• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

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

Status
Not open for further replies.

agedman

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Oh dear! I've dealt with this so many times that I'm sick of it, but here we go again.
If I post a letter for someone, I post it, he doesn't. I post it instead of him.
If I pay a bill on someone's behalf, I pay it, he doesn't. I pay it instead of him.
If I die for someone, I die, he doesn't. I die instead of him.
And so on. How many examples would you like?

Martin, you are using the English to define the English.

The Greek is not so conformed.

"huper" in the Greek is restricted (again, I can be corrected for my mind may fail me again) to a placement, such as an endowment (English - I paid for His tuition) as one over or not over someone else (English - the servant is not over the master) and perhaps used as one who has the interest of another at heart (English - I took this road for the comfort of my friend).

Again, as you know I readily submit to those of you so much more acute in the languages then me. So, if I have this wrong, I will not be in contest over the matter.

Hope you are well!
 

Martin Marprelate

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
No. I mean μεταλλάσσω. Paul μεταλλάσσω ("instead of"). If I recall καταλλάσσω is translated reconcile or reconciliation.

I may have gotten the two mixed up.....but I don't think so. You are going to make me look it up.
μεταλλάσσω means 'to exchange' or 'change.' I think it occurs only twice in the NT (Romans 1:25-26). καταλλάσσω means 'to reconcile.' What it does not mean is to 'atone.' Atonement brings about reconciliation. And BTW, according to Vine, the idea that 'atonement' means 'at-one-ment' is entirely fanciful.

Also, if I pay for someone's tuition, I pay it, he doesn't. I pay it instead of him.
 
Last edited:

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
I have a question that I hope both Jon C and Agedman would answer: I have been perusing your threads on atonement for a while (not exhaustively) and found a lot of what has been said to be compelling. I also have always been taught and more or less assumed PST. One question this conversation leaves me with is one I think that PSA (thus far) doesn't account for:

If Christ is forensically "paying a debt owed to God" and "taking God's wrath in our place", thus satisfying the demands of "justice" as understood/assumed by PST: Than can it be at all correct to say we are "forgiven"? It seems to me that although ya'll haven't elucidated that question (at least that I've seen). It would seem that you guys are suggesting that it is nonsense to speak of sins as "forgiven" if someone else simply pays the debt for us.... Is that part of the argument that you are making?

For instance, the analogy (you've probably heard it) of a fine owed by law and handed down by a just judge for a crime that is paid for by someone who loves us (Jesus in this instance) in order to satisfy the demands of justice....may get us, the guilty party out of paying said fine, but, no one would claim that we were "forgiven" that debt to the State. The State forgave nothing. The judge forgave nothing. A pardon is "forgiveness" and doesn't require someone else to go to prison in our stead. Don't let me put words in your mouths, but it seems like this is something like one of the arguments you guys are making.
Penal Substitution Theory redefines forgiveness. I don't know if you have read the moral philosophy of Renaissance humanism (particularly of the 15th to early 16th century) but that philosophy shows a development and the philosophical doctrines being discussed leading to the Theory. The Renaissance looked back and reinvented Stoic morality. But the RCC depended heavily on Thomas Aquinas (13th century) who argued a man can justly be punished for another as long as the punishment was not for the crimes but the person and both parties were willing (Jesus could be punished for us, but not for our sins). This evolved into a system of merit (and a "treasuey of merit).

Enter Calvin. He reformed RCC doctrine to focus on divine wrath. He was trained in secular law and Humanistic (Renaissance Humanism) moral philosophy.

Forgiveness was no longer centered on repentance but on the execution of punishment. The guilty took a back seat to the crime. Justice now demanded that crime (not the criminal...thanks to Aquinas) be punished. God, bring just, is bound by Calvin's moral philosophy.

Therefore to forgive sin God must punish sin. Otherwise Calvinistic moral philosophy is not met.

It is foreign to Scripture and, until the Reformation, it was foreign to Christianity. But that is how Calvinism sees God as Just and the justifier of sinners.
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
μεταλλάσσω means 'to exchange' or 'change.' I think it occurs only twice in the NT (Romans 1:25-26). καταλλάσσω means 'to reconcile.' What it does not mean is to 'atone.' Atonement brings about reconciliation. And BTW, according to Vine, the idea that 'atonement' means 'at-one-ment' is entirely fanciful.

Also, if I pay for someone's tuition, I pay it, he doesn't. I pay it instead of him.
There is an issue here.


The word "atone" literally means "at one" (it means reconciliation). A sacrifice atoned (the sacrifice reconciled). There are no passages that teach atone leads to reconciliation.

The problem is "atonement" became synonymous with "sacrifice" and even "penance" in the RCC. Calvinism maintained a pagan view of the OT and the sacrificial system. The OT sacrifice was no longer the obedience God required, God passing over sins, but an act that appeased divine wrath (a pagan belief that depends on a god who can be manuplated).
 

JesusFan

Well-Known Member
Read what the verse state!

Does it say that God the Father nailed the Son to the cross?

Or, is Peter pointing out to the crowd that their cries to "crucify Him" were placing everyone (the all inclusive "you") as complicit with the soldiers who drove the spikes through the Redeemer's body?
They acted out the predetermined plan and purposes of the father!
 

JesusFan

Well-Known Member
I have a question that I hope both Jon C and Agedman would answer: I have been perusing your threads on atonement for a while (not exhaustively) and found a lot of what has been said to be compelling. I also have always been taught and more or less assumed PST. One question this conversation leaves me with is one I think that PSA (thus far) doesn't account for:

If Christ is forensically "paying a debt owed to God" and "taking God's wrath in our place", thus satisfying the demands of "justice" as understood/assumed by PST: Than can it be at all correct to say we are "forgiven"? It seems to me that although ya'll haven't elucidated that question (at least that I've seen). It would seem that you guys are suggesting that it is nonsense to speak of sins as "forgiven" if someone else simply pays the debt for us.... Is that part of the argument that you are making?

For instance, the analogy (you've probably heard it) of a fine owed by law and handed down by a just judge for a crime that is paid for by someone who loves us (Jesus in this instance) in order to satisfy the demands of justice....may get us, the guilty party out of paying said fine, but, no one would claim that we were "forgiven" that debt to the State. The State forgave nothing. The judge forgave nothing. A pardon is "forgiveness" and doesn't require someone else to go to prison in our stead. Don't let me put words in your mouths, but it seems like this is something like one of the arguments you guys are making.
Jesus died in the place of and paid for the sins of His own elect
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
μεταλλάσσω means 'to exchange' or 'change.' I think it occurs only twice in the NT (Romans 1:25-26). καταλλάσσω means 'to reconcile.' What it does not mean is to 'atone.' Atonement brings about reconciliation. And BTW, according to Vine, the idea that 'atonement' means 'at-one-ment' is entirely fanciful.

Also, if I pay for someone's tuition, I pay it, he doesn't. I pay it instead of him.
I never said it means "atonement". And you are correct. The word means a substitution or exchange.

My point is the word "for" (as in Christ died for us) does not mean "instead of".

The word "atone" (a 16th century word) is from atonen (a 14th century word....literally, at one) and means "unity".
 

agedman

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I have a question that I hope both Jon C and Agedman would answer: I have been perusing your threads on atonement for a while (not exhaustively) and found a lot of what has been said to be compelling. I also have always been taught and more or less assumed PST. One question this conversation leaves me with is one I think that PSA (thus far) doesn't account for:

Thank you for joining in the conversation! The more that folks contribute, the better the Scriptures will be placed as the priority over human conjuring. That is my hope, anyway. Now on to your thinking. :)

If Christ is forensically "paying a debt owed to God" and "taking God's wrath in our place", thus satisfying the demands of "justice" as understood/assumed by PST: Than can it be at all correct to say we are "forgiven"? It seems to me that although ya'll haven't elucidated that question (at least that I've seen). It would seem that you guys are suggesting that it is nonsense to speak of sins as "forgiven" if someone else simply pays the debt for us.... Is that part of the argument that you are making?

One of the "sticky places" (imo) is that PSA prescribes that forgiveness of sins is tied to the wrath of God. Now this is partly correct in that the blood was shed on the cross, in the court rooms, in the garden, on the road,... but not until it was sprinkled in the heavenly temple was it effective. So, there can be no accounting for that wrath from God the PSA desires for until the sprinkling, the sacrifice was incomplete and unsatisfactory.

Also, we find that the Christ prior to the cross forgave sin. For example in Luke 5.

So, if I am making proper understanding of your question, it is not without blood shed that sins are forgiven, but twho shed the blood. The blood had to be shed by the Christ. This is presented in greater detail in Hebrews 9 then what I write here, and I posted some passages from that chapter in an above post, that might give you a better anchor to follow my thinking.

You also aligned "debt" as an issue. We (meaning everyone on the threads) have yet to present a Scripture that aligns debt with sin. What we find is that the Law decree violations were held against us, and as Colossians 2 states such were nailed by God to the cross.


For instance, the analogy (you've probably heard it) of a fine owed by law and handed down by a just judge for a crime that is paid for by someone who loves us (Jesus in this instance) in order to satisfy the demands of justice....may get us, the guilty party out of paying said fine, but, no one would claim that we were "forgiven" that debt to the State. The State forgave nothing. The judge forgave nothing. A pardon is "forgiveness" and doesn't require someone else to go to prison in our stead. Don't let me put words in your mouths, but it seems like this is something like one of the arguments you guys are making.

This is substitute thinking, and again that is not really found Scripturally aligned as PSA would present it as being.

Consider this. A crime has been committed. The parties all show up at court and the offending party brings a sacrifice that will reconcile the breach. The offended is no longer offended for they are pleased and satisfied with the sacrifice.

Here is were we must be very careful to not overstate or understate the Scripture presentation.

Christ came into this world to be the sacrifice in which human hands (the offensive party) sacrificed. (Peter's statement in Acts 2).

However, this action was already known and talked about by the trinity and the prophets.

Christ, both as the high priest and the perfect sacrifice, enters the heavenly temple and there spreads His own blood in that place not made with hands. (Hebrews 9).

There is no demand for "justice.' For God is both the just and justifier of all in whom He justifies.

Now the "press" have been watching, but they only can accuse, mock, and distort and demand some debt existed and justice had to have punishment.

Therefore God sent out folks to tell of the reconciliation and authored a press release for public understanding.

8See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, which are based on human tradition and the spiritual forces of the world rather than on Christ.

9For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity dwells in bodily form.

10And you have been made complete in Christ, who is the head over every ruler and authority. 11In Him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of your sinful nature, with the circumcision performed by Christ and not by human hands. 12And having been buried with Him in baptism, you were raised with Him through your faith in the power of God, who raised Him from the dead. 13When you were dead in your trespasses and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our trespasses, 14having canceled the debt ascribed to us in the decrees that stood against us. He took it away, nailing it to the cross! 15And having disarmed the powers and authorities, He made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross. (Colossians 2)
God did it all with no wrath poured out upon the Son. For such wrath is being stored up for the rebellious ungodly (Rev. 16).

Hope this helps answer your question, and please make more inquiry and search the Scriptures for the truth!
 

HeirofSalvation

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Penal Substitution Theory redefines forgiveness. I don't know if you have read the moral philosophy of Renaissance humanism (particularly of the 15th to early 16th century) but that philosophy shows a development and the philosophical doctrines being discussed leading to the Theory. The Renaissance looked back and reinvented Stoic morality. But the RCC depended heavily on Thomas Aquinas (13th century) who argued a man can justly be punished for another as long as the punishment was not for the crimes but the person and both parties were willing (Jesus could be punished for us, but not for our sins). This evolved into a system of merit (and a "treasuey of merit).

Enter Calvin. He reformed RCC doctrine to focus on divine wrath. He was trained in secular law and Humanistic (Renaissance Humanism) moral philosophy.

Forgiveness was no longer centered on repentance but on the execution of punishment. The guilty took a back seat to the crime. Justice now demanded that crime (not the criminal...thanks to Aquinas) be punished. God, bring just, is bound by Calvin's moral philosophy.

Therefore to forgive sin God must punish sin. Otherwise Calvinistic moral philosophy is not met.

It is foreign to Scripture and, until the Reformation, it was foreign to Christianity. But that is how Calvinism sees God as Just and the justifier of sinners.
Thanks, so...you are arguing that (in a sense) Scripture which states that God "forgives" is nonsense given PST. Not that you are putting it that way. Am I correct? You seem to be explaining that Aquinas and the Reformers made sense of "forgiveness" as long as it was the "person" being punished and not the "crime"? Here I thought "forgiveness" involved not being punished for a crime but rather, well....FORGIVEN! Pardoned....to put it in a legal context. I sometimes have to punish my children for something they have done, but, unless I am the offended party, I don't have to "forgive" them. My son might have harmed his sister for instance. I don't "forgive" my Son, only his sister can. The offended party forgives the trespasser I would think.
One "forgives" only if punishment is not meted out for the crime. Otherwise, God and us, well, we're "all square" because of Jesus being punished for us. But it's not that we were "forgiven" of anything, just "all square" so to speak. It seems to me that that is kinda' what you are arguing (in my words of course) in the PST view.
 

Salty

20,000 Posts Club
Administrator
Six hour warning:

This thread will be closed no sooner than 1230 AM EST (Thrs) / 930 PM PST (Wed)
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
Thanks, so...you are arguing that (in a sense) Scripture which states that God "forgives" is nonsense given PST. Not that you are putting it that way. Am I correct? You seem to be explaining that Aquinas and the Reformers made sense of "forgiveness" as long as it was the "person" being punished and not the "crime"? Here I thought "forgiveness" involved not being punished for a crime but rather, well....FORGIVEN! Pardoned....to put it in a legal context. I sometimes have to punish my children for something they have done, but, unless I am the offended party, I don't have to "forgive" them. My son might have harmed his sister for instance. I don't "forgive" my Son, only his sister can. The offended party forgives the trespasser I would think.
One "forgives" only if punishment is not meted out for the crime. Otherwise, God and us, well, we're "all square" because of Jesus being punished for us. But it's not that we were "forgiven" of anything, just "all square" so to speak. It seems to me that that is kinda' what you are arguing (in my words of course) in the PST view.
I am saying Penal Substitution Theory is a false doctrine that offers an extraordinary corrupt understanding of God and forgiveness.

But yes....basically if somebody punches God in the nose then He has to punch sombody in the nose in order to forgive you....so He punches Himself.

It is a foolish Theory that would never had existed were it not for the Reformation....even now it is doubtful it could seriously be considered except it has become so much a part of Reformed belief.
 

HeirofSalvation

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Thank you for joining in the conversation! The more that folks contribute, the better the Scriptures will be placed as the priority over human conjuring. That is my hope, anyway. Now on to your thinking. :)



One of the "sticky places" (imo) is that PSA prescribes that forgiveness of sins is tied to the wrath of God. Now this is partly correct in that the blood was shed on the cross, in the court rooms, in the garden, on the road,... but not until it was sprinkled in the heavenly temple was it effective. So, there can be no accounting for that wrath from God the PSA desires for until the sprinkling, the sacrifice was incomplete and unsatisfactory.

Also, we find that the Christ prior to the cross forgave sin. For example in Luke 5.

So, if I am making proper understanding of your question, it is not without blood shed that sins are forgiven, but twho shed the blood. The blood had to be shed by the Christ. This is presented in greater detail in Hebrews 9 then what I write here, and I posted some passages from that chapter in an above post, that might give you a better anchor to follow my thinking.

You also aligned "debt" as an issue. We (meaning everyone on the threads) have yet to present a Scripture that aligns debt with sin. What we find is that the Law decree violations were held against us, and as Colossians 2 states such were nailed by God to the cross.




This is substitute thinking, and again that is not really found Scripturally aligned as PSA would present it as being.

Consider this. A crime has been committed. The parties all show up at court and the offending party brings a sacrifice that will reconcile the breach. The offended is no longer offended for they are pleased and satisfied with the sacrifice.

Here is were we must be very careful to not overstate or understate the Scripture presentation.

Christ came into this world to be the sacrifice in which human hands (the offensive party) sacrificed. (Peter's statement in Acts 2).

However, this action was already known and talked about by the trinity and the prophets.

Christ, both as the high priest and the perfect sacrifice, enters the heavenly temple and there spreads His own blood in that place not made with hands. (Hebrews 9).

There is no demand for "justice.' For God is both the just and justifier of all in whom He justifies.

Now the "press" have been watching, but they only can accuse, mock, and distort and demand some debt existed and justice had to have punishment.

Therefore God sent out folks to tell of the reconciliation and authored a press release for public understanding.

8See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, which are based on human tradition and the spiritual forces of the world rather than on Christ.

9For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity dwells in bodily form.

10And you have been made complete in Christ, who is the head over every ruler and authority. 11In Him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of your sinful nature, with the circumcision performed by Christ and not by human hands. 12And having been buried with Him in baptism, you were raised with Him through your faith in the power of God, who raised Him from the dead. 13When you were dead in your trespasses and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our trespasses, 14having canceled the debt ascribed to us in the decrees that stood against us. He took it away, nailing it to the cross! 15And having disarmed the powers and authorities, He made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross. (Colossians 2)
God did it all with no wrath poured out upon the Son. For such wrath is being stored up for the rebellious ungodly (Rev. 16).

Hope this helps answer your question, and please make more inquiry and search the Scriptures for the truth!
It helps.....I have been reading a lot of yours and John's posts (certainly not all of them!) And it has gotten me thinking.
I know I'm not the only one. For instance: Vs. 14 you quoted: Did God "CANCEL" the debt (as that verse states) or did the Son "PAY" the debt. Those are not the same arguments or teachings. It seems to me that PSA suggests Christ PAID the debt, not that God "FORGAVE" the debt. This is my way of explaining what I think some of yours and John's arguments are. Correct me if I misunderstand what you are suggesting.
 

agedman

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Glad to hear it. Do you want me to quote a whole load of authorities in support?
No Martin, I want Scripture!

Everything rises and falls upon Scriptures. This is why (long ago) I first questioned PSA thinking. There was little if any true support I could find.

Scripture.

Not some philosophic interpretation, but the truth of Scripture presented in the context of its intent.

For example, when @JonC and I have read posts that say "He was smitten of God and afflicted" it is just not the truth of the Scripture statement. For the post leaves out "For WE esteemed Him smitten of God and afflicted" and that first part makes all the difference.

When we have read on some posts how that justice demands retribution for sin, again we look at Scriptures and find that forgiveness does not demand retribution, and satisfaction of the sacrifice removes the demands of justice (the decrees of the law held against us).

So, I want Scripture. The truth of the Scripture.

Don't pile on, but give gently so that we might come to terms with each passage as it is shared.

Perhaps, because this thread is drawing to a close, it may be better to start another that we might explore the fullness of the themes.

I do so look forward to the discussion!
 

agedman

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
It helps.....I have been reading a lot of yours and John's posts (certainly not all of them!) And it has gotten me thinking.
I know I'm not the only one. For instance: Vs. 14 you quoted: Did God "CANCEL" the debt (as that verse states) or did the Son "PAY" the debt. Those are not the same arguments or teachings. It seems to me that PSA suggests Christ PAID the debt, not that God "FORGAVE" the debt. This is my way of explaining what I think some of yours and John's arguments are. Correct me if I misunderstand what you are suggesting.
I think (If I read correctly) that you have discerned one of the disconnects the PSA has from that which the Scriptures present as truth.

Keep asking, keep seeking. It is the Scriptures that are to be held as the final authority and certainly not me!
 

HeirofSalvation

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I am saying Penal Substitution Theory is a false doctrine that offers an extraordinary corrupt understanding of God and forgiveness.

But yes....basically if somebody punches God in the nose then He has to punch sombody in the nose in order to forgive you....so He punches Himself.

It is a foolish Theory that would never had existed were it not for the Reformation....even now it is doubtful it could seriously be considered except it has become so much a part of Reformed belief.
Right, thanks....so, no, God hasn't "forgiven" the punch in the nose he's just assuaged his wrath against the offender by punching an innocent person instead (but one who volunteered, and they agreed collectively to resolve it that way).
 

37818

Well-Known Member
Yep. And the word "for" is never used to mean "instead of"....because that is not what it means. You have been changing Scripture.
MLV, Romans 5:8, ". . . But God is establishing his own love* toward us, that our still being in a sinful state, Christ died on our behalf. . . ."

"behalf
BEHALF, n. behaf. [See Behoof.]

1. Favor; advantage; convenience, profit; support, defense, vindication. The advocate pleads in behalf of the prisoner. The patriot suffers in behalf of his country.

2. Part; side; noting substitution, or the act of taking the part of another; as, the agent appeared in behalf of his constituents, and entered a claim."
 

HeirofSalvation

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I think (If I read correctly) that you have discerned one of the disconnects the PSA has from that which the Scriptures present as truth.

Keep asking, keep seeking. It is the Scriptures that are to be held as the final authority and certainly not me!
To put it simply: I'm getting from you guys that you might argue that PSA makes nonsense of the word "forgive" and instead substitutes that the punishment of the crime was simply paid by another (an innocent in this case, being Christ). Thus God "forgave" nothing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top