BIBLICAL atonement

[SavedByGrace]

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.

Isaiah 53:4, 5, 10 is very clear to those who are interested in what the Bible actually says, and not their theology.

Show from this chapter, that God did not punish Jesus FOR us. Neither has Jon, yourself or any other oponent has been able to do so.

 

[JonC]

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?

I did say that. So did Peter - Christ died at the hands of the wicked but also by the predetermined plan of God.

I don't know of Ratzinger's. I just know of Aquinas' doctrine and how close it is to Penal Substitution Theory.

I don't see this going anywhere. I once held your view and would have replied exactly as you.

My hope is others who pass by will think "hey....he's right....Penal Substitution Theory is not actually in the text of Scripture so where did it come from""....and hopefully find the simple truth in "what is written".

 

[JesusFan]

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?

He somehow cannot see that jesus can receive the wrath of God poured out due to our sins upon Himself, NOT because he deserved that, but due to being the sin bearer! He thinks that we are saying God is punishing Jesus because of what he did, not due to what we imputed to Him!

 

[Eternally Grateful]

He somehow cannot see that jesus can receive the wrath of God poured out due to our sins upon Himself, NOT because he deserved that, but due to being the sin bearer! He thinks that we are saying God is punishing Jesus because of what he did, not due to what we imputed to Him!

This is exactly why God had to die himself. Who else but God can take the full wrath for all mankind? No angel could do that, and no mere human could

 

[JesusFan]

I did say that. So did Peter - Christ died at the hands of the wicked but also by the predetermined plan of God.

I don't know of Ratzinger's. I just know of Aquinas' doctrine and how close it is to Penal Substitution Theory.

I don't see this going anywhere. I once held your view and would have replied exactly as you.

My hope is others who pass by will think "hey....he's right....Penal Substitution Theory is not actually in the text of Scripture so where did it come from""....and hopefully find the simple truth in "what is written".

God the father was the One that Crushed Hos own Son, and Jesus agreed to that as the sin bearer!

 

[JesusFan]

This is exactly why God had to die himself. Who else but God can take the full wrath for all mankind? No angel could do that, and no mere human could

Its that part about God being in Christ reconciling the world back unto Himself!

 

[agedman]

1 Peter 2:24 - "and He Himself brought our sins in His body up on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live for righteousness; by His wounds you were healed"

Don't deny this verse at all. But it does not support PSA Theory that the wrath of God was poured out upon the Son, but the Victorious Christ is portrayed most certainly.

Galatians 3:13 - "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree”

As I already addressed this verse earlier and I refer you back to that post.
This verse does not stand alone, and nor does it present that the PSA theory of God pouring out His wrath upon the Son is accurate, rather the passage presents a glorious picture of the work of the Victorious Christ.

2 Corinthians 5:21 - "for him who did not know sin, in our behalf He did make sin, that we may become the righteousness of God in him"[/QUOTE]

This verse does not support PSA theory, but is true to the Victorious Christ in which He took upon Himself all the sin of all creation and yet remained sinless. Only a Victorious Christ can have done such a mighty unfathomable work which was pleasing to the Father and satisfied the breach between God and man allowing for redemption and reconciliation by Grace alone.

 

[SavedByGrace]

Don't deny this verse at all. But it does not support PSA Theory that the wrath of God was poured out upon the Son, but the Victorious Christ is portrayed most certainly.


As I already addressed this verse earlier and I refer you back to that post.
This verse does not stand alone, and nor does it present that the PSA theory of God pouring out His wrath upon the Son is accurate, rather the passage presents a glorious picture of the work of the Victorious Christ.

2 Corinthians 5:21 - "for him who did not know sin, in our behalf He did make sin, that we may become the righteousness of God in him"

This verse does not support PSA theory, but is true to the Victorious Christ in which He took upon Himself all the sin of all creation and yet remained sinless. Only a Victorious Christ can have done such a mighty unfathomable work which was pleasing to the Father and satisfied the breach between God and man allowing for redemption and reconciliation by Grace alone.[/QUOTE]

As I have said before it is clear that neither you or Jon actually understands what PSA is

 

[Aaron]

Aaron,

Do you really think this helps?

Yes.

I understand frustrated responses,

I'm not frustrated.

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.

Oh yes you are avoiding them.

 

[agedman]

Lets look at this.

1. The penalty of sin is death,
2. We are born dead in adam,
3. We are made alive who were dead....

conclusion.

spiritual death (separation from God) is the penalty of sin.

Jesus, on the cross. Said it is finished (tetelestai)

Tetelestai in the Greek is actually a judicial term. It means "paid in full"

Jesus in his own words states the penalty of sin was paid in full. Yet he had not yet died physically yet. He also then let his physical body die a physical death.

While on the cross. And while getting beat, He never cried out. Not once did he cry out. Until the 9th hour. something so horrible in that moment made his scream in pain.

what was that thing that made him scream?

Your sin, My sin, The sin of the whole world was placed on his body, and in that moment, He suffered the penalty of sin (spiritual death) as he screamed, My God (father) My God (Holy Spirit) Why have you forsaken me.

Forsake in greek - enkatelipes - to abandon, to desert, to leave behind, to forsake,

so yeah.. Not only is it scripturally. but it is right there in black and white.



Christ became a curse for us.

Subsitituion.

Christ died for us - substitution

he who knew no sin, became sin, substitution.

Without substitution there is no satisfaction.

As for Christ paying a price. He redeemed (purchased) us by his blood. that was the price.

I am not presenting that you are wrong in your statement, but that the word "substitution" requires a replacement be made for something else.

When Christ took the sin's of the creation upon Himself, do not neglect that He remained totally innocent and without sin. As such He did not substitute, but satisfied. For had He substituted, would that not also present that all the creation then were saved?

By satisfaction, there is no such obligation to save. But that the reconciliation was made provides a path for the work of redemption.

Each time you consider a passage teaches substitute, remember that it means replacement and therefore an accomplished act. Sinners would not die in their sins, and the world would not groan under its present condemnation.

The word "satisfied" removes any such obligation and more completely presents what the OT sacrificial system portrayed.

One other point.
"Why have you forsaken me?" I will not get into all the controversy concerning this phrase, it isn't worth the time and effort. However, God did not ever abandon the Son.

How could He? Did the trinity suddenly fall apart?

Forsake does not mean abandon, but withheld support. Just as God withheld support from Job. He did not abandon Job, He allowed by withholding support that which He desired to be accomplished.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Its that part about God being in Christ reconciling the world back unto Himself!

yes that is why he came

 

[Eternally Grateful]

I am not presenting that you are wrong in your statement, but that the word "substitution" requires a replacement be made for something else.

When Christ took the sin's of the creation upon Himself, do not neglect that He remained totally innocent and without sin. As such He did not substitute, but satisfied. For had He substituted, would that not also present that all the creation then were saved?

By satisfaction, there is no such obligation to save. But that the reconciliation was made provides a path for the work of redemption.

Each time you consider a passage teaches substitute, remember that it means replacement and therefore an accomplished act. Sinners would not die in their sins, and the world would not groan under its present condemnation.

The word "satisfied" removes any such obligation and more completely presents what the OT sacrificial system portrayed.

One other point.
"Why have you forsaken me?" I will not get into all the controversy concerning this phrase, it isn't worth the time and effort. However, God did not ever abandon the Son.

How could He? Did the trinity suddenly fall apart?

Forsake does not mean abandon, but withheld support. Just as God withheld support from Job. He did not abandon Job, He allowed by withholding support that which He desired to be accomplished.

I think your missing the whole concept

If I owe a debt to a court of law. I am bound to pay that debt.

Redemptions sees one who is not guilty of thet debt, taking the debt in my place. And hence I am set from from that debt as if I am innocent even though I am guilty.

Yes. Jesus was innocent, But he still took the debt in our place as a substitution. “The lamb of God” “the redeemer” the “justifier”

He fulfilled the law first. Something we failed to do. He then took the our place and bore the debt on himself. That we may be set free, as even though guilty, seen as innocent.

As for forsake, I gave you the defenition of the greek word. Inspired by God, and written down in the origional text.

I will take that as truth, I pray you do also.

 

[agedman]

As I have said before it is clear that neither you or Jon actually understands what PSA is

No, it is becoming more apparent that you have a narrow concept of what the PSA theory is about.

Do you not know that if the PSA theory his analyzed and extrapolated it results in universal salvation?
That it results in a divided and disunity of the trinity?
That it does not conform in a single verse to the Scripture contextually?

@JonC is a man of education, I am a man of education (now very long retired). I am not puffing up our selves, but to mention that we did not come to the conclusion without extreme soul searching, Scripture checking, and seeking wisdom from both God and resources on the topic.

All we are asking is that folks examine without preconceived agenda that which the Scriptures actually present.

You presented three verses. I showed that none of them were really supportive of what you have held and only supportive if you meet them with the psa agenda thinking and out of context analysis.

One can be better and more Scripturally sound by considering that the Father was pleased and satisfied by the work done by His Son. For that is what the OT pictures, and what the NT describes.

 

[agedman]

Oh yes you are avoiding them.

Ok, then list what Scriptures that have been shown on the various threads that we have avoided?

I'll do my best to attend to each, but you must also do you best to engage with understanding and not denial and avoidance.

 

[37818]

Penal Substitution is simply supported by Romans 6:23 with Romans 5:8. The Atonement is how.

 

[agedman]

I think your missing the whole concept

If I owe a debt to a court of law. I am bound to pay that debt.

Redemptions sees one who is not guilty of thet debt, taking the debt in my place. And hence I am set from from that debt as if I am innocent even though I am guilty.

Yes. Jesus was innocent, But he still took the debt in our place as a substitution. “The lamb of God” “the redeemer” the “justifier”

He fulfilled the law first. Something we failed to do. He then took the our place and bore the debt on himself. That we may be set free, as even though guilty, seen as innocent.

As for forsake, I gave you the defenition of the greek word. Inspired by God, and written down in the origional text.

I will take that as truth, I pray you do also.

Collosians 2 is one of the better passages to explore in this question.

6Therefore, just as you have received Christ Jesus as Lord, continue to walk in Him, 7rooted and built up in Him, established in the faith as you were taught, and overflowing with thankfulness. 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.​

See, there was no wrath of God involved.
More often we consider debt as some great ocean of sin, but it isn't, rather this passage describes debt ascribed to us were violations of the decrees that stood against us.

In other words, no longer is there demands of compliance by the Law in which no person can be justified, for such demands or decrees have been annulled.

 

[37818]

When Bible believers disagree on the meaning of a Scripture, one or both will be wrong.

 

[agedman]

Penal Substitution is simply supported by Romans 6:23 with Romans 5:8. The Atonement is how.

Did we not already discuss these two passages? I think so.

Romans 5:

6For at just the right time, while we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. 7Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous man, though for a good man someone might possibly dare to die. 8But God proves His love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us. 9Therefore, since we have now been justified by His blood, how much more shall we be saved from wrath through Him! 10For if, when we were enemies of God, we were reconciled to Him through the death of His Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through His life! 11Not only that, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.
​

This passage does not support PSA thinking. To imply that it does is reading into the passage that agenda and not taking the Scriptures with veracity.

Romans 6:

15What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law, but under grace? Certainly not! 16Do you not know that when you offer yourselves as obedient slaves, you are slaves to the one you obey, whether you are slaves to sin leading to death, or to obedience leading to righteousness? 17But thanks be to God that, though you once were slaves to sin, you wholeheartedly obeyed the form of teaching to which you were committed. 18You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness.

19I am speaking in human terms because of the weakness of your flesh. Just as you used to offer the parts of your body in slavery to impurity and to escalating wickedness, so now offer them in slavery to righteousness leading to holiness. 20For when you were slaves to sin, you were free of obligation to righteousness. 21What fruit did you reap at that time from the things of which you are now ashamed? The outcome of those things is death. 22But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves to God, the fruit you reap leads to holiness, and the outcome is eternal life. 23For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
​

This passage does not support PSA thinking. To imply that it does is reading into the passage that agenda and not taking the Scriptures with veracity.

 

[agedman]

When Bible believers disagree on the meaning of a Scripture, one or both will be wrong.

@JonC and I are not wrong. So, who then is wrong?

 

[agedman]

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!

This is an interesting question.

I do think that both Calvin and Luther were products of their time and day, and although were remarkable were also at times very wrong.

For example, you do know that Luther was highly prejudiced against Jews, and Calvin also had his own problems with folks who didn't agree with his thinking.

We have MUCH more available at out finger tips then they had, and are far more educated then they were, for they had the agenda of never truly separating from the total influence of the RCC - Luther especially.

PSA is not Pauline justification. Justification by faith alone is one of the cores of the reformation, but to assign the PSA to the Scripture is really not wise, for there isn't such documentation in Scripture for supporting such a structure.