What is Your View of The Atonement By Jesus Christ?

Sure. I'll use this example - think of the Mosaic Law. Some believe that Jesus came to obey the Law and through this obedience merited the righteousness imputed us. But Jesus said that He came to fulfill the Law (that rather than His work pointing to the Law the Law pointed to Him).

Now apply this idea of fulfilling to baptism. Was Jesus baptized in order to point to that baptism (that it signified repentance) or was Jesus' baptism itself pointing to Him? My answer is the latter. Jesus became man, took upon humanity upon Himself. Baptism points to the righteousness of Christ as the "last Adam", into which all believers are baptized.

 

I gave up serious discussions with Yesuah1 long ago. He just keeps repeating things without even trying to evidence his view. If you were to ask the question then I suspect you would receive a different answer.

 

Although it is debated whether or not "propitiation" is the correct word, I believe it is. Propitiation carries the idea of wrath averted. You may decide this is the wrath of God, just as Origen decided it was the wrath of Satan, but either way it is propitiation.

I agree that this is the wrath of God against sin which we avoid. There are some who avoid this idea (for example, contemporary Mennonite theology), but I think they do this in error. This doesn't mean, of course, substitution. It means propitiation. The Christus Victor position, for example, believes that wrath (in terms of the wages of sin, even God's wrath upon sin) is averted.

 

I agree. This is the major flaw in the Mennonite Theology (Non-Violent Atonement) of men like Denny Weaver. Scripture does not give us the option of choosing passages and ignoring others in making our theories. Non-Violent Atonement ignores divine wrath, at least in any meaningful way.

I like that you put in all caps “FOR”. This is something that is often misunderstood.

 

No. My favorites are John Piper and D.A. Carson. I haven't read much McClaren or Bell. Are they pastors you look to for instruction? If so, maybe they can explain to you what Christ being baptized to fulfill all righteousness means. It wasn't a shell game but Scripture itself. Sorry you couldn't understand my explanation.

 

No. He doesn't. Neither does Piper or Bell, or McClaren.

Sometimes I provide reference for passages I quote. Sometimes I had rather see how others will react to Scripture apart from advertising they are God's words. So I will have to decline your request.