My (JonC) view of the Atonement

[JonC]

This illustrates my view of the Atonement (it does not prove it):

God put enmity between the seed of the Serpent and the Seed of the woman, that He shall bruise (or crush) the Serpent on the head while the Serpent will bruise (or crush) the Seed of the woman on the heel. I do believe that this foretells Christ, and points to our redemption (I believe the Serpent here refers to Satan and the powers of “this world”, while the Seed of the woman refers to Christ as the “Last Adam”). But I also admit that this could be talking about snakes biting people and people smashing their heads.

If this is talking about snakes and people, then it does not mean that much. But if it is a prophesy about Christ then it means a great deal. The Serpent (or the works of the Serpent) will crush or bruise the Seed without destroying the Seed, while the Seed will destroy the Serpent.

My view of the Atonement:

God created man as a living person, as flesh, when He created Adam. Adam transgressed God’s command and sin entered into the world, and through sin death entered. Death spread to all mankind because we have all sinned and it is appointed to man once to die and then the Judgment.

God gave Israel the Law but man is condemned under the Law (all have sinned and fallen short of God’s glory) and the Law serves to show man his sin and to point to a future manifestation of God’s righteousness that is apart from the Law. The Law shows us a need “for another way”.

God, the Son, became “flesh”. He became man, submitted Himself to the same bondage that held man captive. He was tempted in all points as are we, however without sin. Where we did not meet the righteousness of the Law, He did. He did not transgress the Law.

Man did not esteem Christ, they did not look to Him as Righteous but instead despised and forsook Him. He bore our griefs (our “infirmity”, our “sickness”), BUT man considered Him stricken, smitten of God and afflicted. Man viewed Christ as a transgressor, as a criminal. And man oppressed Christ. But through this He was bearing their sins, suffering the wages of sin (death) on their behalf. It was God’s will to crush Him, to put Him to grief (see Genesis 3). The Jewish leaders handed Christ over to the Romans. Christ suffered and died under the evil of this world (the Serpent “crushed” or “bruised” “his heel”) but this was the predetermined plan of God, it was God’s will, He was “pleased” to crush Him.

On the third day Christ arose. God vindicated Christ against the evil that had counted Him as a transgressor, as a criminal, that had esteemed Him stricken of God, and He gave Him a name that is above every name. Christ became a life giving Spirit. God is just and the justifier of sinners.

The Cross was God reconciling man to Himself, forgiving man, therefore we now plea that men be reconciled to God. Man was reconciled to God through Christ’s death, and men are saved through His life.

 

[Van]

The cross (Christ dying as a sin offering for humanity) provided the means of reconciliation, but did not reconcile anyone. Reconciliation occurs when God alone places an individual into Christ spiritually, where they undergo the washing of regeneration, and arise in Christ a new creation, made perfect, righteous, and blameless. Thus what God held against them is put out of the way (having been, so to speak, nailed to the cross). Therefore they are reconciled. Thus our individual salvation is God reconciling the world, one sinner at a time, to Himself. And those born anew have been, reconciled.

 

[DaveXR650]

Thanks for putting that up. I would ask if you could elaborate on what it means for man to need to be reconciled to God. I know you said we're condemned under the law and I agree but would you elaborate on what this means? What I'm getting at is if there were direct scripture verses saying that this transgressing of ours could cause a reaction in God that we describe as "wrath" would you find that objectionable. I'm not trying to trick you. I want to know if you think God's view of sin could have something to do with our need of "reconciliation"? If not then why is that an unacceptable logical leap?

 

[JonC]

The cross (Christ dying as a sin offering for humanity) provided the means of reconciliation, but did not reconcile anyone. Reconciliation occurs when God alone places an individual into Christ spiritually, where they undergo the washing of regeneration, and arise in Christ a new creation, made perfect, righteous, and blameless. Thus what God held against them is put out of the way (having been, so to speak, nailed to the cross). Therefore they are reconciled. Thus our individual salvation is God reconciling the world, one sinner at a time, to Himself. And those born anew have been, reconciled.

That is what Scripture says - man is reconciled to God by Christ's death, men are saved by His life. Man is reconciled. Men need to be saved (need to individually be reconciled).

 

[Martin Marprelate]

A few points that need clarification before going any further:

God, the Son, became “flesh”. He became man, submitted Himself to the same bondage that held man captive.

The bondage that holds mankind captive is sin (Romans 6:16) but you say )rightly, of course) that Christ was without sin. Would you please explain exactly what you mean by this comment?

He bore our griefs (our “infirmity”, our “sickness”), BUT man considered Him stricken, smitten of God and afflicted.......... It was God's will to crush Him, to put Him to grief.

I am glad that you now accept the plain meaning of Isaiah 53:10, but do you not see that this means that "man" was correct in considering stricken , smitten by God and afflicted? Where "man" was wrong was in not realising that the wounding by God was for our transgressions, and the bruising, also by God, was for our iniquities; also that the chastisement that brought us peace was upon Him. He got the chastisement; we got the peace, when it should have been the other way about. Penal Substitution.

Christ became a life giving Spirit.

If Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever, why do you think that Christ was not a life-giving Spirit before the resurrection.

Finally, you say nothing of Christ becoming a curse for us (Galatians 3:10-14. This is a major point with the ECFs when they uphold Penal Substitution. Perhaps you would like to tell us what you think that means.

.

 

[JonC]

Thanks for putting that up. I would ask if you could elaborate on what it means for man to need to be reconciled to God. I know you said we're condemned under the law and I agree but would you elaborate on what this means? What I'm getting at is if there were direct scripture verses saying that this transgressing of ours could cause a reaction in God that we describe as "wrath" would you find that objectionable. I'm not trying to trick you. I want to know if you think God's view of sin could have something to do with our need of "reconciliation"? If not then why is that an unacceptable logical leap?

I think you misunderstood my objection. God's wrath IS against the wicked. This never changes.

There are two biblical options : 1. Condemn all men as they are wicked. 2. Recreate wicked men, require they die to the flesh and be reborn.

If God transfered the sins to the wicked to the innocent then He would be unjust....and nothing would be accomplished. His wrath would still be on the wicked.

By reconciliation I mean that man (as a hole...humanity or as Justin Martyr put it "the human family) was reconciled to God. Individually men need to be reconciled.

 

[JonC]

A few points that need clarification before going any further:

The bondage that holds mankind captive is sin (Romans 6:16) but you say )rightly, of course) that Christ was without sin. Would you please explain exactly what you mean by this comment?

I am glad that you now accept the plain meaning of Isaiah 53:10, but do you not see that this means that "man" was correct in considering stricken , smitten by God and afflicted? Where "man" was wrong was in not realising that the wounding by God was for our transgressions, and the bruising, also by God, was for our iniquities; also that the chastisement that brought us peace was upon Him. He got the chastisement; we got the peace, when it should have been the other way about. Penal Substitution.

If Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever, why do you think that Christ was not a life-giving Spirit before the resurrection.

Finally, you say nothing of Christ becoming a curse for us (Galatians 3:10-14. This is a major point with the ECFs when they uphold Penal Substitution. Perhaps you would like to tell us what you think that means.

.

The meaning of God laying our sins on Christ is that the Word became flesh, became a curse for us. He suffered the wages of our sin....not His own. Scripture does not say they were transfered from us but that they were laid upon Him. Scripture interprets Scripture.

I never posted that Scripture says the World was correct in their judgment that Christ was stricken by God. Re-read my post (and the passage itself... attention to the "buts" and the "yets").

So also it is written, “The first MAN, Adam, BECAME A LIVING SOUL.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.

Do you reject that "the Word became flesh"? Are you suggesting the "Word" was always man, was never born of a virgin, never grew in stature?

The meaning is self-explanatory. Christ, who knew no sin, was made sin for us. This dies not mean He was made evil, but He took upon Himself our "infirmity".

There is a reason you will not find any Christian prior to John Calvin stating that Christ experienced God's wrath instead of us. Augustine, for example, considered the mere idea that Christ's death appeased God enough to separate one from the faith, saying that the idea was heresy.

 

[37818]

God, the Son, became “flesh”. He became man, submitted Himself to the same bondage that held man captive. He was tempted in all points as are we, however without sin. Where we did not meet the righteousness of the Law, He did. He did not transgress the Law.

This, I believe, is missunderstood by most geniune Christians. John 1:1-3 and John 1:14 are key.
John 1:1-2, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God." Two things about the Word. The Word was both always "with God" being someone other than God. And the Word also was always God. As God never changed. But how the word was with God did change. John 1:14, "And the Word was made flesh . . . ." And the Word did this Himself, John 1:3, "All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made." The Greek phrase προς τον θεον, here "with God", is used 20 times in the New Testament of someone other than God. The Word is identifed as the Son of God. And the Word being God too. see Hebrews 1:3 and 1 Timothy 2:5 and John 14:6. This understanding is not a denial of His deity. He remained God even while being the man, John 1;10 and John 3:13, ". . . the Son of man which is in heaven." And this while He was on the earth before the cross. And of course there is more.

 

[JonC]

This, I believe, is missunderstood by most geniune Christians. John 1:1-3 and John 1:14 are key.
John 1:1-2, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God." Two things about the Word. The Word was both always "with God" being someone other than God. And the Word also was always God. As God never changed. But how the word was with God did change. John 1:14, "And the Word was made flesh . . . ." And the Word did this Himself, John 1:3, "All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made." The Greek phrase προς τον θεον is used 20 times in the New Testament of someone other than God. The Word is identifed as the Son of God. And the Word being God too. see Hebrews 1:3 and 1 Timothy 2:5 and John 14:6. This understanding is not a denial of His deity. He remained God even while being the man, John 1;10 and John 3:13, ". . . the Son of man which is in heaven." And this while He was on the earth before the cross. And of course there is more.

I agree. My point is that the Word became flesh (the Son was not man before the Incarnation). @Martin Marprelate 's complaint is my understanding that the Son became man, suffered and died, was raised and glorified and became a life giving Spirit (actually takes away the sins of the world) denotes change and the Son never changes because He is God.

 

[DaveXR650]

Scripture does not say they were transfered from us but that they were laid upon Him.

I just read the above and I can't follow it. If the sins were ours and they were laid on him, that is saying that they were laid on him instead of us if they somehow are no longer on us but on him. And that means that they were transferred from us to him. And if they were laid on him but they were our sins not his then he was the substitute and since he was righteous and we were not then yes, in this case sins were laid on a righteous, innocent person.

There are two biblical options : 1. Condemn all men as they are wicked. 2. Recreate wicked men, require they die to the flesh and be reborn.

This is true but somehow what you posted before that has to figure in somehow. When we say like Paul, we are crucified with Christ and talk about being "in Christ" we don't want to somehow forget that the effectiveness and the meritorious reason this is possible is that our sins were laid on him like you said at first.

 

[JonC]

I just read the above and I can't follow it. If the sins were ours and they were laid on him, that is saying that they were laid on him instead of us if they somehow are no longer on us but on him. And that means that they were transferred from us to him. And if they were laid on him but they were our sins not his then he was the substitute and since he was righteous and we were not then yes, in this case sins were laid on a righteous, innocent person.



This is true but somehow what you posted before that has to figure in somehow. When we say like Paul, we are crucified with Christ and talk about being "in Christ" we don't want to somehow forget that the effectiveness and the meritorious reason this is possible is that our sins were laid on him like you said at first.

I do not understand why you are adding "instead of" to the passage. We are not even in that picture. Our sins were laid upon Him. He suffered the "wages of sin". He died for our sins.

Where do you get the idea that we escape the "wages of sin" rather than the "wrath to come"?

It is appointed to man once to die (the wages of sin) and then the Judgment (man actually being judged).

Scripture does not, to my knowledge, state that our sins were laid on Christ for a meritorious reason. It says He bore our sins, He lay down His own life, offered Himself as a sin offering. Christ did not merit our sins. He took upon Himself our sins, became a curse for us.

You will experience the wages of sin (as @Martin Marprelate pointed out, God is immutable....His Word stands, is not undone). It is still appointed to you once to die and then the Judgment. But in Christ you share in His vindication, His justness, His righteousness (yep....same word). You die and are made alive in Him.

 

[37818]

I agree. My point is that the Word became flesh (the Son was not man before the Incarnation). @Martin Marprelate 's complaint is my understanding that the Son became man, suffered and died, was raised and glorified and became a life giving Spirit (actually takes away the sins of the world) denotes change and the Son never changes because He is God.

Not denying Him now being an immortal man, Hebrews 13:8. 1 John 3:2. My point was that @Martin Marprelate denies such a type of change. See post #5.

 

[JonC]

Not denying Him now being an immortal man, Hebrews 13:8. 1 John 3:2.

Nor I. I was objecting to @Martin Marprelate 's post (#5) that this type of change is impossible because God does not change.

You and I agree....for once.

 

[DaveXR650]

You will experience the wages of sin (as @Martin Marprelate pointed out, God is immutable....His Word stands, is not undone). It is still appointed to you once to die and then the Judgment. But in Christ you share in His vindication, His justness, His righteousness (yep....same word). You die and are made alive in Him.

In your theory we somehow get in Christ without the need for anything to happen between us and God. I believe the atonement is where this occurs. What you are suggesting above is that we can share in Christ's vindication, justness, and righteousness by him just uniting with us. There is nothing about actually dealing with our sin in your theory. That is why in your 1st post there is no mention of blood. Christ was unjustly crucified and he rose in victory and vindication and proved he was righteous and innocent all along. He was, but the atonement is much more than that. He was the Lamb that was slain and maybe I am mistaken theologically but I don't feel comfortable sharing in his vindication except as a recipient of the benefits of his sacrifice and shed blood. You need to be "in Christ Jesus for sure" and there is redemption in Christ Jesus. But it's because of what Christ Jesus did for us. What he did for us is described as penal substitution. What you are doing is trying to split off the priestly work of Christ and relying totally on the idea of us uniting with Christ which while absolutely true doesn't tell the whole story.

 

[agedman]

...

I am glad that you now accept the plain meaning of Isaiah 53:10, but do you not see that this means that "man" was correct in considering stricken , smitten by God and afflicted? Where "man" was wrong was in not realising that the wounding by God was for our transgressions, and the bruising, also by God, was for our iniquities; also that the chastisement that brought us peace was upon Him. He got the chastisement; we got the peace, when it should have been the other way about. Penal Substitution.

....

.

No, Martin. If Isaiah was correct then Humans were not correct at all.

God did not smite Him, did not strike Him, did not afflict Him - Humans did thinking that they were doing the work of God.

When in reality they KNEW that He was innocent but were afraid their status as power brokers would be diminished. John 1:

49But one of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, “You know nothing at all. 50Nor do you understand that it is better for you that one man should die for the people, not that the whole nation should perish.” 51He did not say this of his own accord, but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the nation,..​

I wonder if folks do not consider that humanity is formed by God, they are His workmanship, some honorable and others not. (Romans 9)

God allowed and was pleased with the human vileness done to the Redeemer, (though they thought it a work of God), and that brought us peace, healing, and no condemnation.

Consider it this way.

As a pastor, you consider yourself "called of God" to the ministry. God is pleased that you are "called to the ministry." He will allow all manner of testing to strengthen your service, all manner of evil pressed upon you to show that you too bear the marks of the Savior, and so forth.

God did not do these, but was pleased with the doing of them.

 

[SavedByGrace]

 

[Martin Marprelate]

The meaning of God laying our sins on Christ is that the Word became flesh, became a curse for us. He suffered the wages of our sin....not His own. Scripture does not say they were transfered from us but that they were laid upon Him. Scripture interprets Scripture.

'The LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.' 'He Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree.....' If our iniquity is laid on Him it is no longer on us. He bore our sins so that we do not bear them and the curse and the punishment attached to them by God. That is Penal Substitution. He bore them; we don't.

I never posted that Scripture says the World was correct in their judgment that Christ was stricken by God. Re-read my post (and the passage itself... attention to the "buts" and the "yets").

You have finally conceded that Scripture is true when it declares that 'It pleased the LORD to bruise Him; He has put Him to grief.' Therefore, ipso facto, the people in Isaiah 53:4 who esteemed Him 'stricken, smitten by God and afflicted' must have been correct. You can wriggle all you want, but that is the inescapable consequence of believing Isaiah 53:10 to be true. Where the people were wrong was in not understanding that He was suffering the punishment on their behalf.

So also it is written, “The first MAN, Adam, BECAME A LIVING SOUL.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.

Do you reject that "the Word became flesh"? Are you suggesting the "Word" was always man, was never born of a virgin, never grew in stature?

I believe that Hebrews 13:8 is as true as 1 Corinthians 15:45. The job of the Bible student is to reconcile the two verses. When the Lord Jesus became Man, He did not cease to be what He had always been - almighty God. He was IMO always a life-giving Spirit, otherwise the OT saints are all lost. One of the delights of reading the NKJV is that words that are not in the original are put in italics. The second 'became' in 1 Cor. 15:46 is not found in any Greek MS.
This is a rabbit hole down which I have no intention of disappearing since it has little relevance to the question we are discussing. It was foolish of me to bring it up.

The meaning is self-explanatory. Christ, who knew no sin, was made sin for us. This dies not mean He was made evil, but He took upon Himself our "infirmity".

Indeed so, and we received His righteousness. 'that we might become the righteousness of God in Him. See also 2 Peter 1:1. Penal Substitution.

There is a reason you will not find any Christian prior to John Calvin stating that Christ experienced God's wrath instead of us. Augustine, for example, considered the mere idea that Christ's death appeased God enough to separate one from the faith, saying that the idea was heresy.

You keep saying this, but never produce a quote from Augustine. It appears that Augustine (wrongly) had problems with the idea that our guilt was transferred to Christ, but he had no problems that Christ bore our curse (the curse of God against sinners), that He died in our place and suffered our punishment. I have previously produced a quote from Augustine to this effect. I am quite happy to trot it our again.

 

[JonC]

In your theory we somehow get in Christ without the need for anything to happen between us and God. I believe the atonement is where this occurs. What you are suggesting above is that we can share in Christ's vindication, justness, and righteousness by him just uniting with us. There is nothing about actually dealing with our sin in your theory. That is why in your 1st post there is no mention of blood. Christ was unjustly crucified and he rose in victory and vindication and proved he was righteous and innocent all along. He was, but the atonement is much more than that. He was the Lamb that was slain and maybe I am mistaken theologically but I don't feel comfortable sharing in his vindication except as a recipient of the benefits of his sacrifice and shed blood. You need to be "in Christ Jesus for sure" and there is redemption in Christ Jesus. But it's because of what Christ Jesus did for us. What he did for us is described as penal substitution. What you are doing is trying to split off the priestly work of Christ and relying totally on the idea of us uniting with Christ which while absolutely true doesn't tell the whole story.

No.

Forget for a minute about what Penal Substitution Theory says God was doing on the Cross. What does Scripture say?

God was reconciling man to Himself. Man was reconciled to God by Christ's death.

So that part is covered.

Now....how do men get "in Christ". Men are saved by Christ's life. He is a "Life Giving Spirit". We "get there" by faith. We die to the flesh and are made alive in Him. We are born again, born from above, born of the Spirit.

And in Him, in Christ to Whom all judgment has been given, there is no condemnation. We escape the wrath to come.

 

[Van]

That is what Scripture says - man is reconciled to God by Christ's death, men are saved by His life. Man is reconciled. Men need to be saved (need to individually be reconciled).

No, that (your claim) is not what not scripture says or suggests.

Rom 5:10
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.​

Note the "we" which refers to Paul and his audience, who had been saved (positionally sanctified) but were in the present being saved (progressive sanctification) and would be saved in the future (ultimate sanctification) at Christ's second coming.

To turn the we into all the elect (past present and future) ignores the stated need of some to be (in the future) reconciled. Thus an errant view.

 

[JonC]

'The LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.' 'He Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree.....' If our iniquity is laid on Him it is no longer on us. He bore our sins so that we do not bear them and the curse and the punishment attached to them by God. That is Penal Substitution. He bore them; we don't.

You have finally conceded that Scripture is true when it declares that 'It pleased the LORD to bruise Him; He has put Him to grief.' Therefore, ipso facto, the people in Isaiah 53:4 who esteemed Him 'stricken, smitten by God and afflicted' must have been correct. You can wriggle all you want, but that is the inescapable consequence of believing Isaiah 53:10 to be true. Where the people were wrong was in not understanding that He was suffering the punishment on their behalf.

I believe that Hebrews 13:8 is as true as 1 Corinthians 15:45. The job of the Bible student is to reconcile the two verses. When the Lord Jesus became Man, He did not cease to be what He had always been - almighty God. He was IMO always a life-giving Spirit, otherwise the OT saints are all lost. One of the delights of reading the NKJV is that words that are not in the original are put in italics. The second 'became' in 1 Cor. 15:46 is not found in any Greek MS.
This is a rabbit hole down which I have no intention of disappearing since it has little relevance to the question we are discussing. It was foolish of me to bring it up.

Indeed so, and we received His righteousness. 'that we might become the righteousness of God in Him. See also 2 Peter 1:1. Penal Substitution.

You keep saying this, but never produce a quote from Augustine. It appears that Augustine (wrongly) had problems with the idea that our guilt was transferred to Christ, but he had no problems that Christ bore our curse (the curse of God against sinners), that He died in our place and suffered our punishment. I have previously produced a quote from Augustine to this effect. I am quite happy to trot it our again.

Nobody on this forum has an issue with Christ becoming a curse for us. This is Christian belief. That is why Augustine could affirm that Christ became a curse for us while still warning that the idea Christ's death appeased God was a heresy.

The Lord did lately our iniquities on Him. This dies NOT mean it was removed from us (you are adding to Scripture). We are clothed in Chrust's righteousness. By your logic Christ is no longer righteous (it was not only "transfered" to us but "transfered" from Him). That would mean you serve an unholy, unjust god. So that is obviously wrong.

Isaiah tells Christ was bearing man's sins BUT they esteemed Him stricken. BUT He was saving them.

Yes, the passage presents a dichotomy between the judgment of the World (esteeming Christ as stricken by God) and the truth (He was reconciling man to God through His death).

You are still a little too indepted to RCC doctrine (once removed). You need to lay all of that philosophy aside and simply believe God's Word.