Atonement

[Rebel]

Despite all the differences between the RCC and Protestant evangelicals, including conservative Baptists, there is one area of basic agreement, and that is on the atonement. The RCC holds to Satisfaction, and the PSA of evangelical Protestantism, and Baptists, is really just an extension or expansion of the Satisfaction theory. How do Baptists and other evangelicals here feel about that, knowing that on the basic, central issue of atonement and salvation, you agree with the RCC? Doesn't that trouble anyone? That's not the only area of agreement, either. The doctrine of man and sin is also shared with the RCC, which is Augustinian in origin. But for now let's focus on the atonement.

 

[One Baptism]

...The doctrine of man and sin is also shared with the RCC, which is Augustinian in origin. ...

Flee from any and all doctrine which teaches that Christ Jesus did not come in "the flesh", defined by Scripture - http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=2211767&postcount=7 :

For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist. - 2 John 1:7​

Restoration:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjyYNQrUpf8

 

[Rebel]

Flee from any and all doctrine which teaches that Christ Jesus did not come in "the flesh", defined by Scripture - http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=2211767&postcount=7 :

For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist. - 2 John 1:7​

Restoration:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjyYNQrUpf8

Respectfully, what does this have to do with the thread's topic?

 

[BobRyan]

Despite all the differences between the RCC and Protestant evangelicals, including conservative Baptists, there is one area of basic agreement, and that is on the atonement. The RCC holds to Satisfaction, and the PSA of evangelical Protestantism, and Baptists, is really just an extension or expansion of the Satisfaction theory. How do Baptists and other evangelicals here feel about that, knowing that on the basic, central issue of atonement and salvation, you agree with the RCC? Doesn't that trouble anyone? That's not the only area of agreement, either. The doctrine of man and sin is also shared with the RCC, which is Augustinian in origin. But for now let's focus on the atonement.

The RCC has this idea about the "passion of the Christ" that the wounds and torments of the Roman Soldiers is what is 'owed' - debt paid for sin.

They also have concept that the "body, soul and divinity of Christ" in that atonement - in that sacrifice - is "confected for each mass" and that this newly confected body,soul,divinity is then eaten whereby the saints take in to themselves literally the atoning sacrifice of Christ - the New Covenant "in My blood". Thus that sacrifice is only IN the Catholic and that New Covenant is only participated in by the Catholic who is allowed to attend a Catholic Mass.

Seems to me that this is very different from everybody's view of the atonement.

The next question which may be more of what you are talking about is - whether or not the Atonement of Christ includes an atoning sacrifice that pays the exact debt of sin -- the exact amount of punishment for sin - owed by every sinner in all of time. An exact payment of debt.

I believe that this is exactly what happened at the atoning sacrifice completed on the cross by Christ once for all.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[JonC]

Despite all the differences between the RCC and Protestant evangelicals, including conservative Baptists, there is one area of basic agreement, and that is on the atonement. The RCC holds to Satisfaction, and the PSA of evangelical Protestantism, and Baptists, is really just an extension or expansion of the Satisfaction theory. How do Baptists and other evangelicals here feel about that, knowing that on the basic, central issue of atonement and salvation, you agree with the RCC? Doesn't that trouble anyone? That's not the only area of agreement, either. The doctrine of man and sin is also shared with the RCC, which is Augustinian in origin. But for now let's focus on the atonement.

We shouldn’t abandon a doctrine as false simply because the RCC holds it to be true. The Bible, not the RCC, dictates our belief. So if it is a shared belief then it should trouble no one. Mormons believe Jesus is the Son of God (although not His only begotten), Muslims believe Jesus was a Prophet (which He was….that and more), and Catholics are trinitarians. A discussion of the Atonement would be interesting, but the RCC as a measure is not acceptable. That said, I think our churches as a whole do carry over ideas from extrabiblical sources.

 

[One Baptism]

Respectfully, what does this have to do with the thread's topic?

In response to your OP statement, it was given - http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=2223985&postcount=2, please, then, consider the Scripture along with the video presentation on the matter of Sin, Man's Flesh/Nature, Atonement, etc.

You had said:

... The doctrine of man and sin is also shared with the RCC, which is Augustinian in origin. ...

Thus in reply to the statement:

Flee from any and all doctrine which teaches that Christ Jesus did not come in "the flesh", defined by Scripture - http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=2211767&postcount=7 :

For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist. - 2 John 1:7​

Restoration:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjyYNQrUpf8

In the matter of how the Bible defines "sin" and how Roman Catholicism defines 'sin', will affect the fundamental teaching of 'atonement' in each theology, and how one is "saved".

One can also consider the Theodicy:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92B0IRwjpig

 

[Rebel]

The RCC has this idea about the "passion of the Christ" that the wounds and torments of the Roman Soldiers is what is 'owed' - debt paid for sin.

They also have concept that the "body, soul and divinity of Christ" in that atonement - in that sacrifice - is "confected for each mass" and that this newly confected body,soul,divinity is then eaten whereby the saints take in to themselves literally the atoning sacrifice of Christ - the New Covenant "in My blood". Thus that sacrifice is only IN the Catholic and that New Covenant is only participated in by the Catholic who is allowed to attend a Catholic Mass.

Seems to me that this is very different from everybody's view of the atonement.

The next question which may be more of what you are talking about is - whether or not the Atonement of Christ includes an atoning sacrifice that pays the exact debt of sin -- the exact amount of punishment for sin - owed by every sinner in all of time. An exact payment of debt.

I believe that this is exactly what happened at the atoning sacrifice completed on the cross by Christ once for all.

in Christ,

Bob

Well, I wasn't talking about how the atonement view relates to their view and practice of the "Eucharist", only the theory of atonement itself. And that is the Satisfaction theory, which PSA is an extension of.

 

[Rebel]

We shouldn’t abandon a doctrine as false simply because the RCC holds it to be true. The Bible, not the RCC, dictates our belief. So if it is a shared belief then it should trouble no one. Mormons believe Jesus is the Son of God (although not His only begotten), Muslims believe Jesus was a Prophet (which He was….that and more), and Catholics are trinitarians. A discussion of the Atonement would be interesting, but the RCC as a measure is not acceptable. That said, I think our churches as a whole do carry over ideas from extrabiblical sources.

It is telling that the Satisfaction view was developed 1000-plus years after Christ, and PSA 1500 years after. PSA is not the same as Satisfaction, but they are kin. In fact, I think PSA is worse.

It seems that in the area of the atonement, Protestants and even Baptists did not reform themselves from Rome as much as it might seem. No one, except a few Anabaptists, returned to an early church view of the atonement.

 

[JonC]

It seems that in the area of the atonement, Protestants and even Baptists did not reform themselves from Rome as much as it might seem. No one, except a few Anabaptists, returned to an early church view of the atonement.

Many of us do not deny the truths of the Christus Victor position. But we do deny that the early church dismissed truths that were brought out in other theories. They may have focused on Christ’s victory over evil (and in their situation, this is completely understandable), but what you need to prove is that they denied Christ as the Propitiation for the sins of the world, that they abandoned the doctrine of God laying on Jesus the iniquity of us all, that the early church omitted from their theology that He redeemed from the curse by becoming a curse for us. Christus Victor is a poor theory if taken to encapsulate the Atonement as a whole. So are the other theories. But if you are saying that many churches today focus on one aspect of the Atonement at the expense of others, then I’d suspect you are probably right.

 

[Rebel]

Many of us do not deny the truths of the Christus Victor position. But we do deny that the early church dismissed truths that were brought out in other theories. They may have focused on Christ’s victory over evil (and in their situation, this is completely understandable), but what you need to prove is that they denied Christ as the Propitiation for the sins of the world, that they abandoned the doctrine of God laying on Jesus the iniquity of us all, that the early church omitted from their theology that He redeemed from the curse by becoming a curse for us. Christus Victor is a poor theory if taken to encapsulate the Atonement as a whole. So are the other theories. But if you are saying that many churches today focus on one aspect of the Atonement at the expense of others, then I’d suspect you are probably right.

Those other theories were not held till 1000 years and 1500 years after Jesus, respectively. Why do you suppose that is? I say it's because they are not scriptural or reflective of who God is and what He requires.

But I appreciate your post.

 

[JonC]

Those other theories were not held till 1000 years and 1500 years after Jesus, respectively. Why do you suppose that is? I say it's because they are not scriptural or reflective of who God is and what He requires.

But I appreciate your post.

Thank you.

Those other aspects of the Atonement that I mentioned, the ones that I said the early church recognized although they may not….or may….have been the primary focus (theological focus is often dictated by our circumstance) were indeed held earlier than you would indicate. Granted, it may not have been in the form of a “theory,” but neither was Christus Victor formulated as a “theory of atonement.” It was Scripture. The early church recognized that Christ defeated evil at the Cross. But they recognized as equally true that He was presented as a Propitiation for the sins of man (1 John 2:2; Romans 4:5) and that God laid on Jesus the iniquity of us all - that He redeemed us from the curse by becoming a curse for us (Isaiah 53:6; Galatians 3:13).

Perhaps the early church did ignore certain biblical truths because one aspect of the Atonement spoke to their situation. I don’t know, if they did then it was error that shouldn’t be repeated merely for antiquity’s sake. But I tend to think that not the case. I do believe that the contemporary church often narrows its focus on certain doctrines at the expense of others, but for some reason I tend to think of the early church as holding a purer doctrine (I tend to think that they cared less about “theories of Atonement” and more about Scripture even if their understanding manifested itself to their circumstance).

Anyway, that is my two cents. I am not willing to deny that Christ is the Propitiation for our sins, or that God laid on Jesus the iniquity of us all, or that He redeemed from the curse by becoming a curse for us. But I will stand with you in proclaiming that at the Cross evil was conquered.

 

[Rebel]

Thank you.

Those other aspects of the Atonement that I mentioned, the ones that I said the early church recognized although they may not….or may….have been the primary focus (theological focus is often dictated by our circumstance) were indeed held earlier than you would indicate. Granted, it may not have been in the form of a “theory,” but neither was Christus Victor formulated as a “theory of atonement.” It was Scripture. The early church recognized that Christ defeated evil at the Cross. But they recognized as equally true that He was presented as a Propitiation for the sins of man (1 John 2:2; Romans 4:5) and that God laid on Jesus the iniquity of us all - that He redeemed us from the curse by becoming a curse for us (Isaiah 53:6; Galatians 3:13).

Perhaps the early church did ignore certain biblical truths because one aspect of the Atonement spoke to their situation. I don’t know, if they did then it was error that shouldn’t be repeated merely for antiquity’s sake. But I tend to think that not the case. I do believe that the contemporary church often narrows its focus on certain doctrines at the expense of others, but for some reason I tend to think of the early church as holding a purer doctrine (I tend to think that they cared less about “theories of Atonement” and more about Scripture even if their understanding manifested itself to their circumstance).

Anyway, that is my two cents. I am not willing to deny that Christ is the Propitiation for our sins, or that God laid on Jesus the iniquity of us all, or that He redeemed from the curse by becoming a curse for us. But I will stand with you in proclaiming that at the Cross evil was conquered.

I do think, as you mentioned earlier, that some churches focus on one aspect Of Jesus's mission to the neglect of others. I see much more focus on the death of Jesus instead of on His resurrection. The resurrection is what makes the Christian faith different from all others.

I am enjoying discussing this with you. I like your manner, and the way you present your positions.

I believe there is more mystery to all this than we realize sometimes.

 

[BobRyan]

In 1 Cor 11 the Lord's Supper is said to "proclaim the Lord's death until He comes".

But in Heb 8:1 "the main point" is that we have a High Priest in heaven - who has indeed been resurrected - but more than that He "ever LIVES to make intercession" as our High Priest.

Heb 8
Now this is the main point of the things we are saying: We have such a High Priest, who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens, 2 a Minister of the sanctuary and of the true tabernacle which the Lord erected, and not man. 3 For every high priest is appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices. Therefore it is necessary that this One also have something to offer. 4 For if He were on earth, He would not be a priest, since there are priests who offer the gifts according to the law; 5 who serve the copy and shadow of the heavenly things, as Moses was divinely instructed when he was about to make the tabernacle. For He said, “See that you make all things according to the pattern shown you on the mountain.” 6 But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, inasmuch as He is also Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises.


in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Thank you.

Those other aspects of the Atonement that I mentioned, the ones that I said the early church recognized although they may not….or may….have been the primary focus (theological focus is often dictated by our circumstance) were indeed held earlier than you would indicate. Granted, it may not have been in the form of a “theory,” but neither was Christus Victor formulated as a “theory of atonement.” It was Scripture. The early church recognized that Christ defeated evil at the Cross. But they recognized as equally true that He was presented as a Propitiation for the sins of man (1 John 2:2; Romans 4:5) and that God laid on Jesus the iniquity of us all - that He redeemed us from the curse by becoming a curse for us (Isaiah 53:6; Galatians 3:13).

Perhaps the early church did ignore certain biblical truths because one aspect of the Atonement spoke to their situation. I don’t know, if they did then it was error that shouldn’t be repeated merely for antiquity’s sake. But I tend to think that not the case. I do believe that the contemporary church often narrows its focus on certain doctrines at the expense of others, but for some reason I tend to think of the early church as holding a purer doctrine (I tend to think that they cared less about “theories of Atonement” and more about Scripture even if their understanding manifested itself to their circumstance).

Anyway, that is my two cents. I am not willing to deny that Christ is the Propitiation for our sins, or that God laid on Jesus the iniquity of us all, or that He redeemed from the curse by becoming a curse for us. But I will stand with you in proclaiming that at the Cross evil was conquered.

Reminds me of a multilevel chess board.

One move works on so many levels.

in Christ,


Bob

 

[JonC]

I do think, as you mentioned earlier, that some churches focus on one aspect Of Jesus's mission to the neglect of others. I see much more focus on the death of Jesus instead of on His resurrection. The resurrection is what makes the Christian faith different from all others.

I am enjoying discussing this with you. I like your manner, and the way you present your positions.

I believe there is more mystery to all this than we realize sometimes.

I have also enjoyed our conversation. Disagreements in doctrine are par for the course, and they are not as divisive as we sometimes make them. I disagree with many beliefs I held ten years ago, yet I cannot find any evidence that I am more saved than I was back then. If history teaches me anything it is not to lean on my own understanding, but to remain a student of the Word.

My fear is not that many churches have misunderstood the Atonement because what they hold to is false, but my fear is that they misunderstand the Atonement because they are unwilling to look at Christ’s work as a whole. They have been handed down one perspective, and on this one aspect they try to build doctrine. What results is a very concise and systematic misunderstanding…not for what it contains or allows but for what it doesn’t. What you end up with is people arguing based on allegory and symbolism (e.g., a “sin debt” in terms of God as a Divine Accountant) and altering Scripture to suit their narrow theologies (e.g., changing the meaning of words to fit their doctrine).

I know that you believe substitutionary atonement to be unbiblical, and to be fair some churches do make it unbiblical. But the Old Testament system points to a substitutionary role of atonement. That Christ died an Atonement points to that role as well. My caution is that we not dismiss one truth to facilitate another (I’m not saying that you are doing this, but I believe we should always keep in mind that Scripture and truth often exceeds our explanation).

 

[Rebel]

I have also enjoyed our conversation. Disagreements in doctrine are par for the course, and they are not as divisive as we sometimes make them. I disagree with many beliefs I held ten years ago, yet I cannot find any evidence that I am more saved than I was back then. If history teaches me anything it is not to lean on my own understanding, but to remain a student of the Word.

My fear is not that many churches have misunderstood the Atonement because what they hold to is false, but my fear is that they misunderstand the Atonement because they are unwilling to look at Christ’s work as a whole. They have been handed down one perspective, and on this one aspect they try to build doctrine. What results is a very concise and systematic misunderstanding…not for what it contains or allows but for what it doesn’t. What you end up with is people arguing based on allegory and symbolism (e.g., a “sin debt” in terms of God as a Divine Accountant) and altering Scripture to suit their narrow theologies (e.g., changing the meaning of words to fit their doctrine).

I know that you believe substitutionary atonement to be unbiblical, and to be fair some churches do make it unbiblical. But the Old Testament system points to a substitutionary role of atonement. That Christ died an Atonement points to that role as well. My caution is that we not dismiss one truth to facilitate another (I’m not saying that you are doing this, but I believe we should always keep in mind that Scripture and truth often exceeds our explanation).

I didn't find anything to really disagree with in your post. I am not so much against substitutionary aspects in the atonement as I am against one variety of substitution -- PSA. And I don't favor Satisfaction, either, as it sees God as a feudal lord.

 

[BobRyan]

If exact cost in terms of suffering and torment is paid for exact sin - then in Luke 12:45-50 some suffer much while others suffer but little depending on the case. There are in fact degrees of punishment and that means that Christ paid the accumulated summation of all penalty owed.

Yet it is God who is tortured - it is not God who is "paid" on the cross.

 

[JonC]

If exact cost in terms of suffering and torment is paid for exact sin - then in Luke 12:45-50 some suffer much while others suffer but little depending on the case. There are in fact degrees of punishment and that means that Christ paid the accumulated summation of all penalty owed.

Yet it is God who is tortured - it is not God who is "paid" on the cross.

Personally, I don't think that Jesus paid the debt for our individual sins as much as He was a propitiation for the sins of the world (the human race) and it is on that basis that our sins are forgiven (the basis of Christ's Atonement). I think that using the ledger system of debt paid/owed beyond illustration is flawed.

 

[Rebel]

I believe the Greek word is best translated as "expiation". I also believe that the Atonement seen as appeasing God and His wrath is a pagan idea.

I know I will draw the wrath of some people by saying that, but it's what I believe, and I won't hide it.

 

[JonC]

I believe the Greek word is best translated as "expiation". I also believe that the Atonement seen as appeasing God and His wrath is a pagan idea.

I know I will draw the wrath of some people by saying that, but it's what I believe, and I won't hide it.

Please correct me if I misrepresent your view, but I assume you to object to the notion that Penal Substitution fits within the context of a just God, as justice is not served by punishing the righteous for the crimes of the unrighteous. If God is Love and God is merciful, then this type of substitution does not make very much sense. Christ therefore made amends for the human race by conquering evil, but the atonement was not necessarily diverting God’s wrath but showing God’s love and mercy. But as always, please correct any misunderstanding I have regarding your position.