Substitutionary Atonment Question.

[Thinkingstuff]

Is Substitutionary Atonment sufficient to explain what happened from the Passover Jesus celebrated with his disciples to the cross?

 

[Darron Steele]

Is Substitutionary Atonment sufficient to explain what happened from the Passover Jesus celebrated with his disciples to the cross?

If you are including His death on the cross, I think so.

 

[billwald]

I'm angry at you so I punch out my child?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

If you are including His death on the cross, I think so.

I am. So you basically saying that substitutionary attonement is a sufficient explination leading to justification? Do you think that this consept by itself reflects negatively on the nature of God or his sanity?

I'm not trying to be heretical. I'm trying to flush out some discussion on this matter and was wondering the full volume of what people think with regards to this consept of substitutionary attonement. I think that is only a part of the story with regards to justification and am wondering if it is insufficient.

 

[Darron Steele]

I am. So you basically saying that substitutionary attonement is a sufficient explination leading to justification? Do you think that this consept by itself reflects negatively on the nature of God or his sanity?
...

Wow!

Well, I think I will start by saying that I am a mortal and God is God: it is not my place to pass judgment on what God should be like. God is God, and God is Who He is regardless of what I think. You may presume for yourself the right to dictate how God ought to be; I do not dare do so.

Second, I look around at this human race. I see the immense evil we are capable of. We are not qualified to pass judgment on what God's morality should be like. You may think we are; I do not.

Third, a God Who takes an unyielding line against sin is a good God. A loving and compassionate God forgives those who sin even when they try to live right. A just God punishes those who live their lives obstinately doing what is wicked. Most decent people in our society have no use for a judge that lets those guilty of heinous crimes walk out of the courtroom with no real punishment. My God is no such judge; He insists that sin be punished. His way of allowing sin-infested mortals to get mercy is a staggering act of compassion.

Fourth, given the depravity of humans as a whole shown throughout the ages, I think God's provision of a way to make us sinless in order to be saved is a major act of compassion -- especially given its cost. Jesus Christ, the sinless God, came to this unholy world willingly to die sinless for our sins. God the Father was willing to endure this for us rebellious sin-infested mortals so that we could become sinless and be saved from the penalty of our sins.

In light of this, you dare to suggest that God has some sort of character flaw? The only person whose sanity I would question is yours.

I do not have time to play this game with you. God is God and will do things as He sees fit regardless of what we think. I do not normally argue with people who think `Well, God said this, but I think ____.' I will add this: if you want to `spit in God's face' because you do not like the way He devised to give any hope of salvation to sin-infested mortals, that is too bad for you. In the end, your opinion will not matter when you face an all-powerful God, and you will bear the penalty. I hope you understand that before it is too late.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

In light of this, you dare to suggest that God has some sort of character flaw? The only person whose sanity I would question is yours

I think I've made myself pretty clear. You are jumping to conclusions. And what I'm questioning is not God himself but our view of him with regards to substitutionary attonment. Is our view inadequate or is Substitutioary Attonment just part of a fuller picture with regards to justification? This is what I'm getting at. I'm thinking it may be a bit simplistic.

 

[Darron Steele]

I am. So you basically saying that substitutionary attonement is a sufficient explination leading to justification? Do you think that this consept by itself reflects negatively on the nature of God or his sanity? ....

You said what you said.

If you did not mean what it looked like with those words, you better explain what you meant by them. I noticed that you did not do that in your reply.

Unless you do otherwise, I am going assume you meant what you said, and continue to take what you said at `face value.' I think my prior response answered that adequately.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

You said what you said.

If you did not mean what it looked like with those words, you better explain what you meant by them. I noticed that you did not do that in your reply.

Unless you do otherwise, I am going assume you meant what you said, and continue to take what you said at `face value.' I think my prior response answered that adequately.

I also said this:

I'm not trying to be heretical. I'm trying to flush out some discussion on this matter and was wondering the full volume of what people think with regards to this consept of substitutionary attonement. I think that is only a part of the story with regards to justification and am wondering if it is insufficient.

context. Again I will say this so it is clear. Substitutionary Atonment; is it a sufficient explenation or is it an explenation that is insufficient (limited in scope) and leads to an in-appropiate view of God? Is that a better way of putting it?

 

[Darron Steele]

I am. So you basically saying that substitutionary attonement is a sufficient explination leading to justification? Do you think that this consept by itself reflects negatively on the nature of God or his sanity? ....

What did you mean by these exact words, if you did not mean them as they appear?

Until you can explain that, I will take your words at `face value,' and my initial reply to these words still stands.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

What did you mean by these exact words, if you did not mean them as they appear?

Until you can explain that, I will take your words at `face value,' and my initial reply to these words still stands.

I meant exactly what I wrote in post number 8 which I will reitterate here.

context. Again I will say this so it is clear. Substitutionary Atonment; is it a sufficient explenation or is it an explenation that is insufficient (limited in scope) and leads to an in-appropiate view of God? Is that a better way of putting it?

If you want to take just those word at face value without the benefit of context that is up to you. And if your responce was just to those specific words. I'm fine with that. However, that is not the point of the discussion I want to have.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I guess what you're trying to get at is that you think I'm saying you're belief in substitutionary attonment questions God's sanity which wasn't what I was trying to say. I was trying to say what I clarified in post 8. Do you think that your perseption of Substitutionary attonement is sufficient? Do you think there is more if there is nothing else to it then what does that say about how to view the character of God with relation to what you believe about substitutionary atonment? Would that view put in question his character or sanity? ( I admit I might not put things the best way and if I offended you personally by using the word You. I am sorry. Trying to get a discussion off the ground.)

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Thinkingstuff:
"So you basically saying that substitutionary attonement is a sufficient explination leading to justification? "

GE:
I say, it's not! How? Because it id written, "Abraham was strong in faith .... (his faith) was imputed to him for righteousness .... who believed on (God) that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification." (Ro5:---25)

Christ through suffering and death in resurrection from the dead, "triumphed": Col2:12---15, or not at all, triumphed, but failed, and we, would be in our sins still, and his suffering and death, of no avail. See, Christ only availed by suffering and death, in that He again rose from the dead, death and the grave.

It is this Life of His Victory, that Christ "offers before the LORD" as it is written. Without, He would have had nothing to offer as an atonement for sins.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

For a (mere) human, 'To give his life', is to end it; it is, he died.
For Christ who gave his life, it meant He would take it up again. You see, Christ ia God who gave his life for mortals, so that they also might have life and life abundently, which is life everlasting: 'Atonement' --- simply.

That, Christ fully and abundently availed, in, through, with, and by, having raised from the dead. Nowhere else; nohow else, not ever, else, but, "once for all". That, is what redemption means, and salvation is, and what we are made partakers of through grace, by faith, once, for ever. Christ has wrought a full redemption, not a job left undone to be improved on later on or somewhere else.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

"Christ that died, is it that condemns; that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God (raised up), who also makes intercession for us." Ro9:34.

Christianity that stops at the cross with or without the bloody Dead, stopped one step of eternity short of atonement and reconciliation with God, which is atonement and reconciliation with God "even at the right hand of God" --- or not at all. That's why I am not Roman Catholic or Seventh Day Adventist.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

These are the aspects (not 'steps') of actual, Divine, and "Finished", Atonement:
Ro9:34,
1) "Christ that died (is it that condemns);
2) "Christ that is risen again (who is even at the right hand of God (raised up and exalted),
3) "Christ that also makes intercession for us."

Do not confuse the third for the whole or part, of the first two, because it says, "Christ that _also_ makes intercession for us." The last is further benefit, by virtue of the undividable first two aspects of completed salvation.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

They stand awe-inspired at two pieces of wood (now-adays, plastic), tears of remorse running down their cheeks, handkerchiefs sodding wet, one certain lady's even with blood - from her eyes, mouth, ears. It's become commonplace - global, universal. Christianity is great; mighty; alive! 'The Passion of the Christ' of idolatry! It shall not 'atone for sin' as propaganda pretends; it shall condemn, as the Scriptures say here, Ro8:34, and everywhere else.

Said Peter, "This Christ whom YOU crucified, God, raised." 'You', here, is I and you, and everybody born of flesh. WE crucified Jesus. It shall not justify us; it must "condemn" us. So that "Salvation is of the LORD" and not of man or men. Never think 'atonement', 'justification', 'forgiveness', 'pardon' by the blood of the Lamb of God before you have beheld Him AS HE "STOOD on the mount Sion" -- mountain of both his humiliation and glory; of both his death and resurrection! Don't look at Him superstitiously; look at Him by faith: solid, sober, collected, Christian Faith!

Christian Faith is the Faith of, and in, the Risen Christ. (I see even that, nowadays technological graven images being made of. These idolators claiming themselves Christians really have no fear for God or for His Commandments, and think they are getting away with it, because they believe only the kind of god they can make images of. Their day is fast coming; it is upon them!)

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Ok. I heard your polemic. Can you explain the mechanics?

 

[Marcia]

Christ's death was the substitutionary atonement and propitiation for sins. His death paid the penalty for sins.

I'm not sure what you are asking. Justification happens after one believes; justification did not happen with the atonement.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

I cannot explain the 'machenics' of either 'atonement' and 'justification'; God has been the Engineer of both. I can explain these vital concepts of Salvation only by faith and dependence upon the mercies of a forgiving God.

When God forgave a person his sins, God has atoned him and saved him for ever for everlasting life. The big clash between Roman Catholocism and the Reformers was about this 'point'. No, said the Catholics; the forgiven must first do this and the other after he has had his sins forgiven before he will be 'fit for heaven'.

Some 'protestants' - the 'anabaptists', said, no, before a man can be forgiven, he must first repent and be converted. The two are both proclaiming conditional redemption, works-righteousness and self-justification.

True Reformation-faith says, no, TULIP and OSAS - it is all of God's doing and therefore unchangeable; a man his sins forgiven, is a man saved. The Bible says so, in fact; not the reformers.

The work of Christ --- cannot be contemplated respectfully or savingly if dissected. But 'logically' it is possible to believe in Christ, that He died. And if He rose not again?
'Technically' it is impossible to believe Christ resurrected from the dead if not He first died, and what believeing man is there who can believe the Resurrection, yet not believe the atoning and reconciling, forgiveness-worth, of Jesus' death as well?

But it is plain and independent of logic or natural law, and understandable from prophetic Scripture, that 'sacrifice' is the taking of the blood and life of the victim; while 'offering' is the giving or presenting again of that 'life' taken, "in the blood" if the sacrifice be an animal; or while 'offering' is the giving or presenting of that Blood in the Life taken up again, if that Life be the Life of the Victor, the Lord Christ Jesus.

It is obvious the blood of animals cannot 'offer' life that is obtained, because it is mortal. Therefore the "blood wherein is the life" is as, blood and no more than, blood 'offered' by the priest on earthly altars in earthly temples. But Christ, by the obtainment of a better hope, entered in into the Most Holy of the Full Fellowship of God the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit with the exceeding better 'offering' "before the LORD" of His Own Life, and therefore - and not before -, the believer only by the offering of the 'blood' of Christ before God in and through resurrection from the dead, is justified, and a just Law of recompense has substitutionally been satisfied, and not before.

In earthly offerings the life of the sacrifice is in the blood of the sacrifice; in Christ's offering the blood of the Sacrifice is in the Life of the Victor, 'offered', after which only and on strength of which only, a sinner is 'justified' through faith in Him. "More so", ja, "Much more", says Paul, as the result and virtue of the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Christ's death was the substitutionary atonement and propitiation for sins. His death paid the penalty for sins.

I'm not sure what you are asking. Justification happens after one believes; justification did not happen with the atonement.

GE:
Correct!
But there are those exact Scriptures that say we are justified by the resurrection of Christ; so justification only happens after the Resurrection of Christ, and one believe that!

Therefore one cannot make a separation between Christ's death and when a person believe. The distinction should be made between Christ's substitutionary atonement "made", or "finished" or "wrought" or "perfected" in Christ's "resurrection: from the dead" and death he died - not before or after.

"We _are_ justified by Christ's resurrection, says Paul; we are not being afterwards justified. God began and God completed justification in Christ and in His Atonement availed, which Atonement He availed and finished by suffering, dying death, and rising from the dead again. "Christ the all in all fulfilling Fullness of God". One cubic centimeter short of that fullness, no justification!