Biblical Atonement (Part 4....but who's counting)

[37818]

Lets discuss it - what did you believe was not in Scripture?

What Scripture did you present?

 

[JonC]

What Scripture did you present?

Scripture tells us of the OT sacrifice system under the Law and how during this time God, in His forbearance, passed over their sins.

Scripture tells us of the faith of the OT faithful that was counted as righteousness.

Scripture tells of Adam's transgression and how sin and death entered the world.

We are told of the bondage of sin and death that enslaved man.

Scripture tells us that it is appointed man once to die and then the Judgment.

Scripture tells us of the "Last Adam", Jesus Christ, who became flesh, shared our infirmity, became a curse for us, was made sin for us, bore our sins in His body, suffered and died under the evil of this world and by those to whom He came.

Scripture tells us this was the will of God, He was pleased to crush Him, that this was His predetermined plan.

Also, Christ lay down His own life in obedience and by His own accord.

Scripture tells us that God vindicated Christ, raised Him, gave Him a name above every name.

Scripture tells us all judgment has been given the Son.

Scripture tells us that it is an abomination to God to substitute the righteous for the guilty.

Scripture tells us that our salvation is the righteousness of God manifested apart from the law.

Scripture tells us that Christ is the Propitiation for not only our sins but the sins of the whole world.

The Cross was God reconciling man to Himself and now we have the ministry of reconciliation, urging men to be reconciled to God.

Through Christ's death man was reconciled, and through His life men are saved.

Scripture tells us that we can not earn our salvation, but that we must be reborn, made new creations in Christ, we must die to the flesh and all flesh must perish.

We must be born of the Spirit, in Christ, in Whom there is no condemnation.


I did not include references (they are not actually a part of Scripture, the chapter-verse divisions first appeared in William Whittingham's translation in 1557).

And I have often seen people reject Scripture when they don't realize it is actually Scripture....which helps make the point.

Which of the above do you reject? Which do you need to discuss?

 

[DaveXR650]

I think @JonC in post 12 for the most part describes penal substitution.
I do not accept the use of "propitiation" and at the same time denying penal substitution. You use the concept of a ministry of reconciliation but it's based on what? Through Christ's death, he became a curse for us, was made sin for us, bore our sins in his body. You are describing penal substitution. Your last paragraph totally contradicts your own preceding statements.

Scripture tells us that it is an abomination to God to substitute the righteous for the guilty. Scripture tells us that our salvation is the righteousness of God manifested apart from the law.

That is just a proof of why Jesus was uniquely qualified for this and taken the way you try to use it it means that we are in a hopeless situation. But it is possible because he became sin who knew no sin. And he didn't just become "sin" as a vague concept floating around. It was our actual sins. Penal substitution.

First, the word "atonement" means "reconciliation". Penal Substitution Theorists redefine it to something akin to pagan sacrifices.

Of course it means reconciliation but it has to be based on something. We know from scripture that God's law is an expression of his nature. We know from scripture what God's reaction is to sin. We know Christ died for our sins as you posted yourself. Something akin to pagan sacrifices is straight out of the modern theological liberalism and is not what is meant at all. You said yourself " He was pleased to crush him". Now I'm sorry but I call that a clue - that maybe wrath was involved.

It's amazing to me that what has been going on for what, four threads, is a conciliatory response basically agreeing with penal substitution along with a bizarre dismissing of scriptures clearly indicating penal substitution because you have so decreed. A lot of people nowadays don't believe in penal substitution but do any of these go ahead and use "propitiation"? That's a contradiction in itself. At least hire a good philologist and get a good modern translation that does away with it.

 

[JonC]

I think @JonC in post 12 for the most part describes penal substitution.
I do not accept the use of "propitiation" and at the same time denying penal substitution. You use the concept of a ministry of reconciliation but it's based on what? Through Christ's death, he became a curse for us, was made sin for us, bore our sins in his body. You are describing penal substitution. Your last paragraph totally contradicts your own preceding statements.



That is just a proof of why Jesus was uniquely qualified for this and taken the way you try to use it it means that we are in a hopeless situation. But it is possible because he became sin who knew no sin. And he didn't just become "sin" as a vague concept floating around. It was our actual sins. Penal substitution.



Of course it means reconciliation but it has to be based on something. We know from scripture that God's law is an expression of his nature. We know from scripture what God's reaction is to sin. We know Christ died for our sins as you posted yourself. Something akin to pagan sacrifices is straight out of the modern theological liberalism and is not what is meant at all. You said yourself " He was pleased to crush him". Now I'm sorry but I call that a clue - that maybe wrath was involved.

It's amazing to me that what has been going on for what, four threads, is a conciliatory response basically agreeing with penal substitution along with a bizarre dismissing of scriptures clearly indicating penal substitution because you have so decreed. A lot of people nowadays don't believe in penal substitution but do any of these go ahead and use "propitiation"? That's a contradiction in itself. At least hire a good philologist and get a good modern translation that does away with it.

I use the word "propitiation" because Christ is the Propitiation for the sins of the World. In Him we escape the wrath to come (in Him there is no condemnation, we are justified).

That is, by definition, propitiation. That said, I agree with FF Bruce that the word most likely means more than mere propitiation. I use it because it is not a hill upon which to die, and at a minimum He is our Propitiation. He offered Himself as a sacrifice for our sins and in Him we escape the wrath to come.

That said, there is nothing in my posts or my view that is remotely close to Penal Substitution Theory. I believe the Theory has done more damage to the Church than most other errors within orthodox Christianity.

The ministry of reconciliation is based on Christ's life (man was reconciled to God through His death, men are saved through His life, the cross was God reconciling man to Himself, we have been given the ministry of reconciliation - urging men to be reconciled to God).

 

[37818]

Scripture tells us of the OT sacrifice system under the Law and how during this time God, in His forbearance, passed over their sins.

Scripture tells us of the faith of the OT faithful that was counted as righteousness.

Scripture tells of Adam's transgression and how sin and death entered the world.

We are told of the bondage of sin and death that enslaved man.

Scripture tells us that it is appointed man once to die and then the Judgment.

Scripture tells us of the "Last Adam", Jesus Christ, who became flesh, shared our infirmity, became a curse for us, was made sin for us, bore our sins in His body, suffered and died under the evil of this world and by those to whom He came.

Scripture tells us this was the will of God, He was pleased to crush Him, that this was His predetermined plan.

Also, Christ lay down His own life in obedience and by His own accord.

Scripture tells us that God vindicated Christ, raised Him, gave Him a name above every name.

Scripture tells us all judgment has been given the Son.

Scripture tells us that it is an abomination to God to substitute the righteous for the guilty.

Scripture tells us that our salvation is the righteousness of God manifested apart from the law.

Scripture tells us that Christ is the Propitiation for not only our sins but the sins of the whole world.

The Cross was God reconciling man to Himself and now we have the ministry of reconciliation, urging men to be reconciled to God.

Through Christ's death man was reconciled, and through His life men are saved.

Scripture tells us that we can not earn our salvation, but that we must be reborn, made new creations in Christ, we must die to the flesh and all flesh must perish.

We must be born of the Spirit, in Christ, in Whom there is no condemnation.


I did not include references (they are not actually a part of Scripture, the chapter-verse divisions first appeared in William Whittingham's translation in 1557).

And I have often seen people reject Scripture when they don't realize it is actually Scripture....which helps make the point.

Which of the above do you reject? Which do you need to discuss?

Pick an item. And give the Scripture reference for it. Then I can compare your statement with said Scripture. What we agree on will not at issue.

 

[JonC]

Pick an item. And give the Scripture reference for it. Then I can compare your statement with said Scripture. What we agree on will not at issue.

Proverbs 17:15 He who justifies the wicked and he who condemns the righteous, both of them alike are an abomination to the Lord.

Do you agree or disagree?

Deuteronomy 24:16 Fathers shall not be put to death for their sons, nor shall sons be put to death for their fathers; everyone shall be put to death for his own sin.


Do you agree or disagree?

Ezekiel 18:20–21 The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son’s iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself. But if the wicked man turns from all his sins which he has committed and observes all My statutes and practices justice and righteousness, he shall surely live; he shall not die."

Do you agree or disagree?

Ezekiel 18:26–27 When a righteous man turns away from his righteousness, commits iniquity and dies because of it, for his iniquity which he has committed he will die. Again, when a wicked man turns away from his wickedness which he has committed and practices justice and righteousness, he will save his life."

Do you agree or disagree?

 

[DaveXR650]

I use the word "propitiation" because Christ is the Propitiation for the sins of the World. In Him we escape the wrath to come (in Him there is no condemnation, we are justified).

I don't accept the logic that you can use propitiation for the sins of the whole world then say we can escape the wrath to come and in Him we are justified - then say penal substitution is not in the Bible. There is a disconnect that I don't understand and would not post at this point except for this:

I believe the Theory has done more damage to the Church than most other errors within orthodox Christianity.

A statement like this needs to be explained as to what exact harm it causes and what your theory would correct.

 

[JonC]

I don't accept the logic that you can use propitiation for the sins of the whole world then say we can escape the wrath to come and in Him we are justified - then say penal substitution is not in the Bible. There is a disconnect that I don't understand and would not post at this point except for this:


A statement like this needs to be explained as to what exact harm it causes and what your theory would correct.

Insofar as it's meaning, does not matter if we accept or reject Scripture.


Scripture teaches that Christ is the Propitiation for the sins of the whole World and that in Him we escape the wrath to come

That has nothing to do with Penal Substitution.

What is important here is what Scripture DOES NOT teach. Nowhere does it teach that Christ suffered God's wrath instead of us. This is not even remotely hinted at with Christ bring the Propitiation for the sins of the World, but is what some people add to God's Word.

I'll give an example - Augustine taught that Christ is the Propitiation for our sins and that the idea Christ's death appeased God is heresy - a departure from the Christian faith.

 

[37818]

Proverbs 17:15 He who justifies the wicked and he who condemns the righteous, both of them alike are an abomination to the Lord.

Do you agree or disagree?

I agree.

Deuteronomy 24:16 Fathers shall not be put to death for their sons, nor shall sons be put to death for their fathers; everyone shall be put to death for his own sin.


Do you agree or disagree?

I agree.

zekiel 18:20–21 The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son’s iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself. But if the wicked man turns from all his sins which he has committed and observes all My statutes and practices justice and righteousness, he shall surely live; he shall not die."

Do you agree or disagree?

I agree. [I understand grace under sacrifice system in the Law, before the cross.]

Ezekiel 18:26–27 When a righteous man turns away from his righteousness, commits iniquity and dies because of it, for his iniquity which he has committed he will die. Again, when a wicked man turns away from his wickedness which he has committed and practices justice and righteousness, he will save his life."

Do you agree or disagree?

I agree. [I understand grace under sacrifice system in the Law, before the cross.]

Also Ezekiel 18 :32, ". . . For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord GOD: wherefore turn yourselves, and live ye. . . ."

 

[JonC]

I agree.

I agree.

I agree. [I understand grace under sacrifice system in the Law, before the cross.]


I agree. [I understand grace under sacrifice system in the Law, before the cross.]

Also Ezekiel 18 :32, ". . . For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord GOD: wherefore turn yourselves, and live ye. . . ."

Before going on, please correct me if I have misunderstood you.

I gather from your agreement that you believe it is an abomination to condemn the Righteous and acquit the guilty. You believe sins are not transfered but the one who committed the sin faces the results of the sin. Is that correct?

 

[37818]

Before going on, please correct me if I have misunderstood you.

I gather from your agreement that you believe it is an abomination to condemn the Righteous and acquit the guilty. You believe sins are not transfered but the one who committed the sin faces the results of the sin. Is that correct?

And men are not God in these matters. What Christ did between being foresaken by His Father, Matthew 27:46 He completed before He received the vinegar, Matthew 27:48, John 19:28-29.

 

[DaveXR650]

Scripture teaches that Christ is the Propitiation for the sins of the whole World and that in Him we escape the wrath to come

That has nothing to do with Penal Substitution.

As everyone can see, you have already determined that no verse could ever mean penal substitution because you deem them off limits beforehand. Above you describe propitiation and wrath then turn around and say that has nothing to do with penal substitution when every other thing you read - whether it be for or against penal substitution agrees that those are things have everything to do with penal substitution. So the argument becomes absurd and goes on for thread after thread with nothing accomplished. Your theory in post 12 has all the elements of penal substitution even as you try to dance around it and more importantly it does not match any other theory that is anywhere. If I am wrong on this list the reference. Otherwise we have two possibilities, either you have developed a novel theory, or you enjoy pulling people's chains.

 

[agedman]

As everyone can see, you have already determined that no verse could ever mean penal substitution because you deem them off limits beforehand. Above you describe propitiation and wrath then turn around and say that has nothing to do with penal substitution when every other thing you read - whether it be for or against penal substitution agrees that those are things have everything to do with penal substitution. So the argument becomes absurd and goes on for thread after thread with nothing accomplished. Your theory in post 12 has all the elements of penal substitution even as you try to dance around it and more importantly it does not match any other theory that is anywhere. If I am wrong on this list the reference. Otherwise we have two possibilities, either you have developed a novel theory, or you enjoy pulling people's chains.

Dave, the problem is not penal suffering, but the substitution, in which the PSA places the wrath of God had to be poured out upon the Son in order to remove the judgement statements of the decrees of the Law.

As yet, the linking of wrath to the suffering has been lacking any valid Scripture support.

I see two very basic problems that one must resolve with Scripture.

1) Why is there not a single verse in the NT or OT that speaks directly to the issue. Neither is there given even the slightest hint of such in the atonement Passover yearly sacrifice. The only time wrath from God was mentioned was if the blood or priest was unqualified. Christ was not unqualified nor disqualified by sin, for He remained innocent.

2) Christ is God. That is what the Scriptures state. In another place, He is the Fulness of God.
So, the PSA (philosophically) is in direct conflict with the holiness of God not only by Him pouring wrath out upon the innocent (which is also a violation of His own Law), but is actually supposedly pouring divine judgement (wrath) upon Himself. This is not in the slightest Scripturally supported.

It matters very little concerning the philosophy, for when one comes to confront PSA, it is not just the lack of support, but also the gymnastics of misusing scriptures. Either person will cling to the traditions of men or, as @JonC and me, realize WE must conform to the Word of God.

So, throughout these multiple threads with abundant posts, we have urged folks to bring some Scripture to validate PSA. Seems we only get the basic handful that have been soundly shown unusable for such support, and, that those Scriptures offered do actually validate that in which both @JonC and Me have shown as the scriptural presentation.

Now, there is one area that I go further (I think) than @JonC, and that is in the use of the word “substitution.”

I have long expressed the use of the word (substitution), as is currently defined, is inappropriately applied.

In Scripture, the thinking of substitution is not “taking our place.”

In the OT if some “substitute” for the sacrifice was to be used, BOTH the original and substitute were sacrificed. So the “substitution” thinking of “a replacement,” or “the taking the place of,” just does not fit Scripture type. For the believers would still be under the judgement of God.

I much rather prefer “satisfied” for that is exactly what the OT presents in type and what the NT expresses.

You will note the lack of giving Scripture in this post.

That is on purpose.

Dave, you will need to evaluate the Scriptures for yourself. Find what the Scripture supports, and cling to it, despite what others hold.

@JonC nor I are out to convince by our own merits folks to our thinking. Such is foolish when it is the work of the Holy Spirit and Scriptures that should convince. We merely ask folks to seek, find for themself, and be convinced by Scriptures of what they hold.

 

[Aaron]

@Aaron

In the last thread on this topic you mentioned that I should not start with my own notions. But that is exactly what folks that cling to PSA theory do.

Just as the testimony of @JonC and I remarked, we were both presenting PSA thinking as factual, and defendable, until we both were confronted with the fact that the scheme was NOT found to be Scriptural without adding and redirecting the passages to mean what they do not.

A simple passage, "Christ died for us." I took that to include that Christ suffered wrath in my stead, that He bore the wrath of God that I may not. However, that isn't the teaching of the Scriptures both in English and in the original. Not even close. And that is just one of the many.

When it came down to a choice, it was to accept the teaching of Scripture or that of philosophical presentation.

I chose Scriptures.

That is why throughout these many posts and threads I have implored someone to find SOME Scripture that clearly teaches that God poured out His wrath upon the Son.

I really do seek to find such a Scripture, but have not, the searching has been in vain.

Our personal 'journeys' are irrelevant, but I was not 'taught' what you call PSA. It simply leaps from the page.

 

[Aaron]

Neither @JonC nor I deny the Lord suffered. That is penal suffering.

What was the penalty for?

 

[Aaron]

Indeed.

The Biblical Atonement (continued 3)

 

[agedman]

What was the penalty for?

Why do you suppose there was a penalty?

Peter didn’t make such a claim.

23Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain: 24Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it.
​

Actually, I like the Berean Study Bible work on this:

He was delivered up by God’s set plan and foreknowledge, and you, by the hands of the lawless, put Him to death by nailing Him to the cross.

​

 

[Aaron]

The Biblical Atonement (continued 3)


To say "the sacrifice is sacrificed" is meaningless. What the animal was, was a substitute. Sins were born in the body of the offering. The body is excluded from the altar. It is carried by the priests outside the camp away from the abode of God where the sins are judged with fire.

You keep saying the just did suffer for the unjust (something you explicitly denied in the earlier thread), but what does it mean? What did the Just endure for the unjust?

 

[Aaron]

Why do you suppose there was a penalty?

​

You just said it was penal suffering.

 

[JonC]

And men are not God in these matters. What Christ did between being foresaken by His Father, Matthew 27:46 He completed before He received the vinegar, Matthew 27:48, John 19:28-29.

I know mrn are not God. But that does not have anything to do with the passages I am asking about.