He seemed to have a really good understanding on the Gospel itself!
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Thinking about the Atonement or Reconciliation
- Thread starter JonC
- Start date
reading both Morris and Stott on the Cross helped me understand more just why Pst is the correct viewpoint!
I want to highlight this quote from the O.P. to show the tendentious nature of the argument. It is designed to make God appear as some sort of mad sadist, crying out, "Blood! I must have blood!"
If God had chosen some random bloke and bullied him into dying to satisfy some sort of divine blood-lust, there might be some truth in it. But in fact it is God Himself (Acts 20:28), in the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ, who has found a way to reconcile God's justice with His mercy (2 Corinthians 5:18-19).
The key verse in understanding the atonement IMO is Romans 3:26; '.....That [God] might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.' 1,700 years ago, Athanasius understood the dilemma that the Fall appeared to pose to God. 'It would, of course, have been unthinkable that God should go back on His word, and that man, having transgressed, should not die; but it was equally monstrous that beings which had once shared the nature of the Word should perish..........It was unworthy of the goodness of God that creatures made by Him should be brought to nothing by the deceit wrought upon man by the devil......Yet true though this is......it was unthinkable that God, the father of Truth, should go back on His word regarding death in order to ensure our continued existence. He could not falsify Himself; what then was God to do?' [Athanasius, 'On the Incarnation' sects. 6-7]
But in Christ, the justice of God has been satisfied; His guilty people have been punished in Christ (Isaiah 53:6). God is reconciled to man, and the way is open for men to be reconciled to God (2 Corinthians 5:20-21).
I think you are missing the point. It is not blood vs blood but human justice vs divine justice.
Perhaps the reason it appears that way is it is only one quote (a short one) within a book. I know men like Denby Weaver do hold that opinion, but I am unwilling to speak for Heim.
The OP, however, does not go into these assumptions. In that regard your post is arguing against a strawman no one thus far on the thread holds.
I absolutely agree with the quote. But I am not an advocate of a "bloodless atonement". The reason I agree with the verse is I believe God is just and the justifyer of sinners. He us just to forgive.
The reason you can agree with it is that you evacuate it of all its meaning.
No. It means what it means. God is just and the justified of sinners. I just do not agree that it implies what you believe should be implied in this words.
Based on your previous post it seems that you are confusing my position with the view of men like Weaver (non-violent atonement).
To clarify, do you understand that (and how) my argument is not "designed to make God appear as some sort of mad sadist, crying out, 'Blood! I must have blood!' "?
The reason I ask is that if you and I cannot get past elementary characterization people try to broad brush over opposing views we will never be able to have an honest discussion.
Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins. But should one repent God us just and faithful to forgive. Thus is God's righteousness manifested apart from the law as God is just and the justifer of sinners.
I believe that this is exactly where you are mistaken, and that you have not properly considered Romans 3:25-26. It is not that God justifies believers and declares Himself just in doing it No! '....Christ Jesus, whom God set forth as a propitiation to demonstrate His righteousness......' Satan is the accuser of the brethren (Revelation 12:10). He 'accused them day and night before God.' Satan's power consists of his appeal to justice. In Zechariah 3, Joshua the high priest is pictured in filthy rags. He is unclean, and Satan is ready to accuse Him. "How," he asks, "Can God be just and yet pardon sinners?" He appeals to God's justice, calling on Him to 'do the right thing' by punishing guilty humans as we deserve and upholding the curse upon those who do not continue in God's laws. So if God is to 'demonstrate His righteousness,' He must punish sin by punishing those who commit it. This He has done by laying our sins upon the sinless shoulders of the Lord Jesus. 'He Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree.' God can be 'just and the justifier of the one who believes in Jesus' only because justice has been fully satisfied in that Christ has borne our iniquities (Isaiah 53:11 etc.).
You continually say that you believe that Christ has borne our sins and so forth, so, no, I don't confuse your views with those of Denny (not Denby) Weaver, but You still haven't explained why the Lord Jesus needed to die such a terrible death.
I was dealing with the quotation by Helm that you supplied, and its tendentious nature. I was not referring to you except insofar as you supplied the quote. The 'elementary characterization' came from Helm, not me.
It is exactly here that your position is unclear. If God is both just and faithful to forgive people who repent, why is there no forgiveness without the shedding of blood?
The Lord Jesus Christ is God's righteousness manifested apart from the law. He has magnified the law and made it honourable by keeping it perfectly, and has fulfilled it completely by becoming the one perfect and acceptable sacrifice for sins. So now God can justify sinners through faith apart from the law and still be righteous, 'Do we than make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law' (Romans 3:31).
I understand. Sometimes it is difficult to consider views that are not our own because we always bring our own context.
God set forth Christ to be a propitiation through faith in His blood to declare His righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God to declare at this time (that time) that God might be just and the justifier of those who believe in Christ. This is exactly what I am talking about. Satan's power does not consist of an appeal to justice but includes an appeal to God's own righteousness. This is a major point in the Christus Victor position.
As far as your question about the necessity of the cross, consider this:
PSA does not necessitate the cross because the cross itself is not the divine punishment that the wicked will receive. Christ could have died of a heart attack and for a few moments in agony experienced a separation from God thereby paying the penalty for our sins.
With the Christus Victor view Christ HAD to suffer the wages of sin at the hands of sinners for a crime He did not commit. The cross is absolutely necessary because it is the point where the principles of this world, the powers of this world, fell upon Christ as He unjustly but willingly submitted to the bondage of sin and death to liberate mankind.
Why do you believe, under PSA, Christ had to die such a horrible death (a death, BTW, that at least two others died that day)? If the punishment for sin is a physical death and a spiritual death, then why a life of suffering?
The only two theories I know of that does not actually depend on the cross (that Christ suffer such a horrible death) is PSA and non-violent atonement theory ("bloodless atonement").
Another quote:
"I believe the hue and cry by emerging Christians about penal substitution is a gut-level reaction to caricatures of the doctrine. I don’t know how to read elements of (especially) Paul without explaining his soteriology as penal—and Howard Marshall's essay at the London School of Theology in the summer of 2005 made this (to me) abundantly clear.23 But I am persuaded that penal substitution theorists could help us all out if they would baptize their theory into the larger redemptive grace of God more adequately."
McKnight, Scot. A Community Called Atonement (Living Theology) (p. 43). Abingdon Press. Kindle Edition.
"I believe the hue and cry by emerging Christians about penal substitution is a gut-level reaction to caricatures of the doctrine. I don’t know how to read elements of (especially) Paul without explaining his soteriology as penal—and Howard Marshall's essay at the London School of Theology in the summer of 2005 made this (to me) abundantly clear.23 But I am persuaded that penal substitution theorists could help us all out if they would baptize their theory into the larger redemptive grace of God more adequately."
McKnight, Scot. A Community Called Atonement (Living Theology) (p. 43). Abingdon Press. Kindle Edition.
God CANNOT forgive us unless and until his wrath against sin and sinners is Propitiated!
Again, how is His wrath against sin and sinners appeased if not by Pst?
Again, unless and until wrath of God placated, no forgivness for lost sinners!
Martin,
I have a request. I know I responded to this post earlier but something about it bothers me.
You make the statement that I "evacuate" the truth that God is just and the justifier of sinners. And you continue by making a statement that I never made or believed (that God just declares it just).
What I find troubling is not that we disagree but that you make the claim that I "evacuate" the truth from Scripture in order to accept it. That is neither fair nor true. We simply hold different views on how God is just and the justifier of sinners.
My position is that justice requires one of two things, either a sinner is justly condemned for sin or a person is made no longer a sinner. Where we disagree is in judicial philosophy (what "justice" means). We both believe justice is centered on God and He is the standard, but we hold different positions.
For you and I to communicate as believers we have to refrain from such accusations as "you evacuate the passage from it's meaning" or "you deny Scripture" or "that is heresy". All of those types of comments can only serve to obscure, not edify.
I hope you consider what I am saying. I respect your opinion. You are intelligent and well studied. Lacing your posts with such comments is beneath you.
You actually don't understand Penal Substitution at all, do you? You could not be more mistaken on this if you tried. And you accuse me of 'elementary characterization! Sheesh!
I'm tied up at present, but I will try, once again, to explain Penal Substitution to you before the end of the day (UK time).
No, I do understand PSA. That was my former view and the view of held by my seminary.
I want you to tell me why you believe Christ had to die such a horrible death on a cross.
I did not want to make any assumptions of your position. So please do not hijack this thread and make it into a PSA tomb on the topic. That would only obscure.
Why do you believe Christ had to die such a death?
Why would suffering a physical death and separation from the Father not be enough?
It seems that at least Christ would have suffered and died under the law rather than the principles of the world (the Roman political system). But Scripture tells us that the Jews handed him over to "wicked men" who killed him rather than Him dying under the law (which would require stoning by the congregation). (something to discuss after you answer the above...just to give you a head start).
Again, Martin, sorry for quoting you so quickly on the same post but I wanted to keep this separate from the discussion.
You are making assumptions about what I do or do not understand. I understand this was based on my reply, but it is a bit inappropriate as I could say the same of your posts and my position.
I believe the best way to talk about these things is to make sure we are on the same page rather than saying someone does not understand a view.
If you believe I do not understand PSA then state your reason and ask me to clarify my understanding. We need to understand each other's position in order to evaluate it against Scripture.
For example, Christus Victor (and several theories under this overall heading) holds that Christ had to suffer and die a horrible death on the cross. The reason is that the position holds that the cross represents the powers of this world, the bondage of sin and death, the wickedness in high places, the darkness of this world, etc. coming down on Christ, followed by the vindication of God and victory over these powers. Do you now understand why Christus Victor mandates such a horrible death?
I understand PSA to hold that Christ took the punishment for our sins Himself and had to suffer and die both a physical death and some type of death representing a "second death" (PSA adherents disagree on exactly what this is). Some say this was three days in Hell. Some that it was 3 hours on the cross separated from God.
But obviously separation from God is far worse than a crucifixion (there were plenty of others crucified).
Why do YOU believe that Christ had to suffer such a horrible death?
It wasn't that Jesus experience physical suffering same way all crucified did, but that he also experienced being the Sin Bearing Lamb of God the very wrath of God from a Holy God!
While I can understand how one might come to this conclusion, this would in fact make God HImself...under the Law.
The Law was added because of transgression. Transgression is the result of...separation from God.
Man's singular problem is that he is born separated from God, hence he sins. Reconciliation/Atonement is an eternal answer to a problem that began in the temporal. Adam's relationship with God was physical, he was not, as we are (having been reconciled) in Christ nor was Christ in he. When he sinned he was separated from God in the physical sense. No more would he walk with God in the Garden. The idea that Adam "died spiritually" is erroneous in that it suggests Adam had the very nature that we, as born again believers in Christ have. That idea is denied by Scripture itself, as well as implies that Adam "lost" eternal life. Eternal life cannot be lost.
Christ did not have to die because the Law demanded it, He died because He chose to die. When we consider Hebrews 9:22 we must balance that with Hebrews 10, understanding that there is a distinction made between what the sacrifices of the Law were for and what they accomplished and what Christ's Sacrifice accomplished. Remember, it was God Himself that established the Law, and this only as a temporary economy. The Promise of God predates the Law and Man, not God, was beholden to the demands of the Law.
God bless.
Hi JonC, just going to target this part of the quote (the rest makes a statement that leans more to humanistic philosophy in my view).
The Lord's death is just that, innocent blood/death to solve the guilt equation. Because God desires that all men be saved, and because all men sin, the only means of eradicating our guilt is death. In a temporal context the death of the innocent animal sufficed because that death provided temporal remission, but in regards to Eternal Remission only the Death of Christ can provide remission on an eternal basis:
Hebrews 10:1-4 King James Version (KJV)
1 For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.
2 For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.
3 But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year.
4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.
Hebrews 10:10-14 King James Version (KJV)
10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:
12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.
14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.
The purpose of animal sacrifice was atonement in a temporal context. The purpose of the Cross was Atonement/Reconciliation and...Redemption. Allin an eternal context. The Lord was not just providing a remedy for the state of separation Adam created, but beyond that to an eternal union with Himself. Have you considered whether men had eternal life prior to Pentecost? Most believe Adam "died spiritually" and that is what is being corrected through Christ. The truth is that Adam's only means of "everlasting life" was the Tree of Life, and that provided only "everlasting" physical life. The Lord makes it very clear how men can have eternal life:
John 3:9-16 King James Version (KJV)
9 Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be?
10 Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?
11 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.
12 If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?
13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.
14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:
15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
If God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself, how many were reconciled before Christ?
God bless.
The contrast is between a temporal and an eternal context.
God has always justified men through faith according to His grace.
The distinction made by Paul in Romans 3-5 is that now...God is justifying in an eternal context as opposed to Temporal Justification that took place under Old Testament economies.
God bless.