Atonement

[Reformed1689]

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).

Consequential death. In other words, the penalty for sin was satisfied in the punishment and death of Christ on the cross.

You DO believe in PST. You just admitted it.

 

[Yeshua1]

Consequential death. In other words, the penalty for sin was satisfied in the punishment and death of Christ on the cross.

You DO believe in PST. You just admitted it.

I still do not know how God can freely justify lost sinenrs and stay being Holy if PST is not correct!

 

[Yeshua1]

@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).

How can we be delivered from the wrath of god though if Jesus did not suffer that wrath on our behalf?

 

[JonC]

How can we be delivered from the wrath of god though if Jesus did not suffer that wrath on our behalf?

Because there is no condemnation in Christ. We die to sin and live for, in, and through Christ. A difference is that I do not believe moral transgressions form a debt that must be paid. believe that we are made new creations in Christ. There is no debt to be paid because we are redeemed by the work of Christ (we belong to Him as our Master, not sin).

 

[Yeshua1]

Because there is no condemnation in Christ. We die to sin and live for, in, and through Christ. A difference is that I do not believe moral transgressions form a debt that must be paid. believe that we are made new creations in Christ. There is no debt to be paid because we are redeemed by the work of Christ (we belong to Him as our Master, not sin).

There can be reconciliation apart from sin penalty been paid for though, and the wrath of God propitiated!

 

[Reformed1689]

here is no debt to be paid because we are redeemed by the work of Christ (we belong to Him as our Master, not sin).

Right, there is no debt to be paid because CHRIST PAID IT.

 

[The Biblicist]

Because there is no condemnation in Christ. We die to sin and live for, in, and through Christ. A difference is that I do not believe moral transgressions form a debt that must be paid. believe that we are made new creations in Christ. There is no debt to be paid because we are redeemed by the work of Christ (we belong to Him as our Master, not sin).

What you are saying does not make sense? We know that those "in Christ" are not condemned but that does not address "why" they are not condemned when all outside of Christ are condemned. Does God have a two teir justice system when dealing with sin?

I think the word "debt" is a smoke screen! I did not ask about "debt" I asked if violation of law carries a legal lawful condemnation that demands a penalty? If it does carry a penalty then what is that penalty? How can any sinner be removed from a condemned status to a non-condemned status without that penalty being satisfied IF sinners without Christ must personally satisfy it themselves?

What was the cultural meaning and application of the Greek term translated "It is finished" uttered by Christ on the cross?

 

[Reformed1689]

I asked if violation of law carries a legal lawful condemnation that demands a penalty?

Of course it does. And Colossians 2:14 explains this.

 

[Yeshua1]

Of course it does. And Colossians 2:14 explains this.

How can the Wrath of God demanded towards sin and law breakers be appeased apart from Jesus receiving in Himself the due penalty we all deserved?

 

[Reformed1689]

How can the Wrath of God demanded towards sin and law breakers be appeased apart from Jesus receiving in Himself the due penalty we all deserved?

Why are you asking me this?

 

[JonC]

What you are saying does not make sense? We know that those "in Christ" are not condemned but that does not address "why" they are not condemned when all outside of Christ are condemned. Does God have a two teir justice system when dealing with sin?

I think the word "debt" is a smoke screen! I did not ask about "debt" I asked if violation of law carries a legal lawful condemnation that demands a penalty? If it does carry a penalty then what is that penalty? How can any sinner be removed from a condemned status to a non-condemned status without that penalty being satisfied IF sinners without Christ must personally satisfy it themselves?

What was the cultural meaning and application of the Greek term translated "It is finished" uttered by Christ on the cross?

I believe that those who are condemned are condemned because they do not believe in Christ. That is the condemnation, and because of their disbelief they remain in their sins.

I think "it is finished" refers to the redemptive act. The "mission" is accomplished.

 

[JonC]

There can be reconciliation apart from sin penalty been paid for though, and the wrath of God propitiated!

You mean to say that there cannot be reconciliation apart from the penalty being paid.

The wrath of God is propitiated so we have that in common, but I do not agree sin created a penalty to be paid before reconciliation could take place.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

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.

There is but one Doctrine of Penal Substitution.
If our Lord did not take the punishment (Isaiah 53:5), curse (Galatians 3:13) and death (Romans 5:12; Isaiah 53:8) that God has decreed (e.g. 1 Thessalonians 1:6-8; Deuteronomy 28:26; Ezekiel 18:4) due to fallen mankind, then whatever we are left with is either not penal, or not substitution.

 

[JonC]

There is but one Doctrine of Penal Substitution.
If our Lord did not take the punishment (Isaiah 53:5), curse (Galatians 3:13) and death (Romans 5:12; Isaiah 53:8) that God has decreed (e.g. 1 Thessalonians 1:6-8; Deuteronomy 28:26; Ezekiel 18:4) due to fallen mankind, then whatever we are left with is either not penal, or not substitution.

I can definitely accept that there is only one Penal Substitution Theory. I was merely explaining what I meant by drawing a distinction between penal and substitutionary elements of the atonement and Penal Substitution Theory itself.

Even with his departure from some teachings N.T. Wright has affirmed that his view (which rejects Christ as experiencing divine punishment) falls within Penal Substitution Theory. TGC website has an article stating the same. I am only saying that my view, while affirming what J.I. Packer refered to as the "elements" of Penal Substitution Theory, does not agree with the Theory as a whole.

That said, if others want to define my view as Penal Substitution Theory, that's OK with me. The value is in discussing doctrine rather in the title used.

 

[Yeshua1]

Why are you asking me this?

Sorry, was meant for Jon C!

 

[Yeshua1]

Because there is no condemnation in Christ. We die to sin and live for, in, and through Christ. A difference is that I do not believe moral transgressions form a debt that must be paid. believe that we are made new creations in Christ. There is no debt to be paid because we are redeemed by the work of Christ (we belong to Him as our Master, not sin).

I can definitely accept that there is only one Penal Substitution Theory. I was merely explaining what I meant by drawing a distinction between penal and substitutionary elements of the atonement and Penal Substitution Theory itself.

Even with his departure from some teachings N.T. Wright has affirmed that his view (which rejects Christ as experiencing divine punishment) falls within Penal Substitution Theory. TGC website has an article stating the same. I am only saying that my view, while affirming what J.I. Packer refered to as the "elements" of Penal Substitution Theory, does not agree with the Theory as a whole.

That said, if others want to define my view as Penal Substitution Theory, that's OK with me. The value is in discussing doctrine rather in the title used.

NT Wright viewpoint in regards to the Atonement of Christ clearly falls well outside the standard Reformed view as described by Calvin, Hodge, Berkhof, and as explained by various Baptists themselves!

 

[JonC]

NT Wright viewpoint in regards to the Atonement of Christ clearly falls well outside the standard Reformed view as described by Calvin, Hodge, Berkhof, and as explained by various Baptists themselves!

I thought so too. But Wright and that article on TGC (a Reformed site) insists it is within the bounds of Penal Substitution Theory.

So the Theory extends beyond what I thought.

 

[Yeshua1]

You mean to say that there cannot be reconciliation apart from the penalty being paid.

The wrath of God is propitiated so we have that in common, but I do not agree sin created a penalty to be paid before reconciliation could take place.

God demands that any and all sin that we have done be paid for by someone....

 

[Yeshua1]

I thought so too. But Wright and that article on TGC (a Reformed site) insists it is within the bounds of Penal Substitution Theory.

So the Theory extends beyond what I thought.

It is not within how Reformed and Calvinistic Baptists have seen it though is my point.... IF you looked this up in any standard reformed Theology book, the views of NT Wright would not be supported there in regards to how to view the atonement...

 

[JonC]

It is not within how Reformed and Calvinistic Baptists have seen it though is my point.... IF you looked this up in any standard reformed Theology book, the views of NT Wright would not be supported there in regards to how to view the atonement...

That is what I thought, but we both have to consider the views of others here.

Perhaps that is why it is best just to talk about our views rather than what we would call them.