Why Substitutionary Atonement?

oi_antz · May 26, 2015

I am still just getting started on this topic, can someone who has been over this already please summarise for me what is the real reason that Substitutionary Atonement is believed to be a necessary doctrine?

Thank you.

Cappadocious · May 27, 2015

Mistakes. Then people taught other people those mistakes. Add 400 years and here we are.

Liberasit · May 27, 2015

oi_antz said:
I am still just getting started on this topic, can someone who has been over this already please summarise for me what is the real reason that Substitutionary Atonement is believed to be a necessary doctrine?

Thank you.

Jesus is the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.

Also, from Isaiah 53: But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was on him, and by his wounds we are healed.

oi_antz · May 27, 2015

Liberasit said:
punishment that brought us peace

.. Can you please explain what do you think this means?

BTW, it is possible to read this verse in absence of Substitutionary Atonement doctrine, and to understand the sacrifice/ransom perfectly well.

faroukfarouk · May 27, 2015

Liberasit said:
Jesus is the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.

Also, from Isaiah 53: But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was on him, and by his wounds we are healed.

Good post; I wholeheartedly agree.

Mediaeval · May 27, 2015

The KJV translates as 'chastisement' the word translated as 'punishment' in the above-quoted phrase 'the punishment that brought us peace.' (The same Hebrew word is used in Proverbs 3:11 where the KJV translates it as 'chastening.') The KJV translation makes it harder to use Isaiah 53 in support of PSA, since the PSA doctrine teaches that our Lord was punished in our place so that we would not have to be punished.

oi_antz · May 27, 2015

Mediaeval said:
The KJV translates as 'chastisement' the word translated as 'punishment' in the above-quoted phrase 'the punishment that brought us peace.' (The same Hebrew word is used in Proverbs 3:11 where the KJV translates it as 'chastening.') The KJV translation makes it harder to use Isaiah 53 in support of PSA, since the PSA doctrine teaches that our Lord was punished in our place so that we would not have to be punished.

Who do you think punished Him?

hedrick · May 27, 2015

What do you mean by substitutionary? Penal substitution say that God because of his justice has to punish someone, so he takes it on himself. However substitution can simply man that Jesus, who has no need to suffer on his own, does so on our behalf. Passages such as Is 53 clearly says that his suffering is in our place. This needed imply penal substitution.

I don't see how you can read the NT passages about Jesus' death without some concept that he suffered in our place. I think that general insight is compatible with most theories of the atonement.

oi_antz · May 27, 2015

hedrick said:
What do you mean by substitutionary? Penal substitution say that God because of his justice has to punish someone, so he takes it on himself. However substitution can simply man that Jesus, who has no need to suffer on his own, does so on our behalf. Passages such as Is 53 clearly says that his suffering is in our place. This needed imply penal substitution.

I don't see how you can read the NT passages about Jesus' death without some concept that he suffered in our place. I think that general insight is compatible with most theories of the atonement.

Thanks for asking this Hedrick. I see that His life was given as a ransom for many. He said so Himself before the temple incident. Ransom has the definitive meaning:

a sum of money demanded or paid for the release of a captive.

.. and we know that the sum paid was Jesus' life. This causes me to ask two questions:

Who was released?
Who was this payment made to?

I would quite like to see your thoughts on this, Hedrick. I already know what I think.

hedrick · May 27, 2015

The NT uses all kinds of images for Jesus' death and atonement. Ransom is one of them. It's a great image. But like any metaphor you can push it too far. Asking who the ransom was paid to is doing that. Every answer is worse than the one before it. God isn't a kidnapper. Satan doesn't own us.

oi_antz · May 27, 2015

hedrick said:
The NT uses all kinds of images for Jesus' death and atonement. Ransom is one of them. It's a great image. But like any metaphor you can push it too far. Asking who the ransom was paid to is doing that. Every answer is worse than the one before it. God isn't a kidnapper. Satan doesn't own us.

Sounds to me like you are not wanting to really get into it, but that's ok. Thanks for your help.

Mediaeval · May 27, 2015

oi_antz said:
Who do you think punished Him?

I would say the wrath of man was poured out upon the Lord.

oi_antz · May 27, 2015

Mediaeval said:
I would say the wrath of man was poured out upon the Lord.

I would say something similar, though you seem to have thought more about it than I have, to arrive at those words. Can you summarise for me why Substitutionary Atonement is believed to be a necessary doctrine?

Mediaeval · May 28, 2015

oi_antz said:
I would say something similar, though you seem to have thought more about it than I have, to arrive at those words. Can you summarise for me why Substitutionary Atonement is believed to be a necessary doctrine?

The PSA theory is based on the following notions:
- God cannot simply forgive outright.
- No sin can be left unpunished, God must be bought off to spare the sinner from the Law's demands.
- However, the Law's demands must be satisfied. Once these are satisfied the sinner is off the hook.
- What the Law demands is suffering as an offset or payment for sins committed.
- Suffering owed by the guilty party can be transferred to a perfectly innocent party, as long as the Law is satisfied.
- God shows His grace by providing an innocent Sufferer to take the place of sinners.

Against the PSA backdrop, F. D. Maurice (1805-1872) observed:
"Religious men see evil all about them and within them. They can conceive of a punisher and avenger of evil; they can conceive that this punisher and avenger, if he has motive and compensation sufficient, may exempt some from the destruction which he has decreed for the majority. They cannot believe in Love."

oi_antz · May 28, 2015

Mediaeval said:
The PSA theory is based on the following notions:
- God cannot simply forgive outright.
- No sin can be left unpunished, God must be bought off to spare the sinner from the Law's demands.
- However, the Law's demands must be satisfied. Once these are satisfied the sinner is off the hook.
- What the Law demands is suffering as an offset or payment for sins committed.
- Suffering owed by the guilty party can be transferred to a perfectly innocent party, as long as the Law is satisfied.
- God shows His grace by providing an innocent Sufferer to take the place of sinners.

Against the PSA backdrop, F. D. Maurice (1805-1872) observed:
"Religious men see evil all about them and within them. They can conceive of a punisher and avenger of evil; they can conceive that this punisher and avenger, if he has motive and compensation sufficient, may exempt some from the destruction which he has decreed for the majority. They cannot believe in Love."

Do you know whether there is scriptural support for this backdrop? I ask specifically because the first reply in this thread said it has been developed over the las 400 years. I wonder whether the authors of the scriptures viewed God this way.

I also welcome supporters of Substitutionary Atonement doctrines to respond to this question, even to correct Mediaevil's summary if need be.

Please, Lord God, we ask in Jesus' name, bring to this discussion your servants who will reveal the truth of who you are, and how you desire us to know your love.

Mediaeval · May 29, 2015

oi_antz said:
Do you know whether there is scriptural support for this backdrop? I ask specifically because the first reply in this thread said it has been developed over the las 400 years. I wonder whether the authors of the scriptures viewed God this way.

Proponents of PSA certainly make reverent appeals to Scripture, often to the verse of Isaiah 53 discussed above.
In Christus Victor, Gustav Aulen traced the philosophy behind PSA back to Anselm of Canterbury, to the Western church's penitential system with its requirement of making satisfaction for sins, and to Tertullian, Cyprian, and Gregory the Great.

oi_antz · May 29, 2015

Mediaeval said:
Proponents of PSA certainly make reverent appeals to Scripture, often to the verse of Isaiah 53 discussed above.
In Christus Victor, Gustav Aulen traced the philosophy behind PSA back to Anselm of Canterbury, to the Western church's penitential system with its requirement of making satisfaction for sins, and to Tertullian, Cyprian, and Gregory the Great.

That Isaiah prophecy does nothing to support the backdrop though, and without that backdrop it does look very, very different.

So I think it is super important to establish that the backdrop you have described is robust. I would like to concentrate on that if possible, because any opinions without having established the reliability of that basis puts everyone more and more at risk of being fundamentally wrong.

I think we really should now wait for someone who is brought here to explain why Substitutionary Atonement is believed to be a necessary doctrine, otherwise it will feel like casting pearls before swine to them. I don't want that, I want to see the truth revealed to His glory.

Thank you for your input to this stage.

hedrick · May 29, 2015

oi_antz said:
Sounds to me like you are not wanting to really get into it, but that's ok. Thanks for your help.

No. I am saying that "ransom" is intended as an image or metaphor and that "getting into it" further is going to end up with something that the original author didn't intend.

oi_antz · May 29, 2015

hedrick said:
No. I am saying that "ransom" is intended as an image or metaphor and that "getting into it" further is going to end up with something that the original author didn't intend.

Why would you make that assumption though? These are words spoken by Jesus, the Word of God. I think that He is perfectly capable of choosing effective words.

Edit: for reference, this statement appears with identical wording in both Matthew and Mark:

https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=ransom+for+many&qs_version=NIV

Matthew 20:28 just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

Mark 10:45 For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

Cappadocious · Jun 1, 2015

This is an odd thread.

Why Substitutionary Atonement?

Opposed to Untruth.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Opposed to Untruth.

Fading curmudgeon

baptizatus sum

Opposed to Untruth.

Senior Veteran

Opposed to Untruth.

Senior Veteran

Opposed to Untruth.

baptizatus sum

Opposed to Untruth.

baptizatus sum

Opposed to Untruth.

baptizatus sum

Opposed to Untruth.

Senior Veteran

Opposed to Untruth.

Well-Known Member

Similar threads