Use of theories of atonement

[agedman]

Throughout the decades I witnessed various folks become enamored with a single theory of atonement. So much so that it would seem that they rejected all other theories. Folks neglected to understand that a theory is merely a statement of ideas needing tested and adjusted.

This thread is to examine how the believer should be capable of expressing the theories of atonement and showing both their strengths and weaknesses. There may be disagreement upon why one should hold one over the other, but no one should claim any theory exhausts and excludes any other presentation.

It is hoped that this thread will bring a bit more understanding and balance in the believer's lives, for imo the Scriptures cannot be contained in a single theory of atonement at this point, and so perhaps there will yet be those who can develop one that might certainly be better than these.

The one theory that should not be given any credit is the one referred as the "Ransom" paid to Satan. It is wrong and totally void of Scripture support. I do not wish to read about some ransom paid to Satan. Such thinking is abhorrent to those of us who know the Lord and have studied His Word.

For those who are not familiar and want a brief on various presentations may look at this taken from https://www.theopedia.com/atonement-of-christ and used only to give a quick overview.

• The Ransom Theory: The earliest of all, originating with the Early Church Fathers, this theory claims that Christ offered himself as a ransom (Mark 10:45). Where it was not clear was in its understanding of exactly to whom the ransom was paid. Many early church fathers viewed the ransom as paid to Satan.
• The Recapitulation Theory: Originated with Irenaeus (125-202 AD). He sees Christ as the new Adam, who systematically undoes what Adam did. Thus, where Adam was disobedient concerning God's edict concerning the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge, Christ was obedient even to death on the wood of a tree. Irenaeus is the first to draw comparisons between Eve and Mary, contrasting the faithlessness of the former with the faithfulness of the latter. In addition to reversing the wrongs done by Adam, Irenaeus thinks of Christ as "recapitulating" or "summing up" human life.
• The Satisfaction (or Commercial) Theory: The formulator of this theory was the medieval theologian Anselm of Canterbury (1034-1109), in his book, Cur Deus Homo (lit. Why the God Man). In his view, God's offended honor and dignity could only be satisfied by the sacrifice of the God-man, Jesus Christ. "Anselm offered compelling biblical evidence that the atonement was not a ransom paid by God to the devil but rather a debt paid to God on behalf of sinners."^ [1]^ Anselm's work established a foundation for the Protestant Reformation, specifically the understanding of justification by faith.
• The Penal-Substitution Theory: This view was formulated by the 16th century Reformers as an extension of Anselm's Satisfaction theory. Anselm's theory was correct in introducing the satisfaction aspect of Christ's work and its necessity, however the Reformers saw it as insufficient because it was referenced to God's honor rather than his justice and holiness and was couched more in terms of a commercial transaction than a penal substitution. This Reformed view says simply that Christ died for man, in man's place, taking his sins and bearing them for him. The bearing of man's sins takes the punishment for them and sets the believer free from the penal demands of the law: The righteousness of the law and the holiness of God are satisfied by this substitution.
• The Moral-Example Theory (or Moral-Influence Theory): Christ died to influence mankind toward moral improvement. This theory denies that Christ died to satisfy any principle of divine justice, but teaches instead that His death was designed to greatly impress mankind with a sense of God's love, resulting in softening their hearts and leading them to repentance. Thus, the Atonement is not directed towards God with the purpose of maintaining His justice, but towards man with the purpose of persuading him to right action. Formulated by Peter Abelard (1079-1142) partially in reaction against Anselm's Satisfaction theory, this view was held by the 16th century Socinians. Versions of it can be found later in F. D. E. Schleiermacher (1768-1834) and Horace Bushnell (1802-1876).
• The Governmental Theory: God made Christ an example of suffering to exhibit to erring man that sin is displeasing to him. God's moral government of the world made it necessary for him to evince his wrath against sin in Christ. Christ died as a token of God's displeasure toward sin and it was accepted by God as sufficient; but actually God does not exact strict justice. This view was formulated by Hugo Grotius (1583-1645) and is subsequently found in Arminianism, Charles Finney, the New England Theology of Jonathan Edwards (the younger), and Methodism.

Modern theories

• The Declaratory Theory: A version of the Moral Influence theory, wherein Christ died to show men how greatly God loves them. This view held by Albrecht Ritschl (1822-89).
• The Guaranty Theory: Reconciliation is based not on Christ's expiation of sin, but on His guaranty to win followers and thus conquer human sinfulness. This view held by J. C. K. von Hofmann (1810-77).
• The Vicarious Repentance Theory: by John McLeod Campbell (d. 1872). It assumes that a perfect repentance is sufficient to atone for sin. In his death, Christ entered into the Father's condemnation of sin, condemned sin, and by this, confessed it.
• The 'Christus Victor' or Dramatic Theory: by G. E. H. Aulén (1879-1977). The atonement is viewed as divine conflict and victory over the hostile powers that hold humanity in subjection. This is a modified form of the classic Ransom theory with the emphasis on Christ's victory over evil.
• The Accident Theory: Christ's death was an accident, as unforeseen and unexpected as that of any other victim of man's hatred. This view is usually found outside of mainstream Christianity.
• The Martyr Theory: Christ gave up His life for a principle of truth that was opposed to the spirit of His day. This view is usually found outside of mainstream Christianity.

(Note: I removed links because I desire the BB folks to work through these and discuss the merits and weakness of each.)​

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

In the spirit of this thread, consider the link below, which seems to be in a similar vein, and both informative and telling.

The Orthodox author notes that many Orthodox writers "wish to deny or downplay a number of concepts that relate to our redemption."

What is so telling about this, and what we could all take a lesson from is that, by the author's own admission, Orthodox spokesmen are not necessarily orthodox, by which I mean biblically correct, in their expression.

But there is more to it than that, for part of the reason for this glaring failure is their zeal to contradict those they consider unorthodox, namely the non-Orthodox.

More pointedly, and here we should be more inclusive, we see that ever present harmartia of hubris—our pride too often gets the better of us where we can least afford it.

His statement, "There are many contemporary Orthodox writers who wish to deny or downplay a number of concepts that relate to our redemption," could be expressed more generically: "There are many ________________ who wish to deny or downplay a number of concepts that relate to _____________________."

Fr. John Whiteford. Do Orthodox Christians Believe in the Atonement?

 

[church mouse guy]

We owed a debt we couldn’t pay,
Jesus paid a debt He didn’t owe –

I suppose that I heard Chuck Swindoll say this on the radio years ago. When I was a boy, I was taught John 19:30 (KJV) When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost. I was taught that the Greek word was Telelestai, which meant paid in full. The last word of Jesus on the Cross was Telestai. It is finished. Colossians 2:14-15 (KJV) Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; [And] having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.

 

[Yeshua1]

Throughout the decades I witnessed various folks become enamored with a single theory of atonement. So much so that it would seem that they rejected all other theories. Folks neglected to understand that a theory is merely a statement of ideas needing tested and adjusted.

This thread is to examine how the believer should be capable of expressing the theories of atonement and showing both their strengths and weaknesses. There may be disagreement upon why one should hold one over the other, but no one should claim any theory exhausts and excludes any other presentation.

It is hoped that this thread will bring a bit more understanding and balance in the believer's lives, for imo the Scriptures cannot be contained in a single theory of atonement at this point, and so perhaps there will yet be those who can develop one that might certainly be better than these.

The one theory that should not be given any credit is the one referred as the "Ransom" paid to Satan. It is wrong and totally void of Scripture support. I do not wish to read about some ransom paid to Satan. Such thinking is abhorrent to those of us who know the Lord and have studied His Word.

For those who are not familiar and want a brief on various presentations may look at this taken from https://www.theopedia.com/atonement-of-christ and used only to give a quick overview.

• The Ransom Theory: The earliest of all, originating with the Early Church Fathers, this theory claims that Christ offered himself as a ransom (Mark 10:45). Where it was not clear was in its understanding of exactly to whom the ransom was paid. Many early church fathers viewed the ransom as paid to Satan.
• The Recapitulation Theory: Originated with Irenaeus (125-202 AD). He sees Christ as the new Adam, who systematically undoes what Adam did. Thus, where Adam was disobedient concerning God's edict concerning the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge, Christ was obedient even to death on the wood of a tree. Irenaeus is the first to draw comparisons between Eve and Mary, contrasting the faithlessness of the former with the faithfulness of the latter. In addition to reversing the wrongs done by Adam, Irenaeus thinks of Christ as "recapitulating" or "summing up" human life.
• The Satisfaction (or Commercial) Theory: The formulator of this theory was the medieval theologian Anselm of Canterbury (1034-1109), in his book, Cur Deus Homo (lit. Why the God Man). In his view, God's offended honor and dignity could only be satisfied by the sacrifice of the God-man, Jesus Christ. "Anselm offered compelling biblical evidence that the atonement was not a ransom paid by God to the devil but rather a debt paid to God on behalf of sinners."^ [1]^ Anselm's work established a foundation for the Protestant Reformation, specifically the understanding of justification by faith.
• The Penal-Substitution Theory: This view was formulated by the 16th century Reformers as an extension of Anselm's Satisfaction theory. Anselm's theory was correct in introducing the satisfaction aspect of Christ's work and its necessity, however the Reformers saw it as insufficient because it was referenced to God's honor rather than his justice and holiness and was couched more in terms of a commercial transaction than a penal substitution. This Reformed view says simply that Christ died for man, in man's place, taking his sins and bearing them for him. The bearing of man's sins takes the punishment for them and sets the believer free from the penal demands of the law: The righteousness of the law and the holiness of God are satisfied by this substitution.
• The Moral-Example Theory (or Moral-Influence Theory): Christ died to influence mankind toward moral improvement. This theory denies that Christ died to satisfy any principle of divine justice, but teaches instead that His death was designed to greatly impress mankind with a sense of God's love, resulting in softening their hearts and leading them to repentance. Thus, the Atonement is not directed towards God with the purpose of maintaining His justice, but towards man with the purpose of persuading him to right action. Formulated by Peter Abelard (1079-1142) partially in reaction against Anselm's Satisfaction theory, this view was held by the 16th century Socinians. Versions of it can be found later in F. D. E. Schleiermacher (1768-1834) and Horace Bushnell (1802-1876).
• The Governmental Theory: God made Christ an example of suffering to exhibit to erring man that sin is displeasing to him. God's moral government of the world made it necessary for him to evince his wrath against sin in Christ. Christ died as a token of God's displeasure toward sin and it was accepted by God as sufficient; but actually God does not exact strict justice. This view was formulated by Hugo Grotius (1583-1645) and is subsequently found in Arminianism, Charles Finney, the New England Theology of Jonathan Edwards (the younger), and Methodism.

Modern theories

• The Declaratory Theory: A version of the Moral Influence theory, wherein Christ died to show men how greatly God loves them. This view held by Albrecht Ritschl (1822-89).
• The Guaranty Theory: Reconciliation is based not on Christ's expiation of sin, but on His guaranty to win followers and thus conquer human sinfulness. This view held by J. C. K. von Hofmann (1810-77).
• The Vicarious Repentance Theory: by John McLeod Campbell (d. 1872). It assumes that a perfect repentance is sufficient to atone for sin. In his death, Christ entered into the Father's condemnation of sin, condemned sin, and by this, confessed it.
• The 'Christus Victor' or Dramatic Theory: by G. E. H. Aulén (1879-1977). The atonement is viewed as divine conflict and victory over the hostile powers that hold humanity in subjection. This is a modified form of the classic Ransom theory with the emphasis on Christ's victory over evil.
• The Accident Theory: Christ's death was an accident, as unforeseen and unexpected as that of any other victim of man's hatred. This view is usually found outside of mainstream Christianity.
• The Martyr Theory: Christ gave up His life for a principle of truth that was opposed to the spirit of His day. This view is usually found outside of mainstream Christianity.

(Note: I removed links because I desire the BB folks to work through these and discuss the merits and weakness of each.)​

I still fail to see how, apart from the penal Substitution theory, how God can actually propiate His own wrath towards sin, and yet still be Holy! How can he be holy, and yet still be able to freely forgive?

 

[agedman]

I still fail to see how, apart from the penal Substitution theory, how God can actually propiate His own wrath towards sin, and yet still be Holy! How can he be holy, and yet still be able to freely forgive?

It seems that there are certainly other theories, though.

Have you considered that ps may be only concerned with one aspect, and others attend to other aspects?

 

[Yeshua1]

It seems that there are certainly other theories, though.

Have you considered that ps may be only concerned with one aspect, and others attend to other aspects?

I do not mind other theories, but Pst to me seems to be the primary one taught by the Scriptures...

 

[Ziggy]

I was taught that the Greek word was Telelestai, which meant paid in full. The last word of Jesus on the Cross was Telestai. It is finished.

It is τετελεσται, perfect tense, and on ancient Greek receipts does mean "paid in full".

 

[JonC]

Throughout the decades I witnessed various folks become enamored with a single theory of atonement. So much so that it would seem that they rejected all other theories. Folks neglected to understand that a theory is merely a statement of ideas needing tested and adjusted.

This thread is to examine how the believer should be capable of expressing the theories of atonement and showing both their strengths and weaknesses. There may be disagreement upon why one should hold one over the other, but no one should claim any theory exhausts and excludes any other presentation.

It is hoped that this thread will bring a bit more understanding and balance in the believer's lives, for imo the Scriptures cannot be contained in a single theory of atonement at this point, and so perhaps there will yet be those who can develop one that might certainly be better than these.

The one theory that should not be given any credit is the one referred as the "Ransom" paid to Satan. It is wrong and totally void of Scripture support. I do not wish to read about some ransom paid to Satan. Such thinking is abhorrent to those of us who know the Lord and have studied His Word.

For those who are not familiar and want a brief on various presentations may look at this taken from https://www.theopedia.com/atonement-of-christ and used only to give a quick overview.

• The Ransom Theory: The earliest of all, originating with the Early Church Fathers, this theory claims that Christ offered himself as a ransom (Mark 10:45). Where it was not clear was in its understanding of exactly to whom the ransom was paid. Many early church fathers viewed the ransom as paid to Satan.
• The Recapitulation Theory: Originated with Irenaeus (125-202 AD). He sees Christ as the new Adam, who systematically undoes what Adam did. Thus, where Adam was disobedient concerning God's edict concerning the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge, Christ was obedient even to death on the wood of a tree. Irenaeus is the first to draw comparisons between Eve and Mary, contrasting the faithlessness of the former with the faithfulness of the latter. In addition to reversing the wrongs done by Adam, Irenaeus thinks of Christ as "recapitulating" or "summing up" human life.
• The Satisfaction (or Commercial) Theory: The formulator of this theory was the medieval theologian Anselm of Canterbury (1034-1109), in his book, Cur Deus Homo (lit. Why the God Man). In his view, God's offended honor and dignity could only be satisfied by the sacrifice of the God-man, Jesus Christ. "Anselm offered compelling biblical evidence that the atonement was not a ransom paid by God to the devil but rather a debt paid to God on behalf of sinners."^ [1]^ Anselm's work established a foundation for the Protestant Reformation, specifically the understanding of justification by faith.
• The Penal-Substitution Theory: This view was formulated by the 16th century Reformers as an extension of Anselm's Satisfaction theory. Anselm's theory was correct in introducing the satisfaction aspect of Christ's work and its necessity, however the Reformers saw it as insufficient because it was referenced to God's honor rather than his justice and holiness and was couched more in terms of a commercial transaction than a penal substitution. This Reformed view says simply that Christ died for man, in man's place, taking his sins and bearing them for him. The bearing of man's sins takes the punishment for them and sets the believer free from the penal demands of the law: The righteousness of the law and the holiness of God are satisfied by this substitution.
• The Moral-Example Theory (or Moral-Influence Theory): Christ died to influence mankind toward moral improvement. This theory denies that Christ died to satisfy any principle of divine justice, but teaches instead that His death was designed to greatly impress mankind with a sense of God's love, resulting in softening their hearts and leading them to repentance. Thus, the Atonement is not directed towards God with the purpose of maintaining His justice, but towards man with the purpose of persuading him to right action. Formulated by Peter Abelard (1079-1142) partially in reaction against Anselm's Satisfaction theory, this view was held by the 16th century Socinians. Versions of it can be found later in F. D. E. Schleiermacher (1768-1834) and Horace Bushnell (1802-1876).
• The Governmental Theory: God made Christ an example of suffering to exhibit to erring man that sin is displeasing to him. God's moral government of the world made it necessary for him to evince his wrath against sin in Christ. Christ died as a token of God's displeasure toward sin and it was accepted by God as sufficient; but actually God does not exact strict justice. This view was formulated by Hugo Grotius (1583-1645) and is subsequently found in Arminianism, Charles Finney, the New England Theology of Jonathan Edwards (the younger), and Methodism.

Modern theories

• The Declaratory Theory: A version of the Moral Influence theory, wherein Christ died to show men how greatly God loves them. This view held by Albrecht Ritschl (1822-89).
• The Guaranty Theory: Reconciliation is based not on Christ's expiation of sin, but on His guaranty to win followers and thus conquer human sinfulness. This view held by J. C. K. von Hofmann (1810-77).
• The Vicarious Repentance Theory: by John McLeod Campbell (d. 1872). It assumes that a perfect repentance is sufficient to atone for sin. In his death, Christ entered into the Father's condemnation of sin, condemned sin, and by this, confessed it.
• The 'Christus Victor' or Dramatic Theory: by G. E. H. Aulén (1879-1977). The atonement is viewed as divine conflict and victory over the hostile powers that hold humanity in subjection. This is a modified form of the classic Ransom theory with the emphasis on Christ's victory over evil.
• The Accident Theory: Christ's death was an accident, as unforeseen and unexpected as that of any other victim of man's hatred. This view is usually found outside of mainstream Christianity.
• The Martyr Theory: Christ gave up His life for a principle of truth that was opposed to the spirit of His day. This view is usually found outside of mainstream Christianity.

(Note: I removed links because I desire the BB folks to work through these and discuss the merits and weakness of each.)​

I think that sometimes the "theories of atonement" say more about those who hold the theories than the work of Christ itself.

 

[tyndale1946]

I think that sometimes the "theories of atonement" say more about those who hold the theories than the work of Christ itself.

Isaiah 53:1 Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the LORD revealed?

53:2 For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.

53:3 He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.

53:4 Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.

53:5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.

53:6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.

53:7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.

53:8 He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.

53:9 And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.

53:10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.

53:11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.

53:12 Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

I read what the theories say but I don't believe in theories... I believe in the work of the Godhead 100% for my and anyone else that belongs to God and his Son Jesus Christ for their Salvation... Someone tell me how Salvation can be accomplished, if the Godhead didn't accomplish it?... True Sovereign Grace excepts nothing less... Brother Glen

 

[JonC]

Isaiah 53:1 Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the LORD revealed?

53:2 For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.

53:3 He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.

53:4 Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.

53:5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.

53:6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.

53:7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.

53:8 He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.

53:9 And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.

53:10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.

53:11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.

53:12 Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

I read what the theories say but I don't believe in theories... I believe in the work of the Godhead 100% for my and anyone else that belongs to God and his Son Jesus Christ for their Salvation... Someone tell me how Salvation can be accomplished, if the Godhead didn't accomplish it?... True Sovereign Grace excepts nothing less... Brother Glen

I know what you mean, and of course no one "believes in theories". Everyone believes their theory is Scripture.

For me, I believe that Christ became a curse for us, that the Lord has laid on Christ the iniquity of us all, that He is the propitiation for our sins, that for our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, that in Christ we escape the wrath to come, that Jesus was pierced for our transgressions, crushed for our iniquities, the chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, and that by His stripes we are healed.

Of course, as we well know, I do not believe Penal Substitution Theory an accurate depiction of Christ's work. But at least we can agree that it pleased the Lord to bruise him.

If this was a chick flick (not a chick tract) that would be our line.....we may disagree on theories of atonement but at least we have Scripture

 

[tyndale1946]

I know what you mean, and of course no one "believes in theories". Everyone believes their theory is Scripture.

For me, I believe that Christ became a curse for us, that the Lord has laid on Christ the iniquity of us all, that He is the propitiation for our sins, that for our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, that in Christ we escape the wrath to come, that Jesus was pierced for our transgressions, crushed for our iniquities, the chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, and that by His stripes we are healed.

Of course, as we well know, I do not believe Penal Substitution Theory an accurate depiction of Christ's work. But at least we can agree that it pleased the Lord to bruise him.

If this was a chick flick (not a chick tract) that would be our line.....we may disagree on theories of atonement but at least we have Scripture

I agree and compare and let scripture interpret scripture... Since we were not there when the Counsel of the Godhead convened, we must put our faith in the word of God in scripture not speculation... Brother Glen

John 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

 

[JonC]

I agree and compare and let scripture interpret scripture... Since we were not there when the Counsel of the Godhead convened, we must put our faith in the word of God in scripture not speculation... Brother Glen

John 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

Yes. Scripture is out authority and our source.

Unfortunately this does not resolve differences in worldviews and interpretation. The "normal" meaning is always dependent on the contemporary view.

 

[agedman]

I do not mind other theories, but Pst to me seems to be the primary one taught by the Scriptures...

I would disagree.

Other presentations may be just as primary.

The writers place emphasis upon various aspects according to the need of the communication.

If one is to latch on to one as the primary, it would then in some manner diminish (lessen, make less important) some other work or writing.

 

[church mouse guy]

I would disagree.

Other presentations may be just as primary.

The writers place emphasis upon various aspects according to the need of the communication.

If one is to latch on to one as the primary, it would then in some manner diminish (lessen, make less important) some other work or writing.

One on your list is nutty--Jesus was not a martyr.

 

[agedman]

One on your list is nutty--Jesus was not a martyr.

Not “my list.”

However, how was the Christ not a martyr?

 

[church mouse guy]

Not “my list.”

However, how was the Christ not a martyr?

Jesus is not a martyr because Jesus was not put to death (since when can man murder God?) but gave up His physical body as a sacrifice. I think that the expression is that love held Him to the Cross, not nails. Cambridge Dictionary defines martyr as "a person who suffers very much or is killed because of their religious or political beliefs, and is often admired because of it:" If you apply that definition to Jesus, it immediately becomes very patronizing.

 

[Yeshua1]

I know what you mean, and of course no one "believes in theories". Everyone believes their theory is Scripture.

For me, I believe that Christ became a curse for us, that the Lord has laid on Christ the iniquity of us all, that He is the propitiation for our sins, that for our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, that in Christ we escape the wrath to come, that Jesus was pierced for our transgressions, crushed for our iniquities, the chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, and that by His stripes we are healed.

Of course, as we well know, I do not believe Penal Substitution Theory an accurate depiction of Christ's work. But at least we can agree that it pleased the Lord to bruise him.

If this was a chick flick (not a chick tract) that would be our line.....we may disagree on theories of atonement but at least we have Scripture

The question is still though just how He propiated the wrath of God if He did not actual suffer and experience that as a lost sinner does?

 

[agedman]

[

The question is still though just how He propiated the wrath of God if He did not actual suffer and experience that as a lost sinner does?

Did he?

If so, what specific Scriptures make that statement?

Seems to me, the wrath of God remains on ALL ungodliness, and that as Romans 5 states believers are saved from that wrath, but doesn’t say wrath was in any manner eliminated.

The wrath still causes the physical body to cease, but believers are given eternal body as a new creation.

Why do you think God was punishing God?

It pleased the God (Father) to allow the suffering (Isaiah 53, Psalm 22,...) because it (as Peter stated) was appointed to be done.

 

[Yeshua1]

[


Did he?

If so, what specific Scriptures make that statement?

Seems to me, the wrath of God remains on ALL ungodliness, and that as Romans 5 states believers are saved from that wrath, but doesn’t say wrath was in any manner eliminated.

The wrath still causes the physical body to cease, but believers are given eternal body as a new creation.

Why do you think God was punishing God?

It pleased the God (Father) to allow the suffering (Isaiah 53, Psalm 22,...) because it (as Peter stated) was appointed to be done.

The death of Jesus appeased the wrath of God towards those whom God intended to get saved, not all sinners!
And the Father was punishing Jesus,not for anything he had done, but due to Him becoming our Sin bearer, so Jesus had to endure and suffer the judgment and wrath of God towards us!

 

[agedman]

The death of Jesus appeased the wrath of God towards those whom God intended to get saved, not all sinners!
And the Father was punishing Jesus,not for anything he had done, but due to Him becoming our Sin bearer, so Jesus had to endure and suffer the judgment and wrath of God towards us!

Yeshua,

Unless you can prove the statements by Scriptures then you are presenting mere opinions.

You need to present scriptures that clearly state that the "Father punished Jesus."

That Jesus had to "endure and suffer the judgment and wrath of God toward us."

So far, in the Scripture, I have found the suffering messiah prophecied - but not because of the isolation and wrath of God, but because of Human hands - as Peter stated.

So far, in the Scriptures, I have found that the Son of Man endured the cross at the will of the Father, not the wrath of the Father.

Now, I think that you have become so encased and entrenched with this wrath business you have exceeded the intent of the Scripture statements.

Perhaps you can prove me wrong.

The physical suffering of Christ is not in doubt. It is the motivation, the catalyst of that suffering in which you need to prove came from God.

Do you not remember this parable from the lips of Christ?

33“Hear another parable. There was a master of a house who planted a vineyard and put a fence around it and dug a winepress in it and built a tower and leased it to tenants, and went into another country. 34When the season for fruit drew near, he sent his servants to the tenants to get his fruit. 35And the tenants took his servants and beat one, killed another, and stoned another.36Again he sent other servants, more than the first. And they did the same to them. 37Finally he sent his son to them, saying, ‘They will respect my son.’ 38But when the tenants saw the son, they said to themselves, ‘This is the heir. Come, let us kill him and have his inheritance.’ 39And they took him and threw him out of the vineyard and killed him. 40When therefore the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those tenants?” 41They said to him, “He will put those wretches to a miserable death and let out the vineyard to other tenants who will give him the fruits in their seasons.”

42Jesus said to them, “Have you never read in the Scriptures:

“‘The stone that the builders rejected
has become the cornerstone;
this was the Lord’s doing,
and it is marvelous in our eyes’?​

43Therefore I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people producing its fruits. 44And the one who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces; and when it falls on anyone, it will crush him.”
​

Where is the wrath of God directed to the Son? It isn't.

It is directed to those who reject and do not believe.