The Power To Go And Sin No More

[JonC]

The main point on the Atonement of the Cross though is that IF Penal substitution is not THE basis to have Fod forgive sinners, then on what basis does he justify the ungodly, and yet still remain Holy and right in all of His ways?

Honestly, Y1, I do not know that we should rate aspects of the Atonement on a scale of importance. We should, IMHO, study Scripture as it comes. I don't think that it is fair to say a substitution aspect is more important than, say, God's own love that He would lay down His own life for us.

 

[Rebel]

From whom do we receive theology from then, from the Lord Jesus and His Apostles, or those who came after them?

Just shows that even early on, there were some deviating from the faith, just as paul and Peter warned us about!

So, every one of them, even the earliest Christians and Fathers who were closest in time to the apostles all got what the apostles taught wrong. And every Christian or group of Christians got it wrong until the Catholic Anselm somehow discovered Satisfaction in the scriptures 1000 years afterward, and 500 years later the legalist Magisterial Reformer Calvin discovered Penal Substitution there. So, nobody had the truth of the atonement until 1000 - 1500 years after the apostles. So, those who lived closest to the time of the apostles such as Clement, or Ignatius who was a contemporary of the apostles -- none of them got the atonement right, but somebody 1000 years later who saw God as a feudal lord got it right, and then 500 years later Anselm's part-spiritual cousin Calvin, who saw God as a stern judge handing out legal sentences, got it right. Yeah, that's perfectly logical. The contemporaries of the apostles and the church for the first 1000 years, which held to Ransom/Christus Victor/ Recapitulation, got that all wrong, and had to be corrected 1000 - 1500 years after the fact by a Roman Catholic and a Calvinist. Yep, makes perfect sense to me. What could I have been thinking. Those poor fools in the first millennium!

 

[Yeshua1]

So, every one of them, even the earliest Christians and Fathers who were closest in time to the apostles all got what the apostles taught wrong. And every Christian or group of Christians got it wrong until the Catholic Anselm somehow discovered Satisfaction in the scriptures 1000 years afterward, and 500 years later the legalist Magisterial Reformer Calvin discovered Penal Substitution there. So, nobody had the truth of the atonement until 1000 - 1500 years after the apostles. So, those who lived closest to the time of the apostles such as Clement, or Ignatius who was a contemporary of the apostles -- none of them got the atonement right, but somebody 1000 years later who saw God as a feudal lord got it right, and then 500 years later Anselm's part-spiritual cousin Calvin, who saw God as a stern judge handing out legal sentences, got it right. Yeah, that's perfectly logical. The contemporaries of the apostles and the church for the first 1000 years, which held to Ransom/Christus Victor/ Recapitulation, got that all wrong, and had to be corrected 1000 - 1500 years after the fact by a Roman Catholic and a Calvinist. Yep, makes perfect sense to me. What could I have been thinking. Those poor fools in the first millennium!

Well, the church per say had messed up the Gospel itself as taught in Bible pretty much until rediscovered by the reformers, correct?

 

[Yeshua1]

Honestly, Y1, I do not know that we should rate aspects of the Atonement on a scale of importance. We should, IMHO, study Scripture as it comes. I don't think that it is fair to say a substitution aspect is more important than, say, God's own love that He would lay down His own life for us.

Would say though that based upon how the lord and espwecially paul themselves saw what the atonementr meant, we have to accept that they saw it in mainly a substitionary aspect, as Jesus saw Himself as the din bearer, the lamb of God giving his life to redeem that which was lost!

 

[Martin Marprelate]

So, every one of them, even the earliest Christians and Fathers who were closest in time to the apostles all got what the apostles taught wrong. And every Christian or group of Christians got it wrong until the Catholic Anselm somehow discovered Satisfaction in the scriptures 1000 years afterward, and 500 years later the legalist Magisterial Reformer Calvin discovered Penal Substitution there. So, nobody had the truth of the atonement until 1000 - 1500 years after the apostles. So, those who lived closest to the time of the apostles such as Clement, or Ignatius who was a contemporary of the apostles -- none of them got the atonement right, but somebody 1000 years later who saw God as a feudal lord got it right, and then 500 years later Anselm's part-spiritual cousin Calvin, who saw God as a stern judge handing out legal sentences, got it right. Yeah, that's perfectly logical. The contemporaries of the apostles and the church for the first 1000 years, which held to Ransom/Christus Victor/ Recapitulation, got that all wrong, and had to be corrected 1000 - 1500 years after the fact by a Roman Catholic and a Calvinist. Yep, makes perfect sense to me. What could I have been thinking. Those poor fools in the first millennium!

First of all, we should not take the Church fathers as our guides. The Church of Rome did that and look where that got them! The mystery of iniquity was present in the Church right from the start (Acts 20:29-30; 1 Cor. 11:2-4; Gal. 1:8-9; 1 Tim. 1:3; Jude 4).

Secondly, may I ask you if you have actually read the ECFs, or have you merely been deceived by the articles that you are so eager for others to read? Have you read, for example Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho the Jew? The doctrine of Substitutionary Atonement is clearly presented there. You can also find it in several other ECFs like Eusebius of Caesarea, Hilary of Poitiers and, of course, Athanasius. The writings of these men carry no authority for me, but if you wish I will take the time to write out the extracts tomorrow. To say that Anselm was the first to introduce the doctrine is entirely false.

 

[JonC]

Would say though that based upon how the lord and espwecially paul themselves saw what the atonementr meant, we have to accept that they saw it in mainly a substitionary aspect, as Jesus saw Himself as the din bearer, the lamb of God giving his life to redeem that which was lost!

Given all the pictures of the Atonement in the NT, why do you believe the main focus to be on substitution? Paul acknowledges substitution, and even penal substitution, but I don't know that he actually emphasizes it above Christ's victory over death (which, BTW, is what Paul places as the foundation of our faith - not Christ's substitutionary death). What I am saying is not to abandon penal substitution as an aspect of Atonement, but don't abandon or minimize everything else to uplift that doctrine either. Many people, and I'll go ahead and say it....many Calvinists (but not all and not, IMHO, most)....have made the mistake of only being able to define Christ's work and God's plan of redemption based on penal substitution. They find this one truth - that Christ died as a propitiation for our sins - and can see nothing else. But Christ's work and God's redemptive plan is far richer and goes far deeper than taking on wrath in mankind's stead. I pray that as you study this topic you will begin to grow from an understanding as mere penal substitution and apprehend a greater realization of the depth of love, the depth of obedience, the depth of reconciliation, the recreation in Christ of all things, the victory over death, and the hope that is our faith all in the Atonement. Tradition is not always a benefit, friend, sometimes it clouds the judgment.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Given all the pictures of the Atonement in the NT, why do you believe the main focus to be on substitution?

Yeshua 1 can answer for himself, but from my point of view it is because of its vital importance. Yes, the cross shows the love of God, and the resurrection shows Christ as victor over sin and death, but unless the Lord Jesus Christ has paid the penalty for my sins I am still in them. Unless He has taken my sins upon His sinless shoulders and paid the price for them in full, they are still on me.

To deny Substitutionary Atonement is to rip the heart out of the Gospel. Not to have it at the very centre of our preaching and confession is to lower the Gospel of Christ to the level of every other religion. To have it as just one view among many will lead, and has led, to the downgrading of the Gospel. It is a doctrine that absolutely defines Christianity.

 

[JonC]

Yeshua 1 can answer for himself, but from my point of view it is because of its vital importance. Yes, the cross shows the love of God, and the resurrection shows Christ as victor over sin and death, but unless the Lord Jesus Christ has paid the penalty for my sins I am still in them. Unless He has taken my sins upon His sinless shoulders and paid the price for them in full, they are still on me.



To deny Substitutionary Atonement is to rip the heart out of the Gospel. Not to have it at the very centre of our preaching and confession is to lower the Gospel of Christ to the level of every other religion. To have it as just one view among many will lead, and has led, to the downgrading of the Gospel. It is a doctrine that absolutely defines Christianity.

I agree with you concerning the vital importance of substitutionary atonement. I disagree that it is the one vital aspect (or most vital aspect) of our faith. Partly because it is not the central focus of the Cross as a whole. It is central, but is not alone. I also go back to Paul's emphasis on Christ's work as example and as victory, and Jesus' own focus of love. If we have to choose one and ignore the rest then I don't think we can arrive at a biblical understanding.

As an illustration, I'll note Romans 5:8 (But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us). Some can not help but read it as "while we were yet sinners, Christ became our substitutionary atonement for that sin." But substitutionary aspects of the atonement is not what Paul is focusing on in this verse (really, it is not his primary focus in Romans 6 and 7). When we allow a theological doctrine to overshadow and become the lens through which we will read Scripture, then we become blind to other truths of Scripture. So yes, substitutionary aspects of the atonement is important for us to understand in order to understand the Atonement. But it is not necessarily the primary or most important aspect of the Atonement as it is addressed in Scripture. Yes, if we take substitution out of the equation then the doctrine of the Cross falls apart. But substitution is not the glue that holds together the doctrine of the Cross (other aspects are just as important.....again, see Romans 5-6).

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I disagree with you absolutely. I see substitutionary atonement in Romans 5:8. How? Because I've just read it in Romans 3. Christ's death apart from S.A. is meaningless. It's like someone saying to you, "I love you so much I'm going to throw myself off the Golden Gate Bridge for you!" You might reply, "Well, that's very impressive; but how does it show how much you love me and what good does it do me?" God's love is not shown in His sending the Son to die- that on its own would be meaningless- but in sending the Son to be the propitiation for our sins (1 John 4:10).

Lose the primacy of S.A. and you lose the Gospel. Can you not already see it happening in many denominations?

 

[JonC]

I disagree with you absolutely. I see substitutionary atonement in Romans 5:8. How? Because I've just read it in Romans 3. Christ's death apart from S.A. is meaningless. It's like someone saying to you, "I love you so much I'm going to throw myself off the Golden Gate Bridge for you!" You might reply, "Well, that's very impressive; but how does it show how much you love me and what good does it do me?" God's love is not shown in His sending the Son to die- that on its own would be meaningless- but in sending the Son to be the propitiation for our sins (1 John 4:10).

Lose the primacy of S.A. and you lose the Gospel. Can you not already see it happening in many denominations?

My apologies. In my rush getting to work I didn't make myself clear. We will always see substitution in the atonement because it is always implied. That is not my point. My point is that Scripture does not always focus on the substitutionary aspect of the atonement and if we cannot but focus on that one aspect we will never be able to understand Scripture. Yes, substitution is there in Christ's work on the Cross...but it is not there alone. That is my point. Some appear to be blind to Romans 5 because all they walk away with is substitution (which is not the focus of the passage....not that it is not present). We have to move from a man-centered gospel. The Atonement is not just about us and dealing with our sin (although it is about our redemption and dealing with our sin....it is also about God demonstrating His love, character and nature). Again, for clarification, to deny substitution is to deny a biblical picture of the Atonement. But to only see substitution is also to deny a biblical description of Christ's work.

(An illustration of this is God's sovereignty and human choices. I've seen people stop a conversation on God's sovereignty to clarify that we still make our own choices. But Scripture is not dependent on one truth to speak of another - we can speak of God's sovereignty while allowing human responsibility to remain implied. We can speak of the Atonement in terms other than substitution while leaving substitution implied - but only if we understand the Atonement is more that Christ's substitutionary death. Paul does this in Romans as he moves on from that one truth to build a complete doctrine).

So yes, the Atonement as substitutionary is an important foundational truth, but it is incomplete alone. Paul builds on the truths of Romans 2 to form a more complete doctrine.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Fair enough, JonC.
I still say to you, beware of any downgrade in the doctrine of Substitutionary Atonement.
No matter how lovingly our Lord yielded up His life, or how victoriously He rose from the grave, unless He paid for my sins, I shall have to pay for them myself.

For Rebel's edification, here is the ECF Gregory of Nazianzus on S.A. (700 years before Anselm). "As for my sake He was called a curse, who destroyed my curse, and sin, who taketh away the sin of the world; and became a new Adam to take the place of the old, just so he makes my obedience His own as Head of the whole body." (Fourth Theological Oration)

 

[JonC]

///beware of any downgrade in the doctrine of ....

:thumbsup: Exactly. We need to consistently be cautious of downgrading biblical doctrine. You've hit my concern here squarely on the head.

 

[Yeshua1]

My apologies. In my rush getting to work I didn't make myself clear. We will always see substitution in the atonement because it is always implied. That is not my point. My point is that Scripture does not always focus on the substitutionary aspect of the atonement and if we cannot but focus on that one aspect we will never be able to understand Scripture. Yes, substitution is there in Christ's work on the Cross...but it is not there alone. That is my point. Some appear to be blind to Romans 5 because all they walk away with is substitution (which is not the focus of the passage....not that it is not present). We have to move from a man-centered gospel. The Atonement is not just about us and dealing with our sin (although it is about our redemption and dealing with our sin....it is also about God demonstrating His love, character and nature). Again, for clarification, to deny substitution is to deny a biblical picture of the Atonement. But to only see substitution is also to deny a biblical description of Christ's work.

(An illustration of this is God's sovereignty and human choices. I've seen people stop a conversation on God's sovereignty to clarify that we still make our own choices. But Scripture is not dependent on one truth to speak of another - we can speak of God's sovereignty while allowing human responsibility to remain implied. We can speak of the Atonement in terms other than substitution while leaving substitution implied - but only if we understand the Atonement is more that Christ's substitutionary death. Paul does this in Romans as he moves on from that one truth to build a complete doctrine).

So yes, the Atonement as substitutionary is an important foundational truth, but it is incomplete alone. Paul builds on the truths of Romans 2 to form a more complete doctrine.

IF His death was not in the manner though of being the penal substitution for individual sinners intended to get saved by it, then on what basis would his death benefit any single sinner then?

What would it matter when he was resurrected, if his death did not provide real and full satisfaction towards God then?

Think many against this concept just have a hard time realising that God is wrath, as well as love, and that we can do NOTHING in and by ourselves to merit any form of salvation!

 

[Yeshua1]

Fair enough, JonC.
I still say to you, beware of any downgrade in the doctrine of Substitutionary Atonement.
No matter how lovingly our Lord yielded up His life, or how victoriously He rose from the grave, unless He paid for my sins, I shall have to pay for them myself.

For Rebel's edification, here is the ECF Gregory of Nazianzus on S.A. (700 years before Anselm). "As for my sake He was called a curse, who destroyed my curse, and sin, who taketh away the sin of the world; and became a new Adam to take the place of the old, just so he makes my obedience His own as Head of the whole body." (Fourth Theological Oration)

Hard to not see that when one down plays the truth of just what Jesus meant would be accomplished by his death, and as explained further by paul, that does mean that we get the drifting towards the views of Universalim, other ways to God, I can add something to get saved etc!