A problem with substitutionary atonement

[Erik Nelson]

I've been reading the Bible and stumbled on this verse.

1 Cor 15:17 If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins.

Paul says the resurrection was necessary for salvation, yet a SA model would not need a resurrection.

Thoughts?

Disobedience in Eden incurred a Divine sentence of capital punishment

God's Justice was finally satisfied on the Cross

Evidently, the Resurrection somehow is equivalent to atonement with God.

The surrounding verses of 1 Cor 15 show St. Paul argued that the Resurrection of Christ "proved" The Final Resurrection, of the righteous, at The End of earth time, to life "ascended to Heaven with the Father as happened to the Son already" (my words) would also occur.

Conversely, if God did not forgive sin-laiden Christ's SA, and Resurrect Christ, then God would not forgive & resurrect anybody! Ipso facto, God would have "telegraphed" having condemned all to the Lake of Fire, for their sins.

The Resurrection proves God forgave our sins, heaped on Christ as SA, so as to account us atoned with God sufficiently for resurrection & ascension to Heaven.

The Resurrection of sin-laiden Christ unto life & heaven -- the reward only for those accounted righteous -- shows God accounted our sins (on Christ) as " ::quote fingers:: righteousness enough ::cough cough:: ", if that makes sense in text characters...

In strict legal reality, all fall short of the glory required by God (Rom 3:23)…

But God says, in effect, "alright, you tried (believed on Christ), good enough, A-for-effort, lots & lots & lots of partial credit, we'll let you pass (thru resurrection unto ascension into heaven)"

 

[Chinchilla]

Paul says the resurrection was necessary for salvation, yet a SA model would not need a resurrection.

Paul told us if Christ did not rise from the dead being blameless without sin then we moreover won't rise from the dead . If Christ could not overcome death then he is not he one who was promised to do so . Death is enemy .

1 Corinthians 15:26 ( Shall be future tense )

 

[Serving Zion]

I've been reading the Bible and stumbled on this verse.

1 Cor 15:17 If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins.

Paul says the resurrection was necessary for salvation, yet a SA model would not need a resurrection.

Thoughts?

It isn't so clear what you are trying to achieve with this thread..

 

[AlexDTX]

You can't have justification without eternal life and can't have eternal life without justification. They both imply each other.

Justification does not come through eternal life. Justification comes from the unblemished life of Christ which obeyed God even unto the cross. The resurrection is necessary because the old man is sinful and the new man is sinless. We will not be able to fully participate in completely in he sinless life of Christ without the replacement of the sinful body. We must die and be resurrected in order for our bodies to be replaced. Jesus had to die and be resurrected in that substitutionary atonement so we could be resurrected. All who reject the gift of life in Christ will be resurrected at the White Throne judgment seat, but they will be resurrected in their sinful bodies. It is Christ's life in us by faith that enables us to be resurrected in glory, not shame.

 

[Anguspure]

I've been reading the Bible and stumbled on this verse.

1 Cor 15:17 If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins.

Paul says the resurrection was necessary for salvation, yet a SA model would not need a resurrection.

Thoughts?

If Christ did not rise from tbe dead then His death was like yours and mine; useless for SA.

The ressurection is evidence that His sacrifice carried value sufficient to do the job.

 

[hedrick]

Justification means being accepted as being in good standing with God. Being in good standing doesn’t just mean being forgiven. It means being in a proper relationship with God, which for Christians is based on faith in Christ. That’s why justification is by faith. You're correct that substitutionary atonement only handles half the problem. Indeed it's the half that accord to Paul (Rom 3:25) God already did before Christ anyway.

At least as explained here, recapitulation seems consistent with Romans 6: Through union with Christ we die to sin and are raised to new life. I believe faith is part of that new life, and that justification recognizes it.

In my view Rom 6 is the most explicit explanation of the atonement in the NT. There are plenty of references to atonement, using lots of images. If you take some of them too literally, you can get in trouble. E.g. the early church took the idea of ransom and price too literally, and started claiming that God had to pay off Satan — or in some versions trick him — to save us. Similarly, penal substitution takes too literally statements saying that Christ suffered for us, and concludes that God is unable to forgive us without punishing someone, even if he’s innocent. I suggest that Rom 6 is Paul’s actual idea, together with other passages such as Rom 3:20 ff. God was always willing to forgive us. That was never the problem. As Rom 3:25 says, before Christ, God overlooked sins. What Christ adds isn’t forgiveness but the new life, which lets us get beyond sin. (Indeed in Paul it lets us get beyond the whole legal-oriented system that defines and counts sin.)

Jesus never explains in any detailed way. But his most explicit statement is what he said at the last supper. This has come down to us as the “words of institution.” He didn’t say “I’m dying so God can forgive you.” He said he was dying to establish a new covenant. This is a reference to Jer 31:31, the new covenant that writes the law into our hearts. As with Paul, this isn’t just forgiving sin; it’s setting up the basis for the new life.

 

[bling]

I've been reading the Bible and stumbled on this verse.

1 Cor 15:17 If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins.

Paul says the resurrection was necessary for salvation, yet a SA model would not need a resurrection.

Thoughts?

Very true!

 

[mark46]

The courtroom idea of atonement wasn't part of the Church for its first 1000 years.

We are separated from God. (we are sick and infirmed). [The Church is a hospital]

Christ died to defeat sin and evil and to remove the barrier between us and God. We are then able to become more conformed to Jesus each day of our lives.

Christ rose, defeating death, that we may have eternal life with God.
==========
So, in this view, we do not look to Jesus as a sacrifice. Jesus is the victor over evil and death.

 

[JoeP222w]

yet a SA model would not need a resurrection.

By what standard do you make this claim?

 

[JoeP222w]

Justification didn't need a resurrection

How do you know this to be true?

 

[PaulCyp1]

I don't see the problem. The Word of God says the Resurrection is necessary. An SA model says it isn't. So the SA model is obviously wrong.

 

[συνείδησις]

How do you know this to be true?

We were justified/reconciled to GOD through Christ's death. However, in retrospect, justification was dependent not just on Christ's death, but also his applying his blood to the mercy seat in heaven, which necessitated his resurrection.

but God demonstrates his own love for us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Therefore, by much more, because we have been declared righteous now by his blood, we will be saved through him from the wrath. For if, while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son, by much more, having been reconciled, we will be saved by his life. Romans 5:8-10​

 

[συνείδησις]

I don't see the problem. The Word of God says the Resurrection is necessary. An SA model says it isn't. So the SA model is obviously wrong.

Where dies the "SA model" say that?

 

[~Anastasia~]

One more thought.

It's not that Christ didn't die to atone for our sins. He did. The major problem with "choosing a theory of atonement" to hold to (in opposition to other theories of atonement) is that all of these "theories" are just mental models put forth by men. All of them tend to focus on only a limited aspect of the Truth.

It's not that most of them are wrong (there is much more right than wrong about them - with the exception of the "penal" aspect of PSA) ... it's that each of them taken alone is incomplete.

It's like the blind men examining an elephant. The one with the trunk thinks it's like a snake, the one with the leg thinks it's like a tree, and so on.

There's no reason to go through mental gymnastics in order to make the SA model "need" a Resurrection because Christ resurrected.

Rather, look at the big picture. Scripture says over and over that Christ defeated death. Death was the curse brought on by sin. Death is the final enemy that will be defeated. Christus Victor is one "theory of atonement" and (to the early Church the primary one) but they wouldn't have denied that Christ died to atone for our sins.

Embrace ALL of what Scripture teaches and stop trying to distill it into a particular human theory of atonement and make it fit.

God be with you.

 

[Dr Bruce Atkinson]

I've been reading the Bible and stumbled on this verse.

1 Cor 15:17 If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins.

Paul says the resurrection was necessary for salvation, yet a SA model would not need a resurrection.

Thoughts?

The Resurrection of Christ does not save us, but it unmistakenly confirms who Jesus is, and it endorses that what He accomplished on the Cross was effective for the salvation of all who would believe.

If Jesus had not been raised, it would mean that He was neither divine nor qualified to die in our place.

But yes, it was His suffering and death on the Cross (the substitutionary atonement) which won for us the possibility of forgiveness and eternal life. The Resurrection proved it. You cannot truly separate these divine events. They are all of a piece, along with the Ascension, Pentecost, and His Return for which we await.

 

[dreadnought]

I've been reading the Bible and stumbled on this verse.

1 Cor 15:17 If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins.

Paul says the resurrection was necessary for salvation, yet a SA model would not need a resurrection.

Thoughts?

Without Christ's death on the cross, we'd be at Satan's mercy, I believe.

 

[Dr Bruce Atkinson]

One more thought.

It's not that Christ didn't die to atone for our sins. He did. The major problem with "choosing a theory of atonement" to hold to (in opposition to other theories of atonement) is that all of these "theories" are just mental models put forth by men. All of them tend to focus on only a limited aspect of the Truth.

It's not that most of them are wrong (there is much more right than wrong about them - with the exception of the "penal" aspect of PSA) ... it's that each of them taken alone is incomplete.

It's like the blind men examining an elephant. The one with the trunk thinks it's like a snake, the one with the leg thinks it's like a tree, and so on.

There's no reason to go through mental gymnastics in order to make the SA model "need" a Resurrection because Christ resurrected.

Rather, look at the big picture. Scripture says over and over that Christ defeated death. Death was the curse brought on by sin. Death is the final enemy that will be defeated. Christus Victor is one "theory of atonement" and (to the early Church the primary one) but they wouldn't have denied that Christ died to atone for our sins.

Embrace ALL of what Scripture teaches and stop trying to distill it into a particular human theory of atonement and make it fit.

God be with you.

Yes.
There is a sense in which all of the various atonement theories are correct. But some of these are much more important than others; some are more verified in the scriptures than others and more accepted throughout the history of Christianity as essential to apostolic doctrine. The structure of these theories is rather like a pyramid—there is one capstone on top and many more beneath.


The various theories are generally overlapping and many are similar, sometimes only separated by the abstract labeling of theologians. The only truly error in any of them is when their proponents try to make them mutually exclusive. They are not mutually exclusive. They are true; they just are not all equally vital and essential.

 

[Dr Bruce Atkinson]

The courtroom idea of atonement wasn't part of the Church for its first 1000 years.

We are separated from God. (we are sick and infirmed). [The Church is a hospital]

Christ died to defeat sin and evil and to remove the barrier between us and God. We are then able to become more conformed to Jesus each day of our lives.

Christ rose, defeating death, that we may have eternal life with God.
==========
So, in this view, we do not look to Jesus as a sacrifice. Jesus is the victor over evil and death.

I must disagree. Some of the early church Fathers (even in the first 300 yrs) taught about the atonement, as in ransomed and suffering in our place. It is just that they did not use that term -- which became theologically popular much later. The understanding and the doctrine of atonement was well accepted because Paul's letters were widely copied and used-- and he was quite clear about it. And the early Church knew well the Old Testament prophecies about Jesus.

Even the Old Testament prophecies about the Messiah as the Lamb of God, speak of atonement; it was what the symbolism of the blood of animals was all about in the Hebrew sacrificial rituals.

"Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows;
yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted.
5 But he was pierced for our transgressions;
he was crushed for our iniquities;
upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace,
and with his wounds we are healed.
6 All we like sheep have gone astray;
we have turned—every one—to his own way;
and the Lord has laid on him
the iniquity of us all.
yet we esteemed him stricken,
smitten by God, and afflicted.
5 But he was pierced for our transgressions;
he was crushed for our iniquities;
upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace,
and with his wounds we are healed.
6 All we like sheep have gone astray;
we have turned—every one—to his own way;
and the Lord has laid on him
the iniquity of us all."
(Isaiah 53:4-6)

 

[Daniel Martinovich]

I've been reading the Bible and stumbled on this verse.

1 Cor 15:17 If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins.

Paul says the resurrection was necessary for salvation, yet a SA model would not need a resurrection.

Thoughts?

I think your reading to much into it. The resurrection was the proof of the Gospel claims. It's the proof of the ransom, the atonement, the substitutionary payment of the penalty etc etc. Without the resurrection the story is to easy to fake. More than that though. The resurrection is actual power of salvation. Meaning. We are not just believing some story here, which can be faked. The power of the Holy Spirit that raised Christ from the dead comes tangibly into our lives and does all kinds of great things. So much so that he is called the down payment on the promise of eternal life in Ephesians 1:14

 

[fhansen]

Because SA states Christ bore our sins. Jesus couldn't died and that would be the end. Why do you think SA requires a resurrection?

SA still requires faith. And faith requires objects to believe in- and reasons to believe, giving us some good to pursue. And the capstone of Jesus's work was to prove eternal life, the life of sheer happiness with God that we're saved unto.

Read the creeds. We basically believe that God exists, that He's good, trustworthy, and merciful, that He desires for us a life of sheer, uncompromised, eternal bliss with Him. Jesus came to definitively reveal this and more.