Atonemet (Not PSA....my position)

[JonC]

If the animal was not sacrificed, the people would have died, yes? That seems to be what you are saying. So how is that not a substitution, and a penal one at that? The animal dies - penal. The people don't - substitution.

Several reasons.

The animal was not sacrificed instead of the people. Had the animal not been sacrificed the people would not have taken its place.

When you eat a hamburger the cow was not slaughtered instead of you (although if you do not eat you will die).

What would have happened if the animal was sacrificed but the priest did not "make atonement for the sins of the people" by applying the blood in the Most Holy Place? The people's sins would not be atoned.


No, sacrificing an animal is not penal. Here yoy drift from Scripture and the Hebrew practice. The atoning sacrifice was viewed as a "gift" of obedience (think of Jesus' obedience even to dearh on a cross).

They were not punishing these animals. The animals were not facing a penalty. They were being sacrificed (actually in a humane way - the animals were not experiencing suffering).
If you showed up without an offering the priest would not grab you and slit your throat and offer you as a human sacrifice to God.

When the people sacrificed an animal they were not punishing the animal. The animal was not being killed instead of the people.


The animals that died in medical research to develop cancer treatments did not die instead of those who receive the treatment. They died for the purpose of developing a treatment but not "instead of"".

You kinda reached far here... even for you.

 

[JonC]

It doesn’t make any sense to divide up believers and say that none can have similar beliefs. Aren’t we supposed to be using something of the same Bible? Should we not be using God’s Word? Is Christ divided?

What is the purpose in dividing everyone up? How does that help anything?

I’m not ashamed of what I believe.

I’ve never been more confused about what you believe.

A few posts ago, you said that you are a determinist. So I don’t have any idea what you believe. I’m not mixed up about what I believe, just what you believe.

The purpose is to explain one's faith. We cannot water down our doctrine so that it is essentially Unitarianism.

Doctrine should be precise and clear. Even the Apostolic congregations held different doctrines. But they were united in Christ.

PSA (your view) vs Christus Victor (my view) vs Satisfaction Theory (Lutherans) does not have to divide us in terms of being united in Christ.

BUT we do not need to pretend we all believe exactly the same.

 

[JonC]

The chastisement of our peace was upon him.


Explain to me why this does not mean instead of us. It certainly looks like it to me. Just telling me to explore it doesn’t tell me what makes you read something different from Isaiah 53. You will have to explain it to me and take my asking as my exploration.

There are verses thst many take to mean "instead of" because that is our main protestant tradition (since the 1700's).

What does the verse actually say?

The chastisement of our peace - the penalty or cost of our peace - the penalty Christ suffered to save us - was upon Him.

There is no "instead of" even implied in the verse. If a soldier sufferes and dies for his country he is not dying instead of the country.

Think of Christ bearing our sin. If this is "instead of us" then our bearing His righteousness now is "instead of Him".



Christ's death was not just a place keeper instead of us. He was actually accomplishing something.

 

[Ben1445]

Several reasons.

The animal was not sacrificed instead of the people. Had the animal not been sacrificed the people would not have taken its place.

If I may interject some thoughts…

A sacrifice cannot ever be the individual who needs the sacrifice. If I am punished for my sin, I am not sacrificed for my sins, I am judged for them with no atonement available. There is no sacrifice.
So as I read what you say, I think you have taken the instead of too far.
Also, animal sacrifices are teaching tools and not able to take away sin. So there is not even the remotest possibility that you would sacrifice a person instead of an animal. An example is the redeeming of the firstborn. An animal could substitute for another animal or be taken for sacrifice itself. But in redeeming the firstborn child failing to redeem them was not an option. Redeeming the firstborn is a clear example of the instead of principle.

When you eat a hamburger the cow was not slaughtered instead of you (although if you do not eat you will die).

This is not a bad example. One life given to sustain another.
Jesus gave the same example with water with the woman at the well. He also declared Himself bread to be taken in. (Not transubstantiation)

What would have happened if the animal was sacrificed but the priest did not "make atonement for the sins of the people" by applying the blood in the Most Holy Place? The people's sins would not be atoned.

But that never actually atoned for sin or it would have ceased. So the example is imperfect whereas Christ is the perfect sacrifice.

No, sacrificing an animal is not penal. Here yoy drift from Scripture and the Hebrew practice. The atoning sacrifice was viewed as a "gift" of obedience (think of Jesus' obedience even to dearh on a cross).

They were not punishing these animals. The animals were not facing a penalty. They were being sacrificed (actually in a humane way - the animals were not experiencing suffering).
If you showed up without an offering the priest would not grab you and slit your throat and offer you as a human sacrifice to God.

You cannot say that Jesus did not suffer. It was not a vacation from heaven that Jesus was taking. Jesus was tried in court. Jesus was condemned to die. That is penal. It may have been a corrupt court but it was the sentence of a criminal that Jesus received.

When the people sacrificed an animal they were not punishing the animal. The animal was not being killed instead of the people.

Just a picture and not the real thing.
Our chastisement, our punishment was on Jesus.

The animals that died in medical research to develop cancer treatments did not die instead of those who receive the treatment. They died for the purpose of developing a treatment but not "instead of"".

You have singled out an example instead of Christ the real sacrifice. So the example, the schoolmaster to point us to Christ you may find fault in. But you have not shown that Jesus did not die for our sin instead of us. You have only shown that animal sacrifices are not atonement instead of us.
But Jesus tasted death for us. It removes death from us. So I don’t see any problem yet with instead of.

Isaac was taken to be sacrificed but the sacrifice God provided was sacrificed literally instead of Isaac. Isaac was removed and the ram sacrificed instead of Isaac.

 

[JonC]

@Martin Marprelate

Reading your last post I see you do not understand PSA.

Every Christian believes sin produces a wage, a penalty. Every Christian believes Jesus is our Substitute.


Penal substitution is not two aspects of the Atonement crammed together. It is one term. It is the type of substitution.

You have, at a minimum, representative substitution, satisfactory substitution, penal substitution, ontological substitution.

The first word in the term denotes the type of substitution.

 

[Ben1445]

The purpose is to explain one's faith. We cannot water down our doctrine so that it is essentially Unitarianism.

Doctrine should be precise and clear. Even the Apostolic congregations held different doctrines. But they were united in Christ.

PSA (your view) vs Christus Victor (my view) vs Satisfaction Theory (Lutherans) does not have to divide us in terms of being united in Christ.

BUT we do not need to pretend we all believe exactly the same.

I don’t actually care what you call it. I’m one of those weird people who just worries about what the Bible teaches and not what the name of the theory is.
I don’t see how Christs substitute as a sinless sacrifice taking on Himself the death of a criminal makes Him any less a “Victor.”
But I don’t know what your “Christus Victor” hidden baggage is either. We have only been discussing PSA.

I would say just teach it and preach it the way the Bible says it. Forget about your theories.

 

[JonC]

If I may interject some thoughts…

A sacrifice cannot ever be the individual who needs the sacrifice. If I am punished for my sin, I am not sacrificed for my sins, I am judged for them with no atonement available. There is no sacrifice.
So as I read what you say, I think you have taken the instead of too far.
Also, animal sacrifices are teaching tools and not able to take away sin. So there is not even the remotest possibility that you would sacrifice a person instead of an animal. An example is the redeeming of the firstborn. An animal could substitute for another animal or be taken for sacrifice itself. But in redeeming the firstborn child failing to redeem them was not an option. Redeeming the firstborn is a clear example of the instead of principle.



This is not a bad example. One life given to sustain another.
Jesus gave the same example with water with the woman at the well. He also declared Himself bread to be taken in. (Not transubstantiation)



But that never actually atoned for sin or it would have ceased. So the example is imperfect whereas Christ is the perfect sacrifice.


You cannot say that Jesus did not suffer. It was not a vacation from heaven that Jesus was taking. Jesus was tried in court. Jesus was condemned to die. That is penal. It may have been a corrupt court but it was the sentence of a criminal that Jesus received.



Just a picture and not the real thing.
Our chastisement, our punishment was on Jesus.




You have singled out an example instead of Christ the real sacrifice. So the example, the schoolmaster to point us to Christ you may find fault in. But you have not shown that Jesus did not die for our sin instead of us. You have only shown that animal sacrifices are not atonement instead of us.
But Jesus tasted death for us. It removes death from us. So I don’t see any problem yet with instead of.

Isaac was taken to be sacrificed but the sacrifice God provided was sacrificed literally instead of Isaac. Isaac was removed and the ram sacrificed instead of Isaac.

Redeeming the firstborn is not "instead of". It is redeeming. It was an act of obedience.

What would happen if they did not redeem the firstborn? They would sin, but the firstborn would not be killed instead of the animal.

That is what "instead of" means. Think of it as A=B. If you cannot reverse the equation it is not "instead of".

In Exodus had they not killed a lamb then the firstborn son would die. BUT if they killed the animal but forgot to apply the blood the don would die. The sacrifice (in Scripture) is never "instead of".

It is, however, on behalf of.

 

[Ben1445]

There are verses thst many take to mean "instead of" because that is our main protestant tradition (since the 1700's).

What does the verse actually say?

The chastisement of our peace - the penalty or cost of our peace - the penalty Christ suffered to save us - was upon Him.

The penalty on Him no longer need be on me. I won’t suffer for my sin because Jesus suffered for my sin. He suffered instead of me.

There is no "instead of" even implied in the verse. If a soldier sufferes and dies for his country he is not dying instead of the country.

You are willingly ignoring what is more than implied. You are dedicated to your Christus Victor theory.

Think of Christ bearing our sin. If this is "instead of us" then our bearing His righteousness now is "instead of Him".

No. He has enough righteousness to share without running out.

Christ's death was not just a place keeper instead of us. He was actually accomplishing something.

That is a worthless statement. Of course the atonement actually accomplished something. A substitute teacher may actually accomplish something even though they are only instead of or in the place of the regular teacher.

 

[JonC]

I don’t actually care what you call it. I’m one of those weird people who just worries about what the Bible teaches and not what the name of the theory is.
I don’t see how Christs substitute as a sinless sacrifice taking on Himself the death of a criminal makes Him any less a “Victor.”
But I don’t know what your “Christus Victor” hidden baggage is either. We have only been discussing PSA.

I would say just teach it and preach it the way the Bible says it. Forget about your theories.

Christis Victor is a "literal" reading of Scripture. The pount is not to carry in presuppositions. Because of this there are differences (due to emphasis). But it is literally the text of Scripture.

I never denied that Christ was a substitute as a sinless sacrifice taking on Himself the death of a criminal.

He suffered death once for all to defeat the power of the one who holds the power of death, that is the devil.

I think we should forget about theories and just go to Scripture.

But the problems comes in with PSA theorists. They will say Jesus suffered God's wrath, God punished Jesus for our sins, He died instead of us, God punished the Just to clear the guilty.

But they have no passage stating any of that. These theorists just give their theory and say it is what the Bible really teaches.


But YES!!! Lets go passage by passage, and take our time (God's Word is worth our time).

You start.

 

[Ben1445]

Redeeming the firstborn is not "instead of". It is redeeming. It was an act of obedience.

Exodus 13:13
And every firstling of an ass thou shalt redeem with a lamb; and if thou wilt not redeem it, then thou shalt break his neck: and all the firstborn of man among thy children shalt thou redeem.

Literally instead of.

What would happen if they did not redeem the firstborn? They would sin, but the firstborn would not be killed instead of the animal.

That is what "instead of" means. Think of it as A=B. If you cannot reverse the equation it is not "instead of".

In Exodus had they not killed a lamb then the firstborn son would die. BUT if they killed the animal but forgot to apply the blood the don would die. The sacrifice (in Scripture) is never "instead of".

It is, however, on behalf of.

You have taken the meaning of instead of to your own strange level. Unless you can provide some authority on it that back up your perspective, it is you who does not understand PSA.

 

[Ben1445]

Christis Victor is a "literal" reading of Scripture.

It is not literally written in Scripture for me to read so this statement doesn’t do anything more than me saying PSA is a literal reading of Scripture.

The pount is not to carry in presuppositions. Because of this there are differences (due to emphasis). But it is literally the text of Scripture.

That’s what everyone says. You have not shown it.

I never denied that Christ was a substitute as a sinless sacrifice taking on Himself the death of a criminal.

That is penal substitution. Literally.

He suffered death once for all to defeat the power of the one who holds the power of death, that is the devil.

So you have Satan in charge of hell?

I think we should forget about theories and just go to Scripture.

It’s your thread.

But the problems comes in with PSA theorists. They will say Jesus suffered God's wrath, God punished Jesus for our sins, He died instead of us, God punished the Just to clear the guilty.

That is the literal reading of Scripture.
1 Peter 3:18
For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:

But they have no passage stating any of that. These theorists just give their theory and say it is what the Bible really teaches.

I have given you several. You don’t answer them satisfactorily. You deny them but not to provide satisfaction.

But YES!!! Lets go passage by passage, and take our time (God's Word is worth our time).

You start.

Go ahead and answer what I already gave you.

 

[JesusFan]

I have said repeatedly that I believe Christus Victor as a facet of atonement theology, although it is defined in different ways. I do not accept some of the versions that are called Christus Victor but I do believe that Christ defeated Satan and the powers of darkness and ruined any claims that Satan had on us. I can show you where many theologians who embrace PSA also believe Christus Victor as an aspect or facet of the atonement.

Christus Victor cannot be a stand alone explanation of the atonement because it does not deal with any aspect of our own damaged relationship with God due to our own sin. As far as I know, Christus Victor has nothing to do with Socinian arguments. The argument that it is perverse and wrong to punish the innocent and clear the guilty, and then try to apply that to what PSA says Christ did on the cross - is indeed a Socinian argument. The argument that even if Christ could do so, it would only apply to 1 person at most is Socinian, and the idea that there is no way to make the "punishment" equivalent anyway, is also a Socinian argument. Anyone who uses those arguments is using a Socinian argument.

that view doers NOT still explain just how and why the very wrath of God has been propiated?

 

[JonC]

Exodus 13:13
And every firstling of an ass thou shalt redeem with a lamb; and if thou wilt not redeem it, then thou shalt break his neck: and all the firstborn of man among thy children shalt thou redeem.

Literally instead of.


You have taken the meaning of instead of to your own strange level. Unless you can provide some authority on it that back up your perspective, it is you who does not understand PSA.

No. It is not (literally) "instead of".

God did not tell them to break the animal's neck or break their child's neck.

You are talking about Pidyon Haben. The idea was one of buying back the child. Because of the Passover the child os consecrated for God's service. The child is bought back.


Provide an authority source on PSA?? I have. I have provided multiple theologians (many Calvinists), several academic and popular systematic theologies, and several pastors who hold the position.

Can you provide an authority who denies PSA includes Jesus e periencing punishment for God instead of us being punished??

 

[JesusFan]

No. It is not (literally) "instead of".

God did not tell them to break the animal's neck or break their child's neck.

You are talking about Pidyon Haben. The idea was one of buying back the child. Because of the Passover the child os consecrated for God's service. The child is bought back.


Provide an authority source on PSA?? I have. I have provided multiple theologians (many Calvinists), several academic and popular systematic theologies, and several pastors who hold the position.

Can you provide an authority who denies PSA includes Jesus e periencing punishment for God instead of us being punished??

No Psa advocate holds to jesus being punished, as he willingly took upon Himself our due wrath and judgment in our place

 

[JonC]

It is not literally written in Scripture for me to read so this statement doesn’t do anything more than me saying PSA is a literal reading of Scripture.


That’s what everyone says. You have not shown it.


That is penal substitution. Literally.


So you have Satan in charge of hell?


It’s your thread.


That is the literal reading of Scripture.
1 Peter 3:18
For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:

I have given you several. You don’t answer them satisfactorily. You deny them but not to provide satisfaction.


Go ahead and answer what I already gave you.

1. None of the verses staye "instead of" (you are adding to the text). While we do bear Jesus' righteousness, and while God does clothe us in His righteousness, Jesus is not our unrighteous Savior. It is not instead of. You read that into the text.

2. No. I do not have Satan in charge of Hell. I was quoting Scripture. Those were not my words.

3. For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:

The verse does not say "the just instead of the unjust". It says the just for the unjust.

 

[DaveXR650]

that view doers NOT still explain just how and why the very wrath of God has been propiated?

Correct. As a facet or an aspect of the atonement it is true. All believers of PSA also believe that Jesus defeated the powers of darkness, bound the strongman, led captivity captive and destroyed all and any claims Satan had over mankind. John Owen believed this and wrote quite a bit about it. It is only when some try to set Christus Victor as opposite PSA that you see what they are trying to do. It is a subtle way to attempt to be "authentic" and pretend to follow the early church fathers when the fact is that many of the early church fathers recognized that Christ was directly dealing with our sin and offense against God the Father on the cross and that this was in addition to Christ being victorious over the powers of darkness. Christus Victor cannot stand alone but it will work with PSA as a facet of the atonement. PSA is the core and center of the atonement and if you make it stand alone you do not have a full explanation but you do have the essential core. That is the difference.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Several reasons.

The animal was not sacrificed instead of the people. Had the animal not been sacrificed the people would not have taken its place.

The analogy was yours, not mine.

The animal needed to die so the people would not, but the animal was not sacrificed "instead of the people".

Just so. The anomal died instead of the people.

When you eat a hamburger the cow was not slaughtered instead of you (although if you do not eat you will die).

This is a pretty bad analogy even by your standards. I do not eat hamburgers to atone for my sins. If I am hungry and there are no hamburgers handy, I eat a frankfurter (not in Israel!) or vegetables. But if I were at the point of death through starvation and a cow came along, if I killed and ate it, it would indeed have died instead of me.

What would have happened if the animal was sacrificed but the priest did not "make atonement for the sins of the people" by applying the blood in the Most Holy Place? The people's sins would not be atoned.

You are thinking of the Mosaic covenant. Abel, Noah and Abraham did not have the luxury of a priest.

No, sacrificing an animal is not penal. Here yoy drift from Scripture and the Hebrew practice. The atoning sacrifice was viewed as a "gift" of obedience (think of Jesus' obedience even to dearh on a cross).

'It is the blood that makes atonement for the soul' and always did. To be scrabbling about in te Mosaic Covenant is not relevant for New Testament Christians who are 'a nation of priests.' The Lord Jesus Himself offered one sacrifice of Himself for sins forever and by that sacrifice 'He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified.' If we are justified by obedience, that is really bad news.

They were not punishing these animals. The animals were not facing a penalty. They were being sacrificed (actually in a humane way - the animals were not experiencing suffering).

No one asked the animals if they were suffering!

If you showed up without an offering the priest would not grab you and slit your throat and offer you as a human sacrifice to God.

When the people sacrificed an animal they were not punishing the animal. The animal was not being killed instead of the people.

The animal was dying in the place of the people.

The animals that died in medical research to develop cancer treatments did not die instead of those who receive the treatment. They died for the purpose of developing a treatment but not "instead of"".

Oh boy! Were the animals making atonement in any way? No. Don't be so silly

You kinda reached far here... even for you.

As for you - less said the better, I think.