Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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.
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 Hoy 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
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'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?
Justification came through Christ's death, not his resurrection. Being justified, we live through his life.
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.
The Bible says that Jesus was raised for our justification (Romans 4:25).
It says he was raised through, or on account of (διά, dia) our justification. not for (the purpose of) our justification. His death and blood are what justify us.
ος παρεδόθη διά τα παραπτώματα ημών και ηγέρθη διά την δικαίωσιν ημών Romans 4:25G1223 διά dia (dee-ah') prep.
1. through
I agree that to use either model to the absolute exclusion of the other dilutes (or conceals part of) the whole truth. There is an element of some legal aspect in Orthodox understanding. But the medical model indeed prevails. It was quite prevalent in the writings of the ECfs.I actually think the Orthodox prefer a "medical" model because it disguises the mechanism of the religion. Its hard to argue with somebody who claims to be a doctor who only wants to help.
Medical or forensic models aren't good or bad, it just depends on how they are used and whether they are over-reified to the exclusion of other themes.
It says he was raised through, or on account of (διά, dia) our justification, not for (the purpose of) our justification. His death and blood are what justify us.
ος παρεδόθη διά τα παραπτώματα ημών και ηγέρθη διά την δικαίωσιν ημών Romans 4:25G1223 διά dia (dee-ah') prep.
1. through
Greek prepositions are slippery things. dia can either accompany a genitive object or accusative object. In the case of an accusative object (as την δικαίωσιν is accusative), it takes the sense of a causal preposition. It should be rendered "because of", "on account of", or (preferably) "for the sake of".
It's saying that Jesus was raised for the sake of our justification.
NASB - ...was raised because of our justification.
NIV - ...was raised to life for our justification.
KJV - ...was raised again for our justification.
ESV - ...raised for our justification.
This also makes contextual and grammatical sense. It makes sense to say that Jesus was raised so that we could be justified. It's unclear what it would mean to say that Jesus was raised through our justification.
IMHO, we should always be clear that the blood of Jesus makes us right with God.
For the sake of doesn't work. That completely inverts the meaning and function of dia. Because of (NASB) does work, but its the complete opposite of for the sake of (the other 3 translations).
If you're going to use that kind of reasoning then you have to apply the same rule to what precedes that clause and conclude that Christ was delivered for the sake of our offenses, which is nonsensical. He was delivered on account of our sins, not for their sake.
I don't believe that dia needs to take the same sense in both clauses, but fair point. Still, if we go with your rendering, Jesus' resurrection and our justification are very closely linked in Romans 4:25.
Here are some examples in the NT when dia means "for the sake of"...
Matthew 10:22 - "and you will be hated by all for my name's sake."
Matthew 13:3 - "For Herod had seized John and bound him and put him in prison for the sake of Herodias, his brother Philip's wife."
Mark 2:27 - "And he said to them, 'The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath."
John 1:31 - "I myself did not know him, but for this purpose I came baptizing with water, that he might be revealed to Israel."
1 Corinthians 11:9 - "Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man."
I could go on. There are roughly 75 instances of dia in the NT which should be rendered "for the sake of". It's certainly possible in Romans 4:25.
Technically, there would be no justification without the resurrection because Jesus had to apply his blood to the mercy seat.
Every one of your verse examples makes sense using through (though the translations you provided don't always make that clear). For example, woman was created through the existence of man, not vice versa. I think that's the key about dia; something is done through something that already exists.
2 Corinthians 8:9 - "For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sake he became poor, so that you by his poverty might become rich."
If Christ did not resurrect that means He sinned and therefore could not overcome death. If He sinned, His death would not have been able to pay for our sins. But because He didn’t sin, He overcame death and rose again. Which means He died without sin and the blood He sacrificed was holy and therefore acceptable as payment for the sin of the world.
I agree that to use either model to the absolute exclusion of the other dilutes (or conceals part of) the whole truth. There is an element of some legal aspect in Orthodox understanding. But the medical model indeed prevails. It was quite prevalent in the writings of the ECfs.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?