Martin Luther and the Atonement (theories of atonement)

[JonC]

That is what Calvin and Paul held with though!

You are right that Paul does speak of the “forgiveness of sins” (Eph 1:17; Col 1:14) and the death of Christ “for our sins” (1 Cor 15:3; Gal 1:4) in a way that could fit into your theory. But this type of language also fits very well into the Christus Victor motif. You are wrong that this is Paul’s typical way of speaking of the Cross. Paul typically spoke not of “sins” in the plural but of “sin” in the singular. Paul personifies sin as a power, claiming that people are under the power of sin (Rom 3:9; Cor 15;56; Gal 3:22) which exercises dominion over them (Rom 5:21; 6:12; 14) and dwells in them (Rom 7, 20, 23) and enslaves them (Rom 6:6-7; 6:16-18; 20;7:14). People are “under sin” (Rom 7:14) and sin leads to death (Rom 5:12; 21:6:23;8:2). Human beings need a savior who can break the power of sin under which they are enslaved, who can “set us free from the law of sin and death” (Rom 8:2).

 

[Yeshua1]

You are right that Paul does speak of the “forgiveness of sins” (Eph 1:17; Col 1:14) and the death of Christ “for our sins” (1 Cor 15:3; Gal 1:4) in a way that could fit into your theory. But this type of language also fits very well into the Christus Victor motif. You are wrong that this is Paul’s typical way of speaking of the Cross. Paul typically spoke not of “sins” in the plural but of “sin” in the singular. Paul personifies sin as a power, claiming that people are under the power of sin (Rom 3:9; Cor 15;56; Gal 3:22) which exercises dominion over them (Rom 5:21; 6:12; 14) and dwells in them (Rom 7, 20, 23) and enslaves them (Rom 6:6-7; 6:16-18; 20;7:14). People are “under sin” (Rom 7:14) and sin leads to death (Rom 5:12; 21:6:23;8:2). Human beings need a savior who can break the power of sin under which they are enslaved, who can “set us free from the law of sin and death” (Rom 8:2).[/QUOTE

The Apostle Paul held to the PST view, as one cannot go thru Romans and Galatians without seeing himself holding to that viewpoint as regarding the Cross of Christ
Calvin did not invent it, but he did rediscover it!

 

[JonC]

Yet for 20 centuries and counting godly scholars went through those books without coming up with your theory, and for 15 of those centuries your theory is completely absent (just as it is in Scripture itself).

In other words, your saying Calvin said what Paul meant to say but didn't really isn't proof of your theory.

I provided verses where Paul without question states my position (word for word, infact). You have provided verses we both agree on, but nothing proving the context you believe implied.

 

[Yeshua1]

Yet for 20 centuries and counting godly scholars went through those books without coming up with your theory, and for 15 of those centuries your theory is completely absent (just as it is in Scripture itself).

In other words, your saying Calvin said what Paul meant to say but didn't really isn't proof of your theory.

I provided verses where Paul without question states my position (word for word, infact). You have provided verses we both agree on, but nothing proving the context you believe implied.

I gave to you where Luther and Calvin both agreed that the death of Jesus was on a substitionary basis, but you have a gridlock on this particular issue, and filter all passages thru that view only....

 

[TCassidy]

I don't often agree with Yeshua1 (okay, okay, I never agree with Yeshua1). But in this case, he is right. Jon, you are obsessed with meaningless minutia regarding the atonement.

Here is the important part: "Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,"

 

[JonC]

I gave to you where Luther and Calvin both agreed that the death of Jesus was on a substitionary basis, but you have a gridlock on this particular issue, and filter all passages thru that view only....

No one has denied that Jesus' death was substitutionary, so that's not the gridlock.

To help dialogue, let's just look at each other's position thus far.

I hold that Paul spoke of sins more often in the singular. So I contend that Paul's focus is not on divine justice against sins we have committed but on sin as a power exercising dominion over mankind. I've argued that Paul looks at man as needing a savior who could break the power of sin under which men are enslaved, one who could set us free from the law of sin and death.

As evidence of this type of reasoning in the writings of Paul I have offered Eph 1:17, Col 1:14, 1 Corinthians 15:3, Gal 1:4, Romans 3:9, Corinthians 15:15, Galatians 3:22, Romans 5:21, Romans 6:12, Romans 6:6-7 and Romans 8:2...among others.

What I am looking for are passages affirming that God was wrathful towards Jesus, punishing him with the punishment we would have received at Judgment, etc. If the only part of your theory that is biblical is that Jesus' death was on a substitutionary basis then we agree insofar as Scripture goes and our disagreement is simply on the parts your theory adds.

 

[JonC]

I don't often agree with Yeshua1 (okay, okay, I never agree with Yeshua1). But in this case, he is right. Jon, you are obsessed with meaningless minutia regarding the atonement.

Here is the important part: "Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,"

I agree that the important part is Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures.

Just about every topic we discuss here could be classified as an obsession with meaningless minutia (free will vs divine sovereignty; Calvinism vs non-Calvinism; limited atonement vs universal atonement; dispensationalism vs covenant theology; eschatological positions....etc). But just as each of those I mentioned exist within Christianity (affirm the important parts) each also....while perhaps minutia in itself....can have enormous impact on doctrinal development.

Each of us probably finds some element of theology interesting or important, otherwise we probably wouldn't even post on these forums. I don't care about dispensationalism/covenant theology; or about eschatological debates. But I do find the ideas and contexts behind various theories of the atonement interesting.

 

[Yeshua1]

I don't often agree with Yeshua1 (okay, okay, I never agree with Yeshua1). But in this case, he is right. Jon, you are obsessed with meaningless minutia regarding the atonement.

Here is the important part: "Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,"

We agree on many things, such as the scriptures, the gospel, Calvinism, second coming etc!

 

[Yeshua1]

No one has denied that Jesus' death was substitutionary, so that's not the gridlock.

To help dialogue, let's just look at each other's position thus far.

I hold that Paul spoke of sins more often in the singular. So I contend that Paul's focus is not on divine justice against sins we have committed but on sin as a power exercising dominion over mankind. I've argued that Paul looks at man as needing a savior who could break the power of sin under which men are enslaved, one who could set us free from the law of sin and death.

As evidence of this type of reasoning in the writings of Paul I have offered Eph 1:17, Col 1:14, 1 Corinthians 15:3, Gal 1:4, Romans 3:9, Corinthians 15:15, Galatians 3:22, Romans 5:21, Romans 6:12, Romans 6:6-7 and Romans 8:2...among others.

What I am looking for are passages affirming that God was wrathful towards Jesus, punishing him with the punishment we would have received at Judgment, etc. If the only part of your theory that is biblical is that Jesus' death was on a substitutionary basis then we agree insofar as Scripture goes and our disagreement is simply on the parts your theory adds.

Those scriptures have been given by myself, the Biblist, Martin, et all, but you just keep filtering it thru your gridlock on atonement.

God is Holy, we are all sinners, and God has the right to demand someone to pay and atone for their sin debt, so its personnel with God this sin issue, as He sees each sinner with an unpaid sin debt needing to have his Wrath propitiated towards, and the Cross of Christ does just that!

You stated once held to PST, what/who changed your mind?

 

[JonC]

Those scriptures have been given by myself, the Biblist, Martin, et all, but you just keep filtering it thru your gridlock on atonement.

God is Holy, we are all sinners, and God has the right to demand someone to pay and atone for their sin debt, so its personnel with God this sin issue, as He sees each sinner with an unpaid sin debt needing to have his Wrath propitiated towards, and the Cross of Christ does just that!

You stated once held to PST, what/who changed your mind?

I did hold to a PSA (closer to your view as I still hold to Christ as a propitiation for our sins) at one time. What changed my mind was reading through what a few "hyper" people (those who arrive at what I would consider more extreme positions within PSA) believed and their defenses. It was easy to see where their reasoning began and Scripture ended, but they remained unaware. As I thought about it I realized that there were traditions I presupposed onto the text, unaware, also. For example, I also assumed divine justice to be in the context of retributive justice with human sins in view rather than restorative justice with God Himself in view. This was just how it had been taught to me.

It is as if some are arguing that Ponchielli had a great sense of humor because he wrote the music for Allan Sherman's "Camp Granada" (Hello Muddah, hello Faddah Here I am at Camp Grenada .....) when in fact Ponchielli wrote Dance of the Hours (from La Gioconda) a century before Sherman's lyrics. But still, each time I hear Dance of the Hours played Sherman's context comes to my mind (I can't help but think of those lyrics).

So I began to look through Scripture and study what was actually written about Christ's work, about the Incarnation, and about the Cross. To my surprise, there existed no definitive passage that proved PSA. I say to my surprise because it was such a foundation to our doctrine. Every verse that you have posted here speaks of Christ bearing our sins and of God offering Christ as a guilt offering. But NO verse provides the context of retributive justice - that God was wrathful to Christ. This is what you have supplied - what you have presupposed onto the text - just as I had done at one time.

The reason I finally abandoned such a theory (to the degree you hold to PSA), however, is that it departs from what is revealed in Scripture about God in terms of the Father and His Holy One (or His Righteous One) and elevates man over God. There were just too many assumptions that were without biblical warrant but that held a position of prominence within our doctrine.

 

[JonC]

Those scriptures have been given by myself, the Biblist, Martin, et all, but you just keep filtering it thru your gridlock on atonement.

No. I am taking those passages literally as they come, trying not to apply a context not provided by the text itself. You have been bringing into those passages a contextual framework never applied until the 16th century. If you are right then the Church has never once, that we know of, gotten it right until Calvin articulated the Atonement within view of the 16th century legal system. While this may be the case, I seriously doubt it. Unlike those who have advocated PSA before, you can't even recognize the contextual framework you have applied, much less defend it.

And ultimately that is what I'm looking for. NOT passages you have provided and upon which we all agree BUT passages advocating the framework you superimpose on Scripture to create your theory.

 

[Yeshua1]

No. I am taking those passages literally as they come, trying not to apply a context not provided by the text itself. You have been bringing into those passages a contextual framework never applied until the 16th century. If you are right then the Church has never once, that we know of, gotten it right until Calvin articulated the Atonement within view of the 16th century legal system. While this may be the case, I seriously doubt it. Unlike those who have advocated PSA before, you can't even recognize the contextual framework you have applied, much less defend it.

And ultimately that is what I'm looking for. NOT passages you have provided and upon which we all agree BUT passages advocating the framework you superimpose on Scripture to create your theory.

The thing my friends is that the Suffering Servant of isaiah was totally based upon the sacrifices of the sin bearer of God, and as such, Jesus paid the price for the wrath of God that was due for the sins committed by His people. Jesus took the place of lost sinners on an individual basis.

 

[Yeshua1]

I did hold to a PSA (closer to your view as I still hold to Christ as a propitiation for our sins) at one time. What changed my mind was reading through what a few "hyper" people (those who arrive at what I would consider more extreme positions within PSA) believed and their defenses. It was easy to see where their reasoning began and Scripture ended, but they remained unaware. As I thought about it I realized that there were traditions I presupposed onto the text, unaware, also. For example, I also assumed divine justice to be in the context of retributive justice with human sins in view rather than restorative justice with God Himself in view. This was just how it had been taught to me.

It is as if some are arguing that Ponchielli had a great sense of humor because he wrote the music for Allan Sherman's "Camp Granada" (Hello Muddah, hello Faddah Here I am at Camp Grenada .....) when in fact Ponchielli wrote Dance of the Hours (from La Gioconda) a century before Sherman's lyrics. But still, each time I hear Dance of the Hours played Sherman's context comes to my mind (I can't help but think of those lyrics).

So I began to look through Scripture and study what was actually written about Christ's work, about the Incarnation, and about the Cross. To my surprise, there existed no definitive passage that proved PSA. I say to my surprise because it was such a foundation to our doctrine. Every verse that you have posted here speaks of Christ bearing our sins and of God offering Christ as a guilt offering. But NO verse provides the context of retributive justice - that God was wrathful to Christ. This is what you have supplied - what you have presupposed onto the text - just as I had done at one time.

The reason I finally abandoned such a theory (to the degree you hold to PSA), however, is that it departs from what is revealed in Scripture about God in terms of the Father and His Holy One (or His Righteous One) and elevates man over God. There were just too many assumptions that were without biblical warrant but that held a position of prominence within our doctrine.

You seem to be very adverse to the concept of God placing His divine Wrath upon Jesus as the Sin bearer!

 

[JonC]

You seem to be very adverse to the concept of God placing His divine Wrath upon Jesus as the Sin bearer!

I am not adverse at all to the concept it was God's will to crush Him....or as Peter explained to the Jews - they acted in ignorance, considering Jesus a transgressor, yet this was God's will.

I am not even opposed to developing theories to understand biblical doctrine. BUT I am opposed to adding to Scripture what is itself absent. My concern is that some people elevate tradition to the point they can't separate it from Scripture. It is unfortunate that so many seem to view examining the ideas of men taboo if it involves reexamining their tradition. It is a very Catholic mentality some seem to hold when it comes to certain topics.

 

[JonC]

The thing my friends is that the Suffering Servant of isaiah was totally based upon the sacrifices of the sin bearer of God, and as such, Jesus paid the price for the wrath of God that was due for the sins committed by His people. Jesus took the place of lost sinners on an individual basis.

But can you prove this via Scripture or is it simply because you have placed such tradition as equal to Scripture?

It is not the passages I question, but the ideas you add to those passages. Don't you understand that? There is no passage in Isaiah 53 that states Jesus took the place of lost sinners on an individual basis on the grounds you have provided (that Jesus experienced what the lost will experience at Judgment, or that God was being wrathful towards Christ as He viewed Jesus as a sinner). Martin even denied your conclusion when he mistakenly thought I had invented your position. It is your addition that I am questioning - the reason you think Scripture itself means what it means to you.

For example, why retributive justice? When you look at the OT sacrificial system, the sacrifices were restorative. In fact, when it comes to justice the sinful act is never separated from the sinner. Also - While Paul mentions sins, he most often deals with sin (singular) as an enslaving power. You seem to ignore this and instead insist on Paul as “thinking” of the atonement as PSA. Yet where I’ve provided numerous passages to the contrary you seem more inclined to human opinion. You say things like "Paul and Jesus thought...." but never are able to back it up with Scripture. I say things like "Paul wrote" and offer the passages which you promptly ignore.

I challenge you to set aside opinion and use Scripture, not presupposed tradition, to prove your view.

 

[Yeshua1]

But can you prove this via Scripture or is it simply because you have placed such tradition as equal to Scripture?

It is not the passages I question, but the ideas you add to those passages. Don't you understand that? There is no passage in Isaiah 53 that states Jesus took the place of lost sinners on an individual basis on the grounds you have provided (that Jesus experienced what the lost will experience at Judgment, or that God was being wrathful towards Christ as He viewed Jesus as a sinner). Martin even denied your conclusion when he mistakenly thought I had invented your position. It is your addition that I am questioning - the reason you think Scripture itself means what it means to you.

For example, why retributive justice? When you look at the OT sacrificial system, the sacrifices were restorative. In fact, when it comes to justice the sinful act is never separated from the sinner. Also - While Paul mentions sins, he most often deals with sin (singular) as an enslaving power. You seem to ignore this and instead insist on Paul as “thinking” of the atonement as PSA. Yet where I’ve provided numerous passages to the contrary you seem more inclined to human opinion. You say things like "Paul and Jesus thought...." but never are able to back it up with Scripture. I say things like "Paul wrote" and offer the passages which you promptly ignore.

I challenge you to set aside opinion and use Scripture, not presupposed tradition, to prove your view.

Jesus was forsaken by God while upon the Cross, experienced Hell on the Cross, and He paid and atoned for the sins in total of all who were to get saved of all time.

 

[Yeshua1]

I am not adverse at all to the concept it was God's will to crush Him....or as Peter explained to the Jews - they acted in ignorance, considering Jesus a transgressor, yet this was God's will.

I am not even opposed to developing theories to understand biblical doctrine. BUT I am opposed to adding to Scripture what is itself absent. My concern is that some people elevate tradition to the point they can't separate it from Scripture. It is unfortunate that so many seem to view examining the ideas of men taboo if it involves reexamining their tradition. It is a very Catholic mentality some seem to hold when it comes to certain topics.

PST is taken directly from the teachings of Christ and paul, John and peter, not from traditions of Calvin!

 

[JonC]

Jesus was forsaken by God while upon the Cross, experienced Hell on the Cross, and He paid and atoned for the sins in total of all who were to get saved of all time.

Again, I know this is what you believe. BUT it is also very clear you believe this out of tradition and NOT scripture itself as evidenced by others who consider themselves holding to PSA (e.g., John Piper, Joel Beeke, N.T. Wright) yet deny this is what Christ experienced AND your inability to produce even ONE passage proving this idea.

 

[JonC]

PST is taken directly from the teachings of Christ and paul, John and peter, not from traditions of Calvin!

Then you should be able to provide at least ONE verse proving that Divine Justice is both retributive in nature and the mode through which atonement is accomplished. BUT THE FACT REMAINS YOU CANNOT.

YOU MAKE STATEMENTS AND OFFER OPINION AGAINST THE PASSAGES I HAVE OFFERED, BUT NOTHING THUS FAR FROM THE BIBLE (other than what we have already agreed upon).

Perhaps the reason we cannot discuss this topic without hitting a road block is that in practice you reject scripture alone as an authority on such matters.

 

[Yeshua1]

NT Wright denies that God placed his wrath of Jesus Himself, as He views Jesus enduring the wrath of Rome as a substitute for their wrath towards Israel.
And both Luther and Calvin saw the death of Jesus as God pouring out the fullness of His deserved wrath upon Jesus as the Sin Bearer.
God the father is right due for sin to be paid for by death, so how can it not be as by Pst then?