• 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

Status
Not open for further replies.

DaveXR650

Well-Known Member
I agree with those passages. Christ did suffer for our sins, He bore our sins in His body, He died for our dins, He died for us, He freed us from the bondage of sin and death, God was pleased to crush Him, by His stripes we are healed....that is not what I am asking you to provide.

I think the above by itself, establishes penal substitution. There is a transferring of sin, God was "pleased to crush him" (which shows wrath being suffered by Jesus), and this resulted in benefit to us.

I am asking if you can provide even one passage stating Christ experienced God's wrath, Christ's death was to appease God, or that God punished Chriat instead of punishing us.

Then you follow with the above. If God was pleased to crush Jesus then (and I want to be reverent here) God was expressing his nature which do know is just and we know he hates sin. If as you say, his death was to appease God, then you are admitting that this was not a governmental transaction, or economic, but was an "appeasement" of what we as humans would view as an emotional state and which the scripture graciously explains to us in those terms.

We can go in circles forever. Maybe I should start a thread where I could demand that someone show me in bold letters where in Exodus it is stated that the Israelites "exited" Egypt.
 

Silverhair

Well-Known Member
well, judging from your response, you neither know Hebrew or Greek! Have YOU personally checked the usage of both the Hebrew and Greek, especially in the OT, from where this Doctrine comes?

The Greek noun ἰλαστήριος, is used only twice New Testament. Romans 3:25, where Versions like the
KJV translate "propitiation".
Wycliffe, " Whom God ordained forgiver"
Tyndale "made a seate of mercy".
Geneva Bible "to be a reconciliation".
Great Bible "set forth to be the obtayner of mercy"
NIV, "a sacrifice of atonement"
NLT, "as the sacrifice for sin"
Berean "the atoning sacrifice"
NET "as the mercy seat"
Weymouth "as a Mercy-seat"
Youngs "set forth a mercy seat"
WEB "to be an atoning sacrifice"
NRSV "a sacrifice of atonement"
NAB "as an expiation"
ISV "a place where atonement"
CSB "as the mercy seat"

And in Hebrews 9:5

Where the greater majority of English Versions use "Mercy Seat". Hebrews 9:5 Above the ark were the cherubim of glory, overshadowing the mercy seat. But we cannot discuss these things in detail now.

I suppose you will say that all of these Versions are wrong?


SBG said "Appeasment is not what the actual word means. The word "propitiation", is the Greek noun ἱλαστήριον, which does not mean this, when used for the Death of Jesus Christ."

You seem to be stuck on this idea that only those that read and write Greek / Hebrew could possibly understand the text of the bible. Tad arrogant don't you think.

The idea of Christ Jesus appeasing God the Father is found it the text but you just do not want to see it.

God the Father provided the lamb and also accepted the sacrifice of the lamb.

Rom 3:24 being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus;
Rom 3:25 whom God displayed publicly as a means of appeasing or expiating in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed;

Heb 9:5 and above it were the cherubim of glory overshadowing the mercy seat {the place for appeasing God}; but of these things we cannot now speak in detail.

If you can not see this in the text then it seems to me that my not being able to read Greek / Hebrew is an advantage.
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
Can you not see that when the Bible says that God "wounded, afflicted, bruised" Jesus Christ, it was for OUR sins. This means that Jesus suffered this ON BEHALF of US. Jesus became a curse FOR US?

Jon if God did not "wounded, afflicted, bruised" Jesus Christ, for OUR SINS, then WHOSE? Was it for Jesus' sins???

As I have already shown, I believe the the Greek ἰλαστήριος, is not talking about any APPEASEMENT, but is used for "sin-offering".
Of course I see that the Bible says Christ was "wounded, afflicted, bruised" AND it was for OUR sins. This DOES means that Jesus suffered this ON BEHALF of US. Jesus became a curse FOR US. I HAVE SAID THIS ALREADY. WE ALL BELIEVE THIS - EVEN THE MAJORITY OF CHRISTIANS AS THEY REJECT PENAL SUBSTITUTION THEORY.

I am asking if you can provide even one passage stating Christ experienced God's wrath, Christ's death was to appease God, or that God punished Chriat instead of punishing us.
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
I think the above by itself, establishes penal substitution. There is a transferring of sin, God was "pleased to crush him" (which shows wrath being suffered by Jesus), and this resulted in benefit to us.



Then you follow with the above. If God was pleased to crush Jesus then (and I want to be reverent here) God was expressing his nature which do know is just and we know he hates sin. If as you say, his death was to appease God, then you are admitting that this was not a governmental transaction, or economic, but was an "appeasement" of what we as humans would view as an emotional state and which the scripture graciously explains to us in those terms.

We can go in circles forever. Maybe I should start a thread where I could demand that someone show me in bold letters where in Exodus it is stated that the Israelites "exited" Egypt.
OR....God was pleased to crush Him because this was God reconciling man to God. I can find that in Scripture.

This is not a transfer of sin but God laying our sin on Him, Christ sharing our infirmity. We are saved by His Life.
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
The Greek translated "for" preceding the genitive case does in fact mean "instead."
υπερ Strong's, 'A primary preposition; " over", that is, (with the genitive case) of place, above, beyond, across, or causal, for the sake of, instead, regarding ; . . .'
I'm not the strongest Srrongs fan :Biggrin ....but:

5228. huper
Strong's Concordance
huper: over, beyond, fig. on behalf of, for the sake of, concerning
Original Word: ὑπέρ
Part of Speech: Preposition
Transliteration: huper
Phonetic Spelling: (hoop-er')
Definition: over, beyond, on behalf of, for the sake of, concerning

Have ypu considered the relative newness of Penal Substitution Theory? Why did it take 1500 years for Christians to adopt it (given that we were 1500 years removed from that culture and language)?
 

37818

Well-Known Member
I'm not the strongest Srrongs fan :Biggrin ....but:

5228. huper
Strong's Concordance
huper: over, beyond, fig. on behalf of, for the sake of, concerning
Original Word: ὑπέρ
Part of Speech: Preposition
Transliteration: huper
Phonetic Spelling: (hoop-er')
Definition: over, beyond, on behalf of, for the sake of, concerning

Have ypu considered the relative newness of Penal Substitution Theory? Why did it take 1500 years for Christians to adopt it (given that we were 1500 years removed from that culture and language)?
Iirrelevant. The New Testament dates to the first century. The "Baptist churches" as a group name is post reformation. The irregular churches do not establish what I believe as a Christian. The Word who was born the Christ is the true Light, not a light from light, part of a fourth century error.
 
Last edited:

SavedByGrace

Well-Known Member
SBG said "Appeasment is not what the actual word means. The word "propitiation", is the Greek noun ἱλαστήριον, which does not mean this, when used for the Death of Jesus Christ."

You seem to be stuck on this idea that only those that read and write Greek / Hebrew could possibly understand the text of the bible. Tad arrogant don't you think.

The idea of Christ Jesus appeasing God the Father is found it the text but you just do not want to see it.

God the Father provided the lamb and also accepted the sacrifice of the lamb.

Rom 3:24 being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus;
Rom 3:25 whom God displayed publicly as a means of appeasing or expiating in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed;

Heb 9:5 and above it were the cherubim of glory overshadowing the mercy seat {the place for appeasing God}; but of these things we cannot now speak in detail.

If you can not see this in the text then it seems to me that my not being able to read Greek / Hebrew is an advantage.

in the first place the Bible was not written in English, but Hebrew and Greek. So an understanding of the orignal languages and word uses is crucial to a correct interpretation of what the Bible Teaches

Secondly, there can be no doubt the the usage of the Greek in the LXX, has carried over into the NT. This Version normally has the meaning of "covering for sin", when translating the Hebrew kaphar.

In Luke 18:13, there is a good example of the use of ἱλάσκομαι:

"And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful (ἱλάσκομαι) to me a sinner"

and in Hebrews 2:17

"Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for (ἱλάσκομαι) the sins of the people"
 

SavedByGrace

Well-Known Member
Of course I see that the Bible says Christ was "wounded, afflicted, bruised" AND it was for OUR sins. This DOES means that Jesus suffered this ON BEHALF of US. Jesus became a curse FOR US. I HAVE SAID THIS ALREADY. WE ALL BELIEVE THIS - EVEN THE MAJORITY OF CHRISTIANS AS THEY REJECT PENAL SUBSTITUTION THEORY.

I am asking if you can provide even one passage stating Christ experienced God's wrath, Christ's death was to appease God, or that God punished Chriat instead of punishing us.

you missed #79
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
Iirrelevant. The New Testament dates to the first century. The "Baptist churches" as a group name is post reformation. The irregular churches do not establish what I believe as a Christian. The Word who was born the Christ is the true Light, not a light from light, part of a fourth century error.
But your theory is dependent on RCC doctrine. It is Aquinas' theory changed from "merit" to "wrath".

This is one thing that helped me to realize that Scripture did not need the additions Penal Substitution Theory puts on it. The 1st Century Church did not teach the theory, and it was their language we are interpreting.


While I agree that antiquity does not make a doctrine correct (or a newer doctrine wrong), I just can't imagine God hid the truth from the Church until the Reformation and the reforming of RCC doctrine. That does not make sence to me.
 

Iconoclast

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I think the above by itself, establishes penal substitution. There is a transferring of sin, God was "pleased to crush him" (which shows wrath being suffered by Jesus), and this resulted in benefit to us.



Then you follow with the above. If God was pleased to crush Jesus then (and I want to be reverent here) God was expressing his nature which do know is just and we know he hates sin. If as you say, his death was to appease God, then you are admitting that this was not a governmental transaction, or economic, but was an "appeasement" of what we as humans would view as an emotional state and which the scripture graciously explains to us in those terms.

We can go in circles forever. Maybe I should start a thread where I could demand that someone show me in bold letters where in Exodus it is stated that the Israelites "exited" Egypt.
Yes...the word exited needs to be in bold letters.
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
you missed #79
No, I didn't.

I asked for a passage stating Christ experienced God's wrath, Christ's death was to appease God, or that God punished Chriat instead of punishing us.

You gave passages but none stating Penal Substitution Theory. And you added to those passages by changing what Scripture says in Acts 3.

I take it you realize Scripture does not say what you wished it says but remain unwilling to acknowledge the fact.
.
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
Maybe I should start a thread where I could demand that someone show me in bold letters where in Exodus it is stated that the Israelites "exited" Egypt.
Exodus 14 - What have you done to us by bringing us out of Egypt.

I am not talking about using exact words. I am asking for a passage that actually says Christ experienced God's wrath, that Christ's death appeased God, and that Hod punished Christ instead of punishing us.

These ideas are foreign to Scripture just as they were foreign to Christianity until the Reformation.

You give me a verse saying Christ was wounded and say "there! See, it says God wounded Christ!".

By that logic you could say the Easter Bunny wounded Christ.
 

37818

Well-Known Member
But your theory is dependent on RCC doctrine. It is Aquinas' theory changed from "merit" to "wrath".


<snip>
Not in any way.
What I believe starts with Romans 6:23 and Romans 5:8. ". . . wages of sin is death . . . " ". . . Christ died instead of us . . . ." KJV, ". . . for us . . . " . . . χριστος υπερ ημων απεθανε
 

JesusFan

Well-Known Member
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.
Psa IS Pauline Justification, very heart of the Gospel, and was the bedrock of the reformation, and do think Calvin and Luther much superior on the view of the Atonement then NT Wright and his ilk today!
 

JesusFan

Well-Known Member
Logical fallacy.

Rejection of the Theory is not misunderstanding the Theory.

You have not brought up even one minor misunderstanding of the Penal Sustitution Theory of Atonement, much less a major misunderstanding.

It is simply not in the Bible.
It is, just that you fail to grasp it!
 

JesusFan

Well-Known Member
I agree that words have meaning. Let's look at the passages you suggest first, but my personal recommendation would be to start with Genesis 3.

Romans 3:10.

Romans 3:8–20 (NASB95): 8 And why not say (as we are slanderously reported and as some claim that we say), “Let us do evil that good may come”? Their condemnation is just.
9 What then? Are we better than they? Not at all; for we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin;
10 as it is written,
“There is none righteous, not even one;
11 There is none who understands,
There is none who seeks for God;
12 All have turned aside, together they have become useless;
There is none who does good,
There is not even one.”
13 “Their throat is an open grave,
With their tongues they keep deceiving,”
“The poison of asps is under their lips”;
14 “Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness”;
15 “Their feet are swift to shed blood,
16 Destruction and misery are in their paths,
17 And the path of peace they have not known.”
18 “There is no fear of God before their eyes.”
19 Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God;
20 because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin.

This passages reinforces 2 important truths - firsr, those under the Law and those not under the Law stand on level ground - they are unrighteous.

Second, by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified.

Romans 3:23.

Romans 3:21–26 (NASB95): 21 But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets,
22 even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction;

23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
24 being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus;
25 whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed;
26 for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

Our redemption is God's righteousness manifested apart from the Law. All have sinned and fall short of God's glory. We are justified through Christ, Whom God displayedpubliclyas a Propitiation in His blood through faith..

Romans 5:8,12.

Romans 5:6–16 (NASB95): 6 For while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly.
7 For one will hardly die for a righteous man; though perhaps for the good man someone would dare even to die.
8 But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
9 Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him.
10 For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life.
11 And not only this, but we also exult in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the reconciliation.
12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned—
13 for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.
15 But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many.
16 The gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned; for on the one hand the judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation, but on the other hand the free gift arose from many transgressions resulting in justification.

Romans 5:8,12

Romans 5:6–16 (NASB95): 6 For while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly.
7 For one will hardly die for a righteous man; though perhaps for the good man someone would dare even to die.
8 But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
9 Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him.
10 For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life.
11 And not only this, but we also exult in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the reconciliation.
12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned
13 for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.
15 But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many.
16 The gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned; for on the one hand the judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation, but on the other hand the free gift arose from many transgressions resulting in justification.

God demonstrated His love for us by sending His Son while we were His enemy.

We are saved by Christ's life.

Sin entered the World through Adam, and death reigned.


Romans 6:23.

Romans 6:22–23 (NASB95): But now having been freed from sin and enslaved to God, you derive your benefit, resulting in sanctification, and the outcome, eternal life.
23 For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord

We have been freed from sin, and we gain the outcome of sanctification - eternal life.

The wages of sin is death - BUT the gift of God is eternal life in Christ.

That is how I understand those passages.
A sinner receives jesus as lord, on what basis does the Father justify Him, makes Him a saint while still a sinner?
 

DaveXR650

Well-Known Member
By that logic you could say the Easter Bunny wounded Christ.
In your own post you said God was pleased to crush him. Maybe getting crushed doesn't necessarily cause you to be wounded and maybe there is a theology that has the Easter Bunny doing it but my point is we are dancing in circles with word salads.

In all seriousness, Jon, what group or church or identifiable school of thought is using your theory of the purpose of the atonement. I know how some of the liberal groups don't like penal substitution and I understand their reasons and you don't fit in with them. I know that Ratzinger's explanation of the RCC view is incoherent and he himself said it was developing. Where do you see this going - not as a point of argument, but what is going on?
 

agedman

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
You need to revisit God's picture book.

I've provided several. You have simply avoided them.

It seems you couldn't spot the verse I was quoting in the very post you replied to. :Whistling

Aaron,

Do you really think this helps?

I understand frustrated responses, but neither @JonC or I are avoiding any Scripture offered in defense of your view. You just don’t particularly seem to agree that they don’t support your view.
 

Silverhair

Well-Known Member
in the first place the Bible was not written in English, but Hebrew and Greek. So an understanding of the orignal languages and word uses is crucial to a correct interpretation of what the Bible Teaches

Secondly, there can be no doubt the the usage of the Greek in the LXX, has carried over into the NT. This Version normally has the meaning of "covering for sin", when translating the Hebrew kaphar.

In Luke 18:13, there is a good example of the use of ἱλάσκομαι:

"And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful (ἱλάσκομαι) to me a sinner"

and in Hebrews 2:17

"Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for (ἱλάσκομαι) the sins of the people"

You seem to have a real problem with the idea that God would be appeased by the sacrifice of "the lamb of God".

The word also communicates God's covering of sin. Persons made reconciliation with God for their sins by imposing something that would appease the offended party (in this case the Lord) and cover the sinners with righteousness (Exo_32:30; Eze_45:17; cf. Dan_9:24). In the Old Testament, the blood of sacrifices was most notably imposed (Exo_30:10). By this imposition, sin was purged (Psa_79:9; Isa_6:7) and forgiven (Psa_78:38). The offenses were removed, leaving the sinners clothed in righteousness (cf. Zec_3:3-4). Of course, the imposition of the blood of bulls and of goats could never fully cover our sin (see Heb_10:4), but with the coming of Christ and the imposition of His shed blood, a perfect atonement was made (Rom_5:9-11). The Complete Word Study Dictionary

I understand that you need God to punish [pour out His wrath] on Christ Jesus. But that is not what I see in scripture. Christ Jesus gave Himself to be our substitute and to redeem us.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top