists believe is a mathematical formula. The pictures are there only to help you to understand the formula.” In this way, theories of Atonement are like a metaphor.

Take Penal Substitution Theory, for example. It is based on biblical penal substitution which addresses the moral implications of sin. While most occasions Scripture approaches the atonement from a different angle, it is fairly clear that in Romans Paul addresses penal aspects of sin. Biblical penal substitution presents Christ experiencing the wages of sin and sharing in our “infirmities”. The Penal Substitution Theory contextualizes the Atonement within a worldly judicial framework where sin becomes a “debt” to be reconciled through punishment. The problem, of course, is that God does not punish sin because sin cannot be punished. You can punish a disobedient child, but you can not actually punish the disobedience. If you could, nothing would be remedied. And even sin could be punished, the moral aspect of sin is only one part of the larger definition. But this does not mean the Theory itself is valueless as it communicates, through a mental picture, one aspect of the atoning work of Christ.

God must punish those who violate His Holy Law, and the only way to have Him freely able to both punish for sins and to be able able to forgive the sinner is by the Pst!

 

[The Biblicist]

But I do believe mankind was a slave to sin as a power.

But isn't man, like Adam a WILLING participant, a willing slave and that made a choice to serve Satan, thus submit to Satan's jurisdiction and power? Is not the moral inclination of the lost man really empowered by his "love" for darkness and his "hate" for light rather than some kind of abstract power inherent in sin? Is not the "law of sin" simply the power of attraction that finds its real source of power not in "sin" but in a fallen nature that loves, thrives to pursue sin? Is not that what Paul is saying concerning his yet unredeemed "body" that sin still has its appeal to the natural drives of the body and that is the avenue by which Satan still works in the life of the regenerate (Rom. 7:14-25)? So, is this not really an issue of moral character/nature driven by its love of sin and hatred of God in a willing cooperation with Satan and His power as the real source of power rather than sin having abstract power in and of itself? The only power found in sin is "the law" of attraction to unredeemed aspects of fallen human nature joined with Satan's power?

 

[The Biblicist]

But I do believe mankind was a slave to sin as a power.

Does the bible ever attribute "power" to sin? Or does the Bible attribute "power" with regard to sin to Satan and the law? For example,

The sting of death is sin; and the strength [Gr. dunamis] of sin is the law. - 1 Cor. 15:56

Does not Paul mean that the Law aggrevates the sinful nature in man, because the sinful nature in man "loves" darkness and "hates" light and the Law condemns that sinful drive of fallen human nature? Hence, the "power" of sin is "the law" of attraction as the law is the what empowers the sinful nature to respond by sinning? Hence, "the law of sin" that Paul refers to is inherently connected with the unredeemed aspect of his human nature that still loves evil and hates good (Rom. 7:14-25) and will remain that way until the remaining aspect of human nature is fully redeemed (Rom. 7:23-25)? Hence, the only "power" of sin in connection with fallen man is found in the "heart" (love/hate) drives/depravity (Rom. 8:7).

 

[JonC]

But isn't man, like Adam a WILLING participant, a willing slave and that made a choice to serve Satan, thus submit to Satan's jurisdiction and power?

Perhaps. But at the same time I believe that man is a slave to sin and unable to break its bonds. I believe that the liberation of mankind is an aspect of the atonement.

 

[The Biblicist]

unable to break its bonds. I believe that the liberation of mankind is an aspect of the atonement.

Is man inability found in some kind of inherent power in sin, or found in the fallen nature which is unwilling to do so? Is the problem in "sin" or in the sinner's nature which "loves" sin and "hates" light? Are you not justifying the sinner by claiming he is "unable" when the real inability is found in his fallen nature that is unwilling because by nature it loves sin?

It seems that your view makes man a victim of sin rather than an willing advocate for sin?

 

[JonC]

Is man inability found in some kind of inherent power in sin, or found in the fallen nature which is unwilling to do so? Is the problem in "sin" or in the sinner's nature which "loves" sin and "hates" light? Are you not justifying the sinner by claiming he is "unable" when the real inability is found in his fallen nature that is unwilling because by nature it loves sin?

I do believe that unregenerste man is unable to do what is right. I belueve this inability is an inherent unwillingness as unregenerate man is a slave to and mastered by sin.

 

[JonC]

@Reformed , to bring us to date - so far I said I believe the Atonement had a deliverance from the wrath to come and a dekiverance through physical death. I believe the larger aspect is making a kingdom people out of a lost people.

Man was created for God. The atonement is a rereation as the believer is with Christ in His death, burial and resurrection just as much as natural man was with Adam in his transgression.

This, I believe, is the fuller context. Through Christ the effects of sin are conquered (moral, consequential death, disfellowship with God, and broken community of mankind).

 

[The Biblicist]

I do believe that unregenerste man is unable to do what is right. I belueve this inability is an inherent unwillingness as unregenerate man is a slave to and mastered by sin.

Again, does God have a two teir justice system? Are unbelievers penalized for sin while Christ is not penalized for sins to be remitted for other sinners?

Are some sinners penalized for sin while other sinners are not penalized for sin?

Please don't respond that "sin" cannot be penalized but only sinners can be penalized. I know that, and that is not the PSA position. The PSA position is that sinners are penalized for sins and that Christ took the place for sinners and thus Christ was penalized NOT FOR ANY SINS HE COMMITTED but for the sins he TOOK UPON HIMSELF.