The Doctrine of Justification and the Atonement

[Bible Highlighter]

Is the belief in forensic/legal justification and of Christ's penal/vicarious atonement necessary? Please explain why if you want.

Edit: I am talking about both, not just one or the other.

Yes, I believe it. However, I also believe Sanctification is the next necessary step or stage in the salvation process, too.

 

[marineimaging]

Is the belief in forensic/legal justification and of Christ's penal/vicarious atonement necessary? Please explain why if you want.

Edit: I am talking about both, not just one or the other.

Imagine walking up on a Bedouin sojourner in modern day Saudi Arabia and asking that question. If they can't answer with certainty would they be saved? Or would they be condemned to hell for eternity? The Bible says we are to believe in Jesus as the atonement for our sins. That the only begotten son of our living God died for us, that he took our sins onto his shoulders, and that he became the sacrificial lamb for us before our God. We are to believe in Jesus, to repent of our sins, and to be baptized in the name of Jesus. "..., that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. Take that as you will and if it answers your question then there, you have it.

 

[Jonaitis]

Imagine walking up on a Bedouin sojourner in modern day Saudi Arabia and asking that question. If they can't answer with certainty would they be saved? Or would they be condemned to hell for eternity? The Bible says we are to believe in Jesus as the atonement for our sins. That the only begotten son of our living God died for us, that he took our sins onto his shoulders, and that he became the sacrificial lamb for us before our God. We are to believe in Jesus, to repent of our sins, and to be baptized in the name of Jesus. "..., that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. Take that as you will and if it answers your question then there, you have it.

Do you believe it is necessary to believe the divine legal implications of where we stand, that under God's law we are sinners who deserve to be punished, but Jesus came and paid that penalty in our place, and that in him by faith we are accounted righteous as a result of what he did in his life and death? For me, that's so simple that a child can understand it. I cannot see the gospel anything less than this.

 

[MDC]

Do you believe it is necessary to believe the divine legal implications of where we stand, that under God's law we are sinners who deserve to be punished, but Jesus came and paid that penalty in our place, and that in him by faith we are accounted righteous as a result of what he did in his life and death? For me, that's so simple that a child can understand it. I cannot see the gospel anything less than this.

I’m in total agreement with you on this topic Jonaitis

 

[Jonaitis]

I’m in total agreement with you on this topic Jonaitis

I felt like I was the only one here

 

[bling]

FireDragon76 and Jonaitis good discussion,

Introduction to a Deeper Understanding of Atonement



As nonbelieving sinners, we all deserve to justly be tortured, humiliated, crucified and go to hell from God. The fact that Christ physically was tortured, humiliated, crucified and murdered and we physically are not, means at lease there is some kind of substitution.

BUT: Is Penal Substitution (PS) happening? Where God is seeing to Christ’s torture, humiliation, crucifixion and murder (punishment), instead of God punishing humans (or saved individuals).

No one seems to feel Christ became a “sinner” on the cross, yet there is no place in scripture where God punishes the innocent to allow the guilty to go free, but there is:

God does have wicked people or wicked nations punish the Israelites and there could be some innocent children among those Israelites killed. It is never suggested this punishment was intended for the innocent or any substitution took place, but is there?

We do have the killing of the innocent baby son of David and Bathsheba: Nathan replied, “The Lord has taken away your sin. You are not going to die. 14 But because by doing this you have shown utter contempt for the Lord, the son born to you will die.”

15 After Nathan had gone home, the Lord struck the child that Uriah’s wife had borne to David, and he became ill. 16 David pleaded with God for the child. He fasted and spent the nights lying in sackcloth on the ground. 17 The elders of his household stood beside him to get him up from the ground, but he refused, and he would not eat any food with them.

David’s innocent son’s illness and death should have been David’s illness and death, so is this penal substitution or is it God’s just way of indirectly further punishing/disciplining David for his sins?

If we Love Christ more than David loved the son he caused to become ill, than should we be at least as sorrowful as David about what we caused Christ to go through?

If I am just one of billions of sinners causing Christ’s time on the cross, then I might be responsible for a few nanoseconds of His time on the cross, but do I play a greater part?

Christ prayed repeatedly His most intense prayer in the Garden which we have only one verse asking: “if there was any other way…”, but what “other way” could there be? If I personally had fulfilled my earthly objective without sinning, Christ would not have had to go to the cross for me, but could I personally have provided “another way”? If I had done it without sinning there would be another way without having Christ go to the cross, so could God have looked down the corridor of time and seen me not needing Christ to go to the cross and stopped Christ going? This puts the whole blame for Christ crucifixion on me (I did not keep from sinning) and not just being responsible for a nanosecond of time on the cross.

We have the first Christian sermon on Pentecost (Acts 2) and similar sermons in Acts that are truly Christ Crucified Sermons, yet say nothing about Christ taking our place on the cross, but say lots about our putting Christ on the cross, so are we to experience a death blow to our hearts (Acts 2:37) or have a sigh of relief because we avoid being disciplined/punished?



We can go on to read lots in the NT about us being crucified “with Christ”, so is that the painful experience we should have?

Christ, Paul, Peter, John and the Hebrew writer all describe Christ’s crucifixion as an actual ransom payment, so there is a payment involve, but to whom?

When we talk to nonbelievers, we are not trying to get them to believe some book, words, doctrine or philosophy, but we want them to accept through faith Jesus Christ and Him crucified. If that nonbeliever trust (has faith) in Christ and Him crucified a child is released and allowed to enter the kingdom where God the Father is, but if the nonbeliever refuses for lack of faith Jesus Christ and Him crucified, the child is not set free to go to the Father. That nonbeliever is a perfect example of a criminal kidnapper and fully undeserving of Jesus Christ and him Crucified, which is what Christ and others say is the ransom payment.

God is not a criminal undeserving kidnapper holding His own children and satan is not changeable or has the power to hold God’s child back from God, so the unbeliever is the only excellent fit for the kidnapper in the atonement process.

Paul in Ro. 3:25 giving the extreme contrast between the way sins where handle prior to the cross and after the cross, so if they were actually handled the same way “by the cross” there would be no contrast, only a time factor, but Paul seems to say: (forgiven) sins prior to the cross where left “unpunished” (NIV), but that also would mean the forgiven “sinner” after the cross were punished.

From Romans 3: 25 Paul tells us: God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. …

Another way of saying this would be “God offers the ransom payment (Christ Crucified and the blood that flowed from Him) to those that have the faith to receive that ransom. A lack of faith results in the refusal of the ransom payment (Christ crucified).

God is not the undeserving kidnapper nor is satan, but the unbeliever is himself is holding back the child of God from the Father, that child that is within every one of us.

Paul goes on to explain:

Ro. 3: 25 …He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished

I do not like the word “unpunished” but would use “undisciplined”.

So prior to the cross repentant forgiven people (saved individuals) could not be fairly and justly disciplined for the rebellious disobedience, but after the cross if we repent (come to our senses and turn to God) we can be fairly and justly disciplined and yet survive.

God and Christ would have personally preferred Christ’s blood to remain flowing through his veins, but it is I that need to have that blood outside of Christ flowing over me and in me cleansing my heart. I need to feel that blood and know it is cleansing me.

Some might try to put the need for blood on God making Him blood thirsty, but Christ says: John 6: 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.

It is not God needing that blood, but I am blood thirsty for eternal life and God/Christ have provided that blood. I personally need to physically feel Christ’s blood in the symbolic wine flow down my throat and over my heart to experience and know cleansing.

A lot is made of the word “for” being used in “Christ died for us” suggesting it must mean “instead of”, but any good word study of all the Greek words translated “for” would yield more likely interpretations of “for”. If the writers wanted to convey the idea of “instead of” they should have used the Greek word “anti” which can mean “instead of”. The Greek word translate “for” including “anti” are translated other places “because of”, so “Christ died for us” would mean “Christ died because of us” and “Christ died for our sins” would translate “Christ died because of our sins”.

There is much more I can say but this is already very long so I will stop and address your comments.

Lev. 16: 8 He is to cast lots for the two goats—one lot for the Lord and the other for the scapegoat. 9 Aaron shall bring the goat whose lot falls to the Lord and sacrifice it for a sin offering. 10 But the goat chosen by lot as the scapegoat shall be presented alive before the Lord to be used for making atonement by sending it into the wilderness as a scapegoat.

15 He shall then slaughter the goat for the sin offering for the people and take its blood behind the curtain and do with it as he did with the bull’s blood: He shall sprinkle it on the atonement cover and in front of it.

20…he shall bring forward the live goat. 21 He is to lay both hands on the head of the live goat and confess over it all the wickedness and rebellion of the Israelites—all their sins—and put them on the goat’s head. He shall send the goat away into the wilderness in the care of someone appointed for the task. 22 The goat will carry on itself all their sins to a remote place; and the man shall release it in the wilderness.

The both goats seem innocent to me so:

Which is the sinning goat?

How is the sacrificed goat taking the guilt of a goat which cannot and did not sin as far as I know?

The scapegoat is carrying (guilt or sin) of the people away into the wilderness, but shouldn’t the goat being sacrificed be carrying the guilt or sins?



The scapegoat is not being freed from sin, but carrying the sins, so how is he free?

There is nothing said about one goat taking the place of the other goat, but both goats have a different task to fulfill, so where is the substitution?





1 Peter 2:24 “He himself bore our sins” in his body on the cross, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; “by his wounds you have been healed.”

First off: Christ is doing this so we can do something and not so God can forgive us.

What is “baring our sins” mean since sins are not some object? What I understand this to mean is Christ took the “punishment” a sinner deserves, but do you have some other idea?

Do you feel Christ was made guilty of sin (a sinner)?

It is not, Christ when through this extremely painful death, so we are off the hook, but so we can go through the painful dying process also.

“Our dying” is tied to his taking our sins/guilt way from us.

How are we healed “by his wounds”, because it does not say God heals us or forgives us because of Christ’s suffering?

When we go through just fair loving disciplining from a Loving Parent participating with us in the disciplining it can be painful during the disciplining, but afterwards we reach a higher better relationship with the parent. Christ’s pain and torture allows us to be severely personally disciplined (being crucified with Christ), so we can come out on the other side in a better healed relationship.



Romans 3:25 tells us: …He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished

In the context of Romans Paul seems to be addressing particularly here the Jewish Christians and contrast to them, who would understand the contrast, between the way sin was handled before and after the cross. Lots of sins prior to the cross were “punished”, so Paul has to be referring to sins: repented of and forgiven by God and Jesus.

In Ro.3:25 we find “He did this to demonstrate his righteousness” which would include God’s justice being demonstrated, so it is also saying: His righteousness/justice was not being demonstrated prior to the cross, so what is not seen?

God was/is always righteous and just, but prior to the cross there was no way to fairly/justly punish/discipline rebellious disobedience without killing or banishing the sinner which would leave no one left in Israel. The Israelites would not follow through on God’s fair/just righteous rules because they were all guilty, so justice was not served and really could not be served under the Old Law. With the cross there is a fair/just way to discipline/punish the people for their sins without killing them by being crucified with Christ.

You also get with this one verse the need for the cross, which is not forgiveness but punishment/discipline of the sinner.

Ro. 3:25 does not say: Prior to the cross, God was long suffering or patient with the people and thus did not show his righteousness.

Ro. 3:25 does say: … because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished

God’s patience, kindness, tolerance and forgiveness all show His righteousness.

The issue is: God as a wonderful parent could not show His Loving, fair/just disciplining/punishment of His children prior to the cross, because they would all be killed or banished.

The way the Jews were to bleed the sacrificial animals to death is as humane as possible at the time and really has no comparison to Christ being beaten, humiliated and cruelly murdered by crucifixion.

Death is not bad in and of itself, but is the way home for the righteous.

What is akin to Christ’s crucifixion is my being crucified with Him.



There is nothing about "deferring" payment. Yes, Christ's sacrifice was fully acceptable to God, pleasing God for what it can accomplish, but as Ro. 3:25 points out humans must also "accept" what God has sacrificially given "...to be received by faith...", if they lack faith they will not accept it even though God accepts what was done.

The "payment" is as great as it could be (pleasing God), but the sinful kidnapper (through faith) still has to accept this huge ransom offering made to him.

There is nothing “deferred” since there is a huge contrast between before and after the cross. Paul describes the difference as being “passed over” and “left unpunished”. There is no way for those prior to the cross to be “crucified with Christ” (punished/disciplined) if Christ has not been crucified yet.

 

[marineimaging]

Do you believe it is necessary to believe the divine legal implications of where we stand, that under God's law we are sinners who deserve to be punished, but Jesus came and paid that penalty in our place, and that in him by faith we are accounted righteous as a result of what he did in his life and death? For me, that's so simple that a child can understand it. I cannot see the gospel anything less than this.

Of course. And I do not understand why it has to be made so complicated. Except maybe that the same men who are in love with their own flesh and the riches of this world must empower themselves with the notions that they understand God better than anybody else.

Well, except for this one thing I had an epiphany about and can't seem to shake. That being that Justice is a real thing. Not just a concept or idea, but when we think of perfection (as is God) then Justice must be part and parcel of His perfection. So that God, who is perfect in every way and who created us came face to face in that we broke his law. When that happens then we must be "terminated" in light of His perfect ways.

However, because He loved us so much he had to resolve that Justice be satisfied. To do that only He could die in our place. But He couldn't die being the perfect deity that He is. Furthermore since it was flesh and bone that sinned it was necessary that He became flesh and bone to satisfy Justice. The solution was that it be in the form of His only begotten Son. When His only begotten Son died, then Justice was satisfied. Maybe I am just swinging at straws in an effort to understand the depth and breadth of what can't be understood as a human.

 

[Unnamed Guy]

2 Peter 1:3 King James Version (KJV)
3 According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue:

"All things", get it? There is no reason to use words that are not found in the bible to discuss things that pertain unto life and godliness. Big words, Latin phrases, yada yada, serve only to spread confusion, and our God is not the author of confusion.

 

[Jonaitis]

"All things", get it? There is no reason to use words that are not found in the bible to discuss things that pertain unto life and godliness. Big words, Latin phrases, yada yada, serve only to spread confusion, and our God is not the author of confusion.

Oftentimes words are helpful when you want to communicate what you mean to another person.

 

[Hammster]

2 Peter 1:3 King James Version (KJV)
3 According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue:

"All things", get it? There is no reason to use words that are not found in the bible to discuss things that pertain unto life and godliness. Big words, Latin phrases, yada yada, serve only to spread confusion, and our God is not the author of confusion.

You just did it.

 

[marineimaging]

Oftentimes words are helpful when you want to communicate what you mean to another person.

You are correct in this sense: My experience has been that the Holy Spirit will guide me to understand what and when God desires according to the words written inside the Bible. But when I am conveying these words to a person who has no formal education I must use what might be simple words they can understand. And in like manner if I discuss the Word of God with a college graduate I need more sophisticated words or risk losing them. Still, the Word of God does not need to be challenged by making up different meanings. The Words which God breathed into the authors and delivered to their hands to write in the language of the day was sufficient for then to eternity. There is a tremendous difference between changing and explaining.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

2 Peter 1:3 King James Version (KJV)
3 According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue:

"All things", get it? There is no reason to use words that are not found in the bible to discuss things that pertain unto life and godliness. Big words, Latin phrases, yada yada, serve only to spread confusion, and our God is not the author of confusion.

What I don't get is big words like justification and predestined are found in the Bible, and the Bible is inspired revelation from God, from the mind of God, and people seem to think that big words are not in the vocabulary of God?!? Learning big words, serves to bring clarity, not confusion. It's actually the more simple thoughts/statements which are more likely to cause confusion, because they can often be interpreted in so many ways.

Big words are also used to condense thought and reduce redundancy. For example, instead of defining and expositing all that is entailed in the concept in every instance, the word "godliness" condenses a specific concept with a definition and contextual meaning to audiences with a pre-understanding of what godliness is.

Apologies if this is confusing, it is what it is though.

 

[Unnamed Guy]

What I don't get is big words like justification and predestined are found in the Bible, and the Bible is inspired revelation from God, from the mind of God, and people seem to think that big words are not in the vocabulary of God?!? Learning big words, serves to bring clarity, not confusion. It's actually the more simple thoughts/statements which are more likely to cause confusion, because they can often be interpreted in so many ways.

Big words are also used to condense thought and reduce redundancy. For example, instead of defining and expositing all that is entailed in the concept in every instance, the word "godliness" condenses a specific concept with a definition and contextual meaning to audiences with a pre-understanding of what godliness is.

Apologies if this is confusing, it is what it is though.

You are correct. The problem is when people use words that are not in the bible. They talk about "transsubstantiation" and "sola scriptura" and those words quickly take on meanings of their own, overshadowing the simple message of the bible, "Christ in you, the hope of glory." The entire basis of Christianity is presented in just two verses:

Romans 10:9-10 King James Version (KJV)
9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

A lot of people can't understand that because their heads are filled with big words that don't have specific meanings. Christians need to stop discussing spiritual phuclear nysics and just read their bibles.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Do you believe it is necessary to believe the divine legal implications of where we stand, that under God's law we are sinners who deserve to be punished, but Jesus came and paid that penalty in our place, and that in him by faith we are accounted righteous as a result of what he did in his life and death? For me, that's so simple that a child can understand it. I cannot see the gospel anything less than this.

I believe the bare minimum is monergistic regeneration, not an understanding of the concept, but the reality of it. Otherwise I am left in despair concerning infants whom die in infancy and the mentally handicapped and mental diseases developed later in life.

In a similar way I believe in limited atonement, particular redemption, substitutional atonement, but I have not always had this understanding of the atonement. I held to the Wesleyan understanding of the atonement, which was ingrained into my understanding from a very young age. I did not have the blessing and privilege of being brought up in the Reformed faith, in fact I knew next to nothing about it well into adulthood, and if you knew me, you would know how stubborn minded I am, how set in my understanding I can be. It's a long story, but summed up as a miracle when my eyes were opened and my understanding revised/changed. I had to come to grips with being so wrong for so many years about doctrines that are so important. However, I cannot deny that God saved me, despite the flaws and imperfections in my understanding and inconsistencies in mental ascension to the propositions. I believe God is still saving me despite myself, even though I still have these same characteristics, though I am prone to them, and am always in need of constant reminders and refreshing. Somewhere I read something about preaching the Gospel to oneself daily, probably because of the effect of sin on our memory and desires which would cause us to flee from the truth. So thankful God is greater than our hearts, thankful for His mercy which extends to all the above. God bless.

 

[Jonaitis]

If we don't properly explain how Christ atones for our sins, we cannot say we preach the proper gospel.

 

[Erik Nelson]

#12: What is Substitutionary Atonement? - Jonathan Morrow