BIBLICAL atonement

[Aaron]

Whew! It stinks in here. I may have to concede to Jon and agedman's confessions that Christ is not their substitute, but for the rest of us, it really is so basic. Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us. In other words, He took our place in judgment.

 

[atpollard]

then can you show from the Bible this Doctrine is not in it?

How would anyone do that?
How do you prove something is NOT there?

 

[canadyjd]

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?

So Christ died for us, for our benefit, on our behalf, in our interest: that doesn’t mean He died as a substitute “for us, on our behalf, for our benefit etc”?

Peace to you

 

[JonC]

Whew! It stinks in here. I may have to concede to Jon and agedman's confessions that Christ is not their substitute, but for the rest of us, it really is so basic. Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us. In other words, He took our place in judgment.

Bunch of ad hominem. But what you have failed to do is provide any verses stating your belief (while @agedman and I have provided plenty).

Why do you think that God left your view out of His Word? Did He fall asleep? Did He mean to put it in and simply forgot?

Just think, had God remembered to write your belief in His Word Christianity wouldn't have existed for 1500 years without the Theory.

 

[JonC]

So Christ died for us, for our benefit, on our behalf, in our interest: that doesn’t mean He died as a substitute “for us, on our behalf, for our benefit etc”?

Peace to you

That is what is written in Scripture. He died for our sins. He shared in our infirmity. So, yes, that is what I believe.

 

[Iconoclast]

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?

Nothing is causing me any trouble at all.

 

[Silverhair]

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. There is no "appeasment" in Christ's Death, to God the Father. In its use in the LXX, ἱλαστήριον, is mainly used for "Mercy Seat", and has the meaning of "a price of expiation", so, “an expiatory offering.” The LXX so translates the Hebrew verb "kaphar", which means, "to cover, conceal". But is frequent in the Septuagint and is rendered purge, cleanse, reconcile, make atonement. With no reference to "appeasing".This usage is what is carried into the New Testament by Paul in Romans and Hebrews, and John in his First Epistle (another but cognate word). This is what the Bible means by ἱλαστήριον.

I think you are grasping at straws when you say that the idea of appeasing is not found in these verses.

G2435 Rom_3:25

Thayer Definition:
1) relating to an appeasing or expiating, having placating or expiating force, expiatory; a means of appeasing or expiating, a propitiation

G2433 Heb_2:17

Thayer Definition:
1) to render one’s self, to appease, conciliate to one’s self

G2434 1Jn_2:2 1Jn_4:10

Thayer Definition:
1) an appeasing, propitiating
2) the means of appeasing, a propitiation

The Thayer definitions include appeasing and the term works well in the verses. Try it yourself, just replace propitiation in the verse.

 

[canadyjd]

That is what is written in Scripture. He died for our sins. He shared in our infirmity. So, yes, that is what I believe.

So, Christ died “for us” and He “died for our sins.”

What exactly does “He died for our sins” mean? In what way did He die for our sins?

Doesn’t that mean mean He died as punishment “for our sins”? In what other way could “He died for our sins” be understood?

peace to you

 

[JonC]

Actually, Jon is denying the Scripture.

Yet you are unable to provide even one verse I am denying....only the "Book of Aaron".

 

[JonC]

Nothing is causing me any trouble at all.

Then what part do you not understand....I don't get your previous post. Both @agedman and I have repeatedly addressed the topic and if you don't understand something we have posted....or omitted....then it would be better to ask rather than make accusations.

 

[JonC]

So, Christ died “for us” and He “died for our sins.”

Yes.

What exactly does “He died for our sins” mean?

It means that the reason He died was for our sins. We sinned, He did not. Through Adam's transgression sin entered the World and through sin death, and death spread to all man for all have sinned. Christ shared OUR infirmity. He bore our sins in His body.

In what way did He die for our sins?

On the cross. He suffered and died at the hands of the wicked. But this was the predetermined plan of God. God offered His Son as a sin offering. He was pleased to crush Him.

Doesn’t that mean mean He died as punishment “for our sins”?

No. It means that He died for our sins.

In what other way could “He died for our sins” be understood?

It could mean, as the early church held, that He shared in our infirmity, that He became flesh, under the curse, became a curse for us. He took upon Himself the wages of sin to deliver us from the bondage of sin and death.

peace to you

To you as well.

 

[canadyjd]

….
It means that the reason He died was for our sins. We sinned, He did not.

He took upon Himself the wages of sin to deliver us from the bondage of sin and death..

So, He died for our sins… He took upon Himself the wages of (our) sin,… God the Father offered Him as an offering; but He did not die as our substitute?

Peace to you

 

[Iconoclast]

Then what part do you not understand....I don't get your previous post. Both @agedman and I have repeatedly addressed the topic and if you don't understand something we have posted....or omitted....then it would be better to ask rather than make accusations.

It is clear to me that you two have drifted very far from a biblical understanding.
I believe when truth is set aside nothing is left but denials of the biblical faith.
Neither of you have answered the posts of everyone else on this issue.
The fact that I have to agree with RM, and SBG...should raise some eyebrows.

 

[agedman]

It is clear to me that you two have drifted very far from a biblical understanding.
I believe when truth is set aside nothing is left but denials of the biblical faith.
Neither of you have answered the posts of everyone else on this issue.
The fact that I have to agree with RM, and SBG...should raise some eyebrows.

No icon.
We have not drifted away, but embraced the teaching of the earliest assemblies.

What is your basis for not understanding?

Is it foreign to what you have been taught and embrace? Certainly!

What @JonC andI have attempted to present is what the Scriptures declare without the preconceived thinking the reformation nor the RCC imposed.

Is it wrong to show the Father as both pleased and satisfied when as Galatians states the Lord was victorious over the authorities and powers of darkness and sufficiently that Redemption is now by Grace?

Is it wrong to show that God’s wrath was not poured out upon the Son, but is reserved for the ungodly? That there is no condemnation because of Grace?

My friend, it was not easy to realize the teaching I presented to students was wrong. That I could not find any truthful Scripture support.

All I ask is that you search for yourself. If you have a question, ask.

There is room for us to disagree, for our Saviour isn’t hampered, He is still Sovereign.

 

[agedman]

So, He died for our sins… He took upon Himself the wages of (our) sin,… God the Father offered Him as an offering; but He did not die as our substitute?

Peace to you

No!

He did not take on the wages of sin as if that caused Him death.

The Scriptures state He was victorious over sin, death and the grave, (1 Corinthians 15)

We all die, for we all still sin. We strive to live holy and sin less but to say we have no sin is to make God a liar (1 John if I recall correctly).

Just as God was satisfied with the offering of the OT, the offering of The Christ satisfied that reconciliation and redemption is now found by Grace and not by daily sacrifices and offering.

How does the Scripture state Christ died?

He was and remained in total control of the universe, No one or thing took His life from Him.

 

[Aaron]

No!

He did not take on the wages of sin as if that caused Him death.

The Scriptures state He was victorious over sin, death and the grave, (1 Corinthians 15)

We all die, for we all still sin. We strive to live holy and sin less but to say we have no sin is to make God a liar (1 John if I recall correctly).

Just as God was satisfied with the offering of the OT, the offering of The Christ satisfied that reconciliation and redemption is now found by Grace and not by daily sacrifices and offering.

How does the Scripture state Christ died?

He was and remained in total control of the universe, No one or thing took His life from Him.

You need to revisit God's picture book.

 

[Aaron]

Yet you are unable to provide even one verse I am denying....only the "Book of Aaron".

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

 

[Aaron]

Bunch of ad hominem. But what you have failed to do is provide any verses stating your belief

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

 

[SavedByGrace]

I think you are grasping at straws when you say that the idea of appeasing is not found in these verses.

G2435 Rom_3:25

Thayer Definition:
1) relating to an appeasing or expiating, having placating or expiating force, expiatory; a means of appeasing or expiating, a propitiation

G2433 Heb_2:17

Thayer Definition:
1) to render one’s self, to appease, conciliate to one’s self

G2434 1Jn_2:2 1Jn_4:10

Thayer Definition:
1) an appeasing, propitiating
2) the means of appeasing, a propitiation

The Thayer definitions include appeasing and the term works well in the verses. Try it yourself, just replace propitiation in the verse.

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?

 

[SavedByGrace]

How would anyone do that?
How do you prove something is NOT there?

complete rubbish, like JonC and a few others on here, you are blind from seeing what the Bible says because of your theology!