BIBLICAL atonement

[agedman]

Judging by what you and Jon have written on this, it is clear that you don't really understand Penal Substitution.

We have both lived and taught the subject.

What is clear is that YOU don't really understand how error Penal Substitution holds.

No one argues that the Lord was treated with great torture.

That was reflective of any who were being tried as a condemned person to be crucified. That is historical fact.

What is outstandingly clear is His innocence.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

We have both lived and taught the subject.

What is clear is that YOU don't really understand how error Penal Substitution holds.

Can you please explain this error. And why it is so dangerous?

And I ask, if Jesus did not pay for the sin, as the lamb of God who died on the day of atonement. How are our sins paid for?

 

[SavedByGrace]

What is outstandingly clear is His innocence.

and HOW does Penal Substitution deny this? The more I read these responses, the more I see the utter FALLACY in your reasonings!

 

[37818]

. . . to start with Genesis 3.

I have been a Christian going on 60 years. Most do not understand our sinful nature starts at conception not at at our birth. Most translations mistranslate Romans 9:11. Romans 6:23, ". . . the wages of sin is death . . . .we are conceived spiritually dead. Romans 5:8, ". . . Christ died for us . . . .". He received our wages.

 

[agedman]

Can you please explain this error. And why it is so dangerous?

And I ask, if Jesus did not pay for the sin, as the lamb of God who died on the day of atonement. How are our sins paid for?

When you pay for something you expect a return worthy of the payment.

Sin permeates every area of a person's life even that of a believer. There is no human fathoming of the depravity in which we all sink.

What our Savior did by taking upon Himself our curse (as Galatians 3 states) that we who believe, though we sin, are no longer cursed. "There is now therefore no condemnation..." (Romans 8).

Does that mean that Christ was no longer innocent? No! He remained without sin, the pure and satisfactory offering to God.

How then are we free from the sin that some teach must be paid for. First remove the thinking that some price for sin had to be met and look at Romans 6 for an answer:

5For if we have been united with Him like this in His death, we will certainly also be united with Him in His resurrection. 6We know that our old self was crucified with Him so that the body of sin might be rendered powerless, that we should no longer be slaves to sin. 7For anyone who has died has been freed from sin. 8Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with Him. 9For we know that since Christ was raised from the dead, He cannot die again; death no longer has dominion over Him. 10The death He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life He lives, He lives to God. 11So you too must count yourselves dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus.
​

If Christ had not died, then sin would remain with power. but the blood cleanses us from all unrighteousness, and the death renders sin as having no authority or power.

​

 

[agedman]

I have been a Christian going on 60 years. Most do not understand our sinful nature starts at conception not at at our birth. Most translations mistranslate Romans 9:11. Romans 6:23, ". . . the wages of sin is death . . . .we are conceived spiritually dead. Romans 5:8, ". . . Christ died for us . . . .". He received our wages.

See my response to this question, above.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

When you pay for something you expect a return worthy of the payment.

So you do not think eternal life is a return worthy of the payment? You do not think being made right with God, Having the separation and death caused by sin removed is something worthy of the payment of the cross?

Sin permeates every area of a person's life even that of a believer. There is no human fathoming of the depravity in which we all sink.

What our Savior did by taking upon Himself our curse (as Galatians 3 states) that we who believe, though we sin, are no longer cursed. "There is now therefore no condemnation..." (Romans 8).

Does that mean that Christ was no longer innocent? No! He remained without sin, the pure and satisfactory offering to God.

How then are we free from the sin that some teach must be paid for. First remove the thinking that some price for sin had to be met and look at Romans 6 for an answer:

5For if we have been united with Him like this in His death, we will certainly also be united with Him in His resurrection. 6We know that our old self was crucified with Him so that the body of sin might be rendered powerless, that we should no longer be slaves to sin. 7For anyone who has died has been freed from sin. 8Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with Him. 9For we know that since Christ was raised from the dead, He cannot die again; death no longer has dominion over Him. 10The death He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life He lives, He lives to God. 11So you too must count yourselves dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus.
​

If Christ had not died, then sin would remain with power. but the blood cleanses us from all unrighteousness, and the death renders sin as having no authority or power.

​

I do not see anything in the above which would make me change my thinking,

The lambs of the day of atonement paid the penalty of sin.

While Yes, Jesus was still sinless. he had to be. If we was a sinner, he would be unqualified to pay for sin.

Remember, again, Jesus is called the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.

He paid the price of redemption.

Redemption, Justification are all penal or judicial terms. We are justified (declaired innocent or righteous) even though we are legally guilty, based on the substitutionary death of Christ on the cross.

He took the curse for us, so we may be made righteous.

Apart from substitution, we are still dead in our sin are we not?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Can you seriously not see where you are adding to Scripture????

Romans 3:26, for example, does not actually say what you claim it says.

I do understand your view (the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement). I also believed it most of my life. It fits nicely with secular humanism. But it stands apart from Scripture.

I did what I am suggesting ypu do. I set aside Penal Substitution Theory, just took Scripture for what is written, and made a decision. I chose Scripture.

But first you must understand Scripture. All of those passages you quote and then say "but it means such and such"...take those and pretend they mean what is actually written.

Do you really expect me to take you seriously?
You say that I add to Scripture, but can adduce no evidence.
You say that Romans 3:26 does not say what I claim it says, yet you do not seem to know what I claim it says and you provide no Scripture, no exegesis, no nothing. Just the usual spiel about how clever you were to change your mind. Nothing to show that you have any idea what you are talking about.

You challenged me to find a single Scripture that supported PSA. I have given you three: Isaiah 53:10; Romans 3:25-26; Galatians 3:13. There are plenty more, but you can't answer those, except to say, without any supporting evidence, that 'Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise Him; He has put Him to grief' does not mean what it patently does.

 

[JonC]

I have been a Christian going on 60 years. Most do not understand our sinful nature starts at conception not at at our birth. Most translations mistranslate Romans 9:11. Romans 6:23, ". . . the wages of sin is death . . . .we are conceived spiritually dead. Romans 5:8, ". . . Christ died for us . . . .". He received our wages.

I think you and I can simply start off agreeing that we are all sinners.

Christ certainly did "share in our infirmity". He suffered the wages of sin.

 

[DaveXR650]

The teaching of our union with Christ is not in dispute. I am glad that everyone seems to agree on that. The question still remains what is the basis of this. The description of the gospel in post 13 would be fine but it does not explain the basis for Christ being a "redeemer" and a person could question how the cross really fits in if that really is a complete explanation of the gospel. I used to think the old Puritan preachers were going a little overboard when they talked about the sacraments being a "means" to help someone come to Christ. Now I understand how someone could observe the Lord's supper and ask what it means to have shed blood and a broken body.

 

[37818]

I think you and I can simply start off agreeing that we are all sinners.

Christ certainly did "share in our infirmity". He suffered the wages of sin.

That is understood by me to be a penal substitution of some kind.

 

[JonC]

Do you really expect me to take you seriously?
You say that I add to Scripture, but can adduce no evidence.
You say that Romans 3:26 does not say what I claim it says, yet you do not seem to know what I claim it says and you provide no Scripture, no exegesis, no nothing. Just the usual spiel about how clever you were to change your mind. Nothing to show that you have any idea what you are talking about.

You challenged me to find a single Scripture that supported PSA. I have given you three: Isaiah 53:10; Romans 3:25-26; Galatians 3:13. There are plenty more, but you can't answer those, except to say, without any supporting evidence, that 'Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise Him; He has put Him to grief' does not mean what it patently does.

I can show that you add to Scripture. Scripture does not say Christ's death appeased God. You do. Scripture does not say Christ experienced God's wrath (as God punished our sins laid on Him). But you do. Scripture does not even say Christ died instead of us. You do. You are pretty notorious about adding to Scripture.

What the passage means is that it pleased God to bruise Christ, to put Him to grief. That IS what the passage means. And I HAVE given additional evidence over and over again. God forsook Christ to suffer and die (Psalm 22). Christ suffered and died at the hands of wicked men by the predetermined plan of God (Acts 3).

 

[JonC]

That is understod by me to be a penal substitution of some kind.

Perhaps it is. I do not trash Penal Substitution. God offered His Son as a guilt offering, He bore our sins, died for our sins, shared in our infirmaty and is the "Last Adam".

I am just saying the part of Penal Substitution Theory that claims Christ experienced God's wrath, died instead of us, and that Christ's death appeased God is unbiblical. But the passages you mention is undisputed.

Christ SHARED in our infirmaty. We have salvation in His LIFE. He died at the hands of tge wicked, by tge will of God (God offered Him, and He Himself, as a sin offering).

But at least we can rest in agreement on those particular passages.

 

[agedman]

So you do not think eternal life is a return worthy of the payment? You do not think being made right with God, Having the separation and death caused by sin removed is something worthy of the payment of the cross?

What separation and death?
If you are referring to the thinking that God abandoned the Son and turned His back on Him, then that isn't Scripturally sound.

The reason it is unsound is that such would present a breach in the unity of the trinity that cannot happen.

I do not see anything in the above which would make me change my thinking,

The lambs of the day of atonement paid the penalty of sin.

No, the shed blood was sprinkled, first for the High Priest and then for the people. Should either the blood or the high priest be foul, then there was no satisfaction.

While Yes, Jesus was still sinless. he had to be. If we was a sinner, he would be unqualified to pay for sin.

Remember, again, Jesus is called the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.

He paid the price of redemption.

Do you have any Scripture that states that "He paid the price of redemption" or is that assumed by having been taught that.

Redemption, Justification are all penal or judicial terms. We are justified (declaired innocent or righteous) even though we are legally guilty, based on the substitutionary death of Christ on the cross.

He took the curse for us, so we may be made righteous.

Apart from substitution, we are still dead in our sin are we not?

The Scripture is very light on the term substitution, but more pointed toward the thinking of satisfaction.

For example, the blood was never a substitute, but a satisfaction.
The goat led into the field was not a substitute but a satisfactory demonstration of the removal of sins to be remembered no more (for the goat would live and never be used again).

Certainly, Galatians 3 declares:

Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us. For it is written: “Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree.”​

However, what that verse does not teach is that humanity had the curse removed from them. On the contrary, the previous verses show that those who live by the law remain cursed by the law. That the key to such a curse is belief in the Lord Jesus Christ.

Many stumble at misreading this passage and therefore misapplication is generated.

Christ did not die because of the curse, He did not die because of sin, He had the authority to lay His life down and take it back up. No human has ever had such authority.

 

[canadyjd]

….

Scripture does not even say Christ died instead of us. You do. You are pretty notorious about adding to Scripture…..

Roman’s 5:6 says “Christ died for us”. Are you making a distinction between Christ dying “for us” and Christ dying “instead of us”?

If so, please explain what the difference is?

peace to you

 

[JonC]

Roman’s 5:6 says “Christ died for us”. Are you making a distinction between Christ dying “for us” and Christ dying “instead of us”?

If so, please explain what the difference is?

peace to you

Yes. Christ died FOR us, that we may have life. This is far from meaning that He died "instead of" us.

Here is one difference - Christ prayed FOR His Disciples. This does not mean He prayed "instead of" them praying.

You could reword it to read Christ died on our behalf, for our benefit, or in our interest.

Does that help clarify what I mean?

 

[JonC]

Another interesting point is the use of "death". The wages of sin is death, and all men are appointed once to die and then the judgment. Penal Substitution Theory conflates the wages of sin (I e , the consequences of sin) with the Judgment. Those who reject Christ will experience ONE death and then the Judgment (they do not die spiritually but are never made alive in Christ).

 

[Iconoclast]

What do you gather from the day of atonement. When an innocent lamb was slaughtered to make atonement for the people.

If you do not mind. If Christ did not pay for our sin. Then how do we pay for our sins?

They offer no answer but rather explain the verses away.

 

[Aaron]

Jon, that is EXACTLY what you are doing with your THEORY, when you reject Penal Substitution!

I really cannot see how any Bible-believing Christian can either reject or try to argue against this FOUNDITIONAL DOCTRINE.

Actually, Jon is denying the Scripture.

 

[JonC]

They offer no answer but rather explain the verses away.

This is not true. You have not asked any questions about the Day of Atonement (to me anyway).

The entire sacrifice system foreshadowed the Christ and God's work of redemption.

Aaron could not enter the holy place inside the veil for God would appear in a cloud over the mercy seat. Aaron enters the holy place with a bull for a sin offering and a ram for a burnt offering. He prepares himself according to God's instruction. Then he takes from the congregation two male goats for a sin offering and one ram for the burnt offering. Aaron offers the bull for himself, and casts lots over the two goats. One lot is for God, the other for the scapegoat.

What part of this is causing you trouble?