Nature of the Atonement

[Andre]

The evidence is snowballing against you and you have weakened your own position by admitting that Jesus "received the punishment", an admission that you waited until page 16 to make followed by an attempt to distinguish between "receiving punishment" and "being punished".

What evidence is snowballing against me? I have addressed every text that purports to show Jesus as being punished and showed how it could be interpreted otherwise.

About the word "curse". In Genesis 3 it is shown that an object can be cursed - in this case the ground - without the object of the verb "cursed" being punished. This is really beyond debate. The verb is "cursed", the object of the verb is "the ground". And since, presumably the ground cannot be punished, the case is made.

The fact that the cursing of the ground is then used to punish man is entirely beside the point. You are making an argument of the form:

1. I want to punish Fred;
2. I short-sheet Fred's bed to punish him.
3. Therefore any other use of the verb "short-sheet" implies punishment.

This is simply not correct. So the case that "curse" need not connote punishment has been established.

I have never denied that Jesus recieved the "punishment". I claim that this act - the act of receiving the punishment - is no more an act of God saying "Jesus, you are being punished" than I am being "punished" if I pay someone else's fine.

If I pay a fine or take lashes for someone else's deed, I can perfectly legitimately claim that I bear the punishment without the authorities engaging in an act of punishment for me.

In short, if the law demands a fine of $ 1000 for Fred's speeding, and if I were to satisfy that demands of the law by paying for Fred, a reasonable person can say "Andre is not being punished, he is bearing someone else's punishment".

This distinction may not seem important, or to be one of mere semantics, but I think it is vital - non-believers who are told that Jesus is being punished rightly think of a capricious and malevolent god who, for no apparent reason, has to punish someone in order to solve the sin problem.

Yes, there is some kind of mysterious "payment" going on, but I submit that God should not be thought of as punishing Jesus, as much as using Jesus as the means to make the payment. There are a lot of other interesting issues here that might be helpful to look into.

But notwithstanding all this, my real point in starting this thread was to look at the other aspect of the atonement - the breaking of the power of sin in the world so that it no longer has such a powerful grip on us in respect to our actions in the future.

But it appears that we agree that Jesus indeed "made the payment" for our sins at the Cross.

 

[swaimj]

I have never denied that Jesus recieved the "punishment". I claim that this act - the act of receiving the punishment - is no more an act of God saying "Jesus, you are being punished" than I am being "punished" if I pay someone else's fine.

Gee whiz, Andre, your opening post postulated a new view of the atonement in which Jesus was not punished for sin, but sin itself was destroyed. Here is a quote from your opening post in this thread:

So, on this view, God is not saying "I have to punish someone and Jesus is the one"...

Seems like your opening statement denying the punishment of Christ is a gross overstatement seeing that you actually beleive and have never denied that Jesus received the punishment.

 

[Andre]

Gee whiz, Andre, your opening post postulated a new view of the atonement in which Jesus was not punished for sin, but sin itself was destroyed. Here is a quote from your opening post in this thread:
Seems like your opening statement denying the punishment of Christ is a gross overstatement seeing that you actually beleive and have never denied that Jesus received the punishment.

I think I am being entirely consistent:

1. I have indeed claimed that sin is like a "force" or "real thing" that was broken on the cross.

2. I have indeed denied that Jesus was "punished"

3. I have indeed affirmed that Jesus "bore our punishment"

4. You seem to think that I cannot hold views 2 and 3 since you seem to hold that if Jesus bears someone else's punishment, then Jesus must be "being punished". I can understand why your position seems appealing, but I think there is a problem with it.

5. There is no inconsistency between points 1 and 3 - the atonment can both "deal with payment for past (and even future) sin" and break the power of sin (as a force or agency).

Returning to the subtle distinction between "bearing punishment" and "being punished".

The very concept of "being punished", if we are to be true to the way we deploy this concept, involves the view that the person who is punished has been deemed morally responsible for the transgression for which he is punished. I claim that God does not see Jesus as morally responsible for the transgressions that we have committed. How could that be anyway? - Jesus has not, in fact, committed any transgressions. To believe that He has is to believe an untruth. And that seems an unlikely thing for God to do.

But, if for some admittedly mysterious reason, our sin needs to be "erased" or "deleted" and, equally mysteriously, if this means that our "sins" have to be "transferred" or "moved" into the flesh of Jesus in order to be erased, then we can indeed claim that Jesus bears "our punishment" without being punished himself.

I agree that this is a subtle distinction, but I do think it is an important one. I think many non-believers have been put off by the image of a vindictive God who cannot simply "forgive" sin, He has to punish someone.

 

[Marcia]

The facts are these:

1. This sentence appears "Cursed is the ground because of you";

2. There is verb "cursed" and there is an object - "the ground";

3. Unless you are going to assert that the "ground" is being punished, we have clear proof that the object of a curse - the ground in this case - is not necessarily being punished.

The ground is being punished in the sense that all creation suffers the consequences of sin - decay, death, pollution, etc. In Rom. 8, God talks about the earth "groaning" as if having labor pains, waiting for redemption. I think this shows that the "ground" - i.e., all creation, suffered a punishment. So here the ground, being cursed, if not technically conscious of being punished as a person is conscious of such, is still suffering the consequences of sin.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Andre:
"I take Paul seriously when he says that sin is condemned at the cross - and by implication that Jesus is not. "

GE
Andre is proving he is taking Andre seriously, while mocking Paul. You show us where 'it is written' what you here so blatantly assert! As far as I can remember, Paul says sin is condemned in the flesh -- which is, in our old man / nature. And it implies that where sin was condemned "at the cross", it was condemned in the Person of Jesus Christ - which also meant in His body.

 

[BobRyan]

Reading another thread stimulated me to bring up the question of the Atonement - what precisely happened at the Cross?

Jesus paid the sin-debt owed for all mankind (all mankind in all of time) as our "Atoning Sacrifice" 1John 2:2 "His is the Atoning Sacrifice for OUR SINS and not for OUR SINS only but for the sins of the whole world".NIV

As Col 2 puts it he "nailed the certificate of debt" for mankind to the cross... the debt we owe as determined by the authoritative word of God's Law.

I have found the following position advanced by NT Wright to be compelling. On the cross, God condemned sin, not Jesus:

For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in sinful man,....

Good point. The law of God does not forgive sins -- it defines sin and also specifies that the one who sins must die the second death of fire and brimstone seen in Rev 20.

So this is not "Jesus propitiating the angry God to turn his hate away from the world" rather this is "God so LOVED the WORLD that He gave".

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

I think I am being entirely consistent:

2. I have indeed denied that Jesus was "punished"

3. I have indeed affirmed that Jesus "bore our punishment"

4. You seem to think that I cannot hold views 2 and 3 since you seem to hold that if Jesus bears someone else's punishment, then Jesus must be "being punished". I can understand why your position seems appealing, but I think there is a problem with it.

5. There is no inconsistency between points 1 and 3 - the atonment can both "deal with payment for past (and even future) sin" and break the power of sin (as a force or agency).

Returning to the subtle distinction between "bearing punishment" and "being punished".

He bore the stroke for US to whom it was DUE. Isaiah 53.

Jesus took the debt of suffering and death we owe for sin -- upon himself and paid it in full in a true "God so Loved the WORLD that HE GAVE" act of mercy that fully satisifies JUSTICE such that the LAW of God is UPHELD not abolished "do we then make void the Law of God by our faith? God forbid!! IN fact we ESTABLISH the LAW of God" Rom 3:31.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

The law of God does not forgive sins -- it defines sin and also specifies that the one who sins must die the second death of fire and brimstone seen in Rev 20. (BobRyan)

YET:

Jesus paid the sin-debt owed for all mankind (all mankind in all of time) as our "Atoning Sacrifice" 1John 2:2 "His is the Atoning Sacrifice for OUR SINS and not for OUR SINS only but for the sins of the whole world".NIV

Jesus took the debt of suffering and death we owe for sin -- upon himself and paid it in full in a true "God so Loved the WORLD that HE GAVE" act of mercy that fully satisfies JUSTICE such that the LAW of God is UPHELD (BobRyan)

Question:

How come there are those who landed up in hell, if everybody's sins had been atoned for? What useless 'atonement' if for all and everybody! So what actually saved those who landed up, saved? Their own goodness? Then what's the use of Christ's goodness?

Talking about finding someone else's views "always confusing"!!