A problem with substitutionary atonement

Galatians 5:19-21, Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these: Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviiousness, Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

justbyfaith said:

Christ was indeed punished instead of us; and that is simply what sound doctrine would say to all of us.

Click to expand...

That is totally unjust and contrary to the justice spoken about in scripture. (punishing the innocent).
Being crucified with Christ is participating in the atonement process, while Christ being crucified instead of you is not participative, so were you not crucified with Christ?

Christ being crucified for me is not unjust, it is God satisfying His justice by punishing my sins in Christ so that He can show me mercy instead of giving me the just penalty of what I deserve; and still show justice in that my sins have indeed been punished in Christ dying on the Cross. Remember that the preaching of the Cross is foolishness to them that perish. 1 Corinthians 1:18-21.

My being crucified with Christ has to do with my sanctification (e.g. Galatians 5:24); whereas Christ being crucified for me has to do with my justification (1 Corinthians 15:1-4, Romans 5:9).

justbyfaith said:

Christ being crucified for me is not unjust, it is God satisfying His justice by punishing my sins in Christ so that He can show me mercy instead of giving me the just penalty of what I deserve; and still show justice in that my sins have indeed been punished in Christ dying on the Cross. Remember that the preaching of the Cross is foolishness to them that perish. 1 Corinthians 1:18-21.

Click to expand...

What do you mean by “for” in the first line? There is only one Greek word in scripture “anti” (used only 22 times in the NT) that can be translated sometimes “instead of” (but is also translated: payment for, because of, in exchange for and other ways) and “anti” is only used twice in the context of the atonement sacrifice and that is Jesus talking about being the ransom payment ( Matt. 20:28 and 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.” The idea of the ransom payment is great and would fit “payment for” and in “exchange for”, better than “instead of”. Jesus died “for” our sins where “for” means “because of”. The ransom is an excellent fit if you chose the right criminal kidnapper being offered the ransom payment.

No one does unjust things to “satisfy justice”, since that would be a miss use of justice.

How can you punish “sins” (sin does not have feelings), since it is the sinner needing punishment or forgiveness and just discipline?

How does God being described as being totally unjust show His righteousness and how is it merciful to me to not receive all the benefits of just/fair/Loving discipline?

Those who do not accept (for lack of faith) God’s Loving/just disciplining by being crucified with Christ do see Christ’s crucifixion as a huge waste.

justbyfaith said:

My being crucified with Christ has to do with my sanctification (e.g. Galatians 5:24); whereas Christ being crucified for me has to do with my justification (1 Corinthians 15:1-4, Romans 5:9).

Click to expand...

(like on earth) To stand by your Loving father after you have been rebelliously disobedient and without fear, is to feel and know you are justified and that comes to a child only after he humbly accepted fair/just/Loving participative discipline from a Loving father. Once you have done the time for the crime you can feel justified. Paul points out the fact in Ro. 3:25 when he contrasts the situation before and after the cross, since after the cross we can be “punished” (disciplined) and this shows God’s righteousness.

That Jesus died in our place is a major aspect of the gospel of our salvation.

To deny it is to deny the gospel, and to forfeit salvation impaho.

Rubiks said:

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?

Click to expand...

Have you read this ?

Hebrews 8:1 "The MAIN POINT is this..."

That is the key to your question.

The "Atonement" process (as defined in Leviticus 16) has to include NOT ONLY the death of what the text calls "the Lord's goat... the sin offering" but also the ministry of the High Priest applying the blood of the sacrifice in the sanctuary after the sin offering had been slain.

Hebrews 8:1 "The main point" is said to be the work of Christ in heaven as our High Priest - in the heavenly sanctuary... applying the benefits of his blood to the repentant sinner.

And without that all-important component in Atonement the "atoning sacrifice" alone would not be applied to even one sinner.

Thus as 1 John 2:2 says (NIV) "He is the Atoning Sacrifice for our sins and not for our sins only - but also for the sins of the whole world" --

And that blood of atonement can only be applied to each one of us - by our High Priest - Jesus Christ who was resurrected and ascended to heaven to take on the role that Hebrews 8 and 9 describe.

justbyfaith said:

Christ was punished, although He was innocent, not for His own sin, but for ours. This is a major tenet of the gospel by which we are saved. Reject it, and one is not saved impaho.

1 Corinthians 15:1-4 is key. It is the gospel/good news in a nutshell.

Click to expand...

True - but the bigger picture here is the "definition" of atonement according to the Bible. Day of Atonement -- Lev 16 says it includes BOTH the work of Christ as the Lamb of God -- AND the work of Christ as High Priest.

Too many denominations get it truncated.

bling said:

This verse does not say anything about Christ being made guilty and being punished instead of us.

Click to expand...

"Sin offering" is the word you are looking for.
"An offering for sin" -- the "sin offering".

Isaiah 53
6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.

7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.

8 He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.
...
10 Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand.

1 John 2:2 "He is the atoning sacrifice for our sin and not for our sin only but for the sins of the whole world"

1 Cor 5 "Christ our Passover has been sacrificed"
2 Cor 5 "He made Him who knew no sin -- to become sin in our behalf that we might be the righteousness of God - in Him"

bling said:

The word “for” is the Greek: hypér (a preposition) – properly, beyond (above); (figuratively) to extend benefit (help) that reaches beyond the present situation.

It does not convey the idea of “instead of” but the idea of “because of” and “instead of” would not work in this verse.

bling said:

Christ was always innocent so he was not being punished, but tortured, humiliated and murdered because of us to benefit us.

Click to expand...

How would injustice to Christ benefit us in the least?


Have you read this ?

Hebrews 8:1 "The MAIN POINT is this..."
That is the key to the answer to your question.

Click to expand...

About Hebrews. Read it carefully and ask what kind of sacrifice it's talking about? This is described in 9:18-22. It's a covenant sacrifice, not a sin sacrifice. Hebrews refers to the sacrifices by Moses to establish the first covenant, Ex 24:8 (quoted in Heb 9:20). But of course Jesus' death establishes the new covenant of Jer 31:31, quoted in 8:8 and 10:18. The sacrifices for sin operating within the first covenant didn't take away sins (according to the author, at least). But the new covenant does, because it changes our hearts. The wording in Heb 9 is very close to the words of institution, which also talk about Jesus' death as a covenant sacrifice.

Heb 9:15 ff also echoes Paul's argument in Rom 6:7, which has nothing to do with punishment. Rather, Paul argues that anyone who has died is beyond sin. So we who die with Christ are beyond sin and then rise with him to new life.

justbyfaith said:

No, He couldn't have. It is not possible that the blood of goats and calves should take away sins, Hebrews 10:4.

Click to expand...

My proposal is that God COULD have planed it so that animal sacrifices would be sufficient. What you ignore in my argument is that God planed for Jesus to die for our sins since creation. So Hebrews 10:4 explains that plan AFTER Jesus' death. Before Jesus, people were happy to sacrifice animals so that in their mind they would be forgiven of sins. And they were forgiven. IF God wanted, all of scripture COULD have been written to such a plan. Yes, God did have a different plan, but God was not forced into such a plan as if Satan had a hold on God and God had to pay him a debt. C.S. Lewis and his lion making a deal with the Witch to get Edmund off the hook is a most troubling example of amateurs trying to retell what God has written.

My argument is that Jesus' death was a better (for us) symbol of God's justice and love. It is through Jesus' death that he was made perfect, hardly the words to use for SA idea of God punishing him. If you think Hebrews 10 instructive, then read verses 15-18 to think about Jesus death being a covenant that brings forgiveness of sins, which means they are not remembered.



Then also read chapters 7,8 and 9 to learn of the importance of a better covenant in Jesus' death.

Of course we can't ignore Jesus' words and the institution of the Lord's Supper as a sacrament where we remember this new covenant.

So scripture teaches Jesus' death to be about a new covenant. This is the Gospel, the message of the cross, where sacrifice and weakness are used to build something great. The covenant defines a new relationship between God and his people. It is not a purely accounting of debt being paid by another.

justbyfaith said:

Indeed He was. He was God in the flesh; and because God is infinite in His nature, He as a singular Person could have, and did, take on the fulness of the punishment of every sin ever committed.

Click to expand...

You are in error to think that Jesus died taking on the fullness of the punishment of every sin. If so then God would not ever punish the saved, but scripture teaches the God does punish/discipline his Church, Hebrews 12, James 5, 1 Cor 11. People forget that there is punishment in this age and punishment in the next age. Jesus death only guarantees forgiveness of sin in the next age. If SA was true, there could be no punishment of sins in this age as you seem to think there is not.

Now, on the details of SA, the punishment is as you say the same as we all would get. That would mean that God inflicts the punishment, which scripture does not say. God can not punish himself.

That would also mean that Jesus would have to suffer the same punishment of eternal death that the damned get, not so.

Here is the thing, people do not go to hell because of sin, they go to hell because they reject God, which is the only unforgivable sin. So sin and the punishment of sin are more accounting for those that reject God. Sin is not a means to a destination.

justbyfaith said:

Christ was indeed punished instead of us; and that is simply what sound doctrine would say to all of us.

Click to expand...

But scripture does not say it as you put it. No where does scripture say that God punished Jesus. It says Jesus died for our sins and Jesus takes away our sins. It does not say he was punished just as the damned will be as a substitute for us. Jesus died for us is a symbolic way of saying Jesus suffered because sin requires a price to be paid to right it. The price paid to cancel a debt is another analogy for what Jesus did, but it does not require the exact punishment to be substituted on Christ. Scripture also uses forgiveness and canceling of debt, which in no way teaches a substitution punishment. When I forgive one for hitting me, do I have to hit myself to forgive him? No.

hedrick said:

About Hebrews. Read it carefully and ask what kind of sacrifice it's talking about? This is described in 9:18-22. It's a covenant sacrifice, not a sin sacrifice. Hebrews refers to the sacrifices by Moses to establish the first covenant, Ex 24:8 (quoted in Heb 9:20). But of course Jesus' death establishes the new covenant of Jer 31:31, quoted in 8:8 and 10:18. The sacrifices for sin operating within the first covenant didn't take away sins (according to the author, at least). But the new covenant does, because it changes our hearts. The wording in Heb 9 is very close to the words of institution, which also talk about Jesus' death as a covenant sacrifice.

Click to expand...

Good for you to bring up covenant sacrifices. Covenants are not just about sacrifices, but as the rainbow testifies a covenant is a sign of a promise/relationship between God and man. The Gospel is built on a new covenant. We remember the new covenant with the sacrament of the Lord's Supper. The Gospel and new covenant teach that we imitate Jesus with his Spirit in our hearts. Doing so we receive God's grace and forgiveness as opposed to the salvation by obeying the rules of the OT law.

So many focus on Jesus' death as being the mechanism of our salvation through the forgiveness of sins. I wish the Church would also look to Jesus' death as the ultimate expression of two of God's qualities: just and loving. When scripture teaches us to live is Christ, it teaches us to be weak and suffer for the glory of God.

Long story short, Jesus death is not just about taking away our punishment. Of course SA will miss this.

bling said:

That is totally unjust and contrary to the justice spoken about in scripture. (punishing the innocent).

Click to expand...

I think you should consider the story in Genesis 44 and specifically verse 33. Benjamin had the cup of Joseph in his sack and would have to pay the penalty of becoming Joseph's slave. But Judah interceded for him, telling Joseph of how he had told his father that if Benjamin were lost, he would take the blame for ever; and asked that he (Judah) might be Joseph's slave instead of Benjamin. Now in the story this whole thing leads to Joseph revealing himself to his brothers, and in the story no one has to become a slave. But if Joseph had accepted Judah's offer to take Benjamin's place, do you think it would have been unjust? I don't.

AnticipateHisComing said:

You are in error to think that Jesus died taking on the fullness of the punishment of every sin.

Click to expand...

You are in error to think that He didn't!

AnticipateHisComing said:

God can not punish himself.

Click to expand...

Says who? He did exactly that. The Father became the Son, and also punished Himself as the Son, as the Father "before" he became the Son.

AnticipateHisComing said:

That would also mean that Jesus would have to suffer the same punishment of eternal death that the damned get,...

Click to expand...

Yes, of course; and since He is the infinite God, He was able to bear this burden for all of us, which every one of us singularily were incapable of bearing, because we are finite and He is infinite; therefore He was able to take the punishment for a thousand trillion souls upon Himself, and more!

AnticipateHisComing said:

Here is the thing, people do not go to hell because of sin,

Click to expand...

The scriptures say otherwise.

For the wages of sin is death (eternal separation from God), Romans 6:23a.

justbyfaith said:

I think you should consider the story in Genesis 44 and specifically verse 33. Benjamin had the cup of Joseph in his sack and would have to pay the penalty of becoming Joseph's slave. But Judah interceded for him, telling Joseph of how he had told his father that if Benjamin were lost, he would take the blame for ever; and asked that he (Judah) might be Joseph's slave instead of Benjamin. Now in the story this whole thing leads to Joseph revealing himself to his brothers, and in the story no one has to become a slave. But if Joseph had accepted Judah's offer to take Benjamin's place, do you think it would have been unjust? I don't.

Click to expand...

Joseph is not God. Judah is not God. Benjamin is not God. It was unjust for Joseph to trick his brothers and to make Benjamin a slave. If Joseph would have taken Judah, he would have been a fool of a lord. Regardless, your example is but a contrived attempt to show scripture of penal substitution. Please try again.

AnticipateHisComing said:

You are in error to think that Jesus died taking on the fullness of the punishment of every sin. If so then God would not ever punish the saved, but scripture teaches the God does punish/discipline his Church, Hebrews 12, James 5, 1 Cor 11. People forget that there is punishment in this age and punishment in the next age. Jesus death only guarantees forgiveness of sin in the next age. If SA was true, there could be no punishment of sins in this age as you seem to think there is not.

Click to expand...

justbyfaith said:

You are in error to think that He didn't!

Click to expand...

Your statement means nothing because it is unsupported opinion. I referenced scripture that shows God still punishes those in the Church. You did not even attempt to refute what I wrote and the scripture that I quoted.

AnticipateHisComing said:

Now, on the details of SA, the punishment is as you say the same as we all would get. That would mean that God inflicts the punishment, which scripture does not say. God can not punish himself.

Click to expand...

justbyfaith said:

Says who? He did exactly that. The Father became the Son, and also punished Himself as the Son, as the Father "before" he became the Son.

Click to expand...

Scripture says who. You have been asked repeatedly to show scripture that says God punished Jesus. Not there, so you just ignore that question. What scripture says is that Jesus suffered at the hand of people.


As to your statement that "the Father became the Son", I thought you had to agree with the Nicene Creed to post here.

justbyfaith said:

Yes, of course; and since He is the infinite God, He was able to bear this burden for all of us, which every one of us singularily were incapable of bearing, because we are finite and He is infinite; therefore He was able to take the punishment for a thousand trillion souls upon Himself, and more!

Click to expand...

What convenient invention, but scripture does not say what you are so convinced of. It should be obvious that Jesus did not spend an eternity in hell. I say he never even went to hell. You offer only conjecture that Jesus as God, the mere physical death of an innocent person is equal to an eternity in hell of all people.

AnticipateHisComing said:

Here is the thing, people do not go to hell because of sin, they go to hell because they reject God, which is the only unforgivable sin. So sin and the punishment of sin are more accounting for those that reject God. Sin is not a means to a destination.

Click to expand...

justbyfaith said:

The scriptures say otherwise.

For the wages of sin is death (eternal separation from God), Romans 6:23a.

Click to expand...

If you are trying to quote scripture to refute my statement that sin causes us to go to hell, then you should find scripture that supports your argument, not mine. "The wages of sin is death" means that all people are destined to hell, because all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. Your half quote of a verse only proves my point, because we know that all do not end up in hell. So in some cases the wages of sin does not result in condemnation. That is because of God's mercy given to those that have faith in him. It is as I stated that our sins do not determine our salvation, but our faith.

I think that the tag on this thread, omg_heretic, says it all.

The doctrine of the subsitutionary atonement is one of the highest essentials of the faith. End of story.

I have tried to convince you of this at least twice; so now I think that obedience to the word would have me to reject you as an heretic according to Titus 3:10-11.

You are subverted and sinning, being condemned of yourself.

Sorry, I'm eating a Milky Way (TM). Not really.

justbyfaith said:

That Jesus died in our place is a major aspect of the gospel of our salvation.

To deny it is to deny the gospel, and to forfeit salvation impaho.

Click to expand...

Penal Substitution has the following huge issues:

1. Unjust and unfair (God is seeing to the torture, humiliation and murder of the innocent and allowing the guilty to go free.

2. Has God seeing to the torture humiliation and murder of Christ (punishes Christ), this make God out to be very cruel.

3. Makes God out to be blood thirsty, yet God would have personally preferred Christ’s blood to remain flowing through his veins.

4. There is no logical part for man to play, the idea of man needing “faith” is just an add on after the atonement process has been completed.

5. It is not participative but passive “Christ was crucified so I do not have to be” v.s. “Christ was crucified so I must be crucified”.

6. If Christ is paying it all, so there would be nothing to forgive.

7. All the benefits from being lovingly fairly justly disciplined are lost with PS. (deterrent for the sinner and others, a wonderful learning experience, Knowing God is your Father, a measuring of the offence, a way to put the offence behind you, and a way to draw the offender closer to the Parent.)

8. PS mean’s universal atonement was completed for everyone (all were atoned for so all should be saved, by following this scenario).

9. Peter does not mention it in his wonderful Christ Crucified sermon on Pentecost, so according to PS: Peter left off the most “major aspect of the gospel”, when it could have been easily added.

10. The sin sacrifices of a bag of flour in the OT would be hard to be seen as a substitute.

11. There are others at the cross who fit me a sinner better than Christ.

12. The idea is we are crucified “with” Christ is found a lot in the NT.

13. PS does not explain how atonement is a ransom scenario especially the kidnapper, leaving it unaddressed or making God the criminal kidnapper. .

14. The emphasis is on a problem God is having and not man’s problem being solved. Does God have an anger problem?

15. It does not fit lots of scripture especially Ro. 3:25

16. PS emphasizes God’s wrath as the problem to be “solved” with the injustice of crucifying Christ and makes up the answer to God problem as being the torture, humiliation and murder of Christ.

17. We experience our need for being crucified with Christ as being fair just loving discipline from God and we experience the cleansing of our hearts from Christ’s blood made available to us with communion, so we are changed, but does God need to change and can God change? Reconciliation is needed but it is us who need to change and be reconciled to God and not God needing to “change” (turn His wrath away from His child, who have not made a change).

God’s wrath is not upon us, not because God was changed, but because we have fairly/justly/Lovingly gone through being disciplined (crucified) for our sins, so we come out on the other side different.

Yes God was dissatisfied with the system for reconciling His children prior to the cross (Ro.3:25), but after the cross we can be justly/fairly punished (disciplined) by being crucified with Christ.

justbyfaith said:

I think you should consider the story in Genesis 44 and specifically verse 33. Benjamin had the cup of Joseph in his sack and would have to pay the penalty of becoming Joseph's slave. But Judah interceded for him, telling Joseph of how he had told his father that if Benjamin were lost, he would take the blame for ever; and asked that he (Judah) might be Joseph's slave instead of Benjamin. Now in the story this whole thing leads to Joseph revealing himself to his brothers, and in the story no one has to become a slave. But if Joseph had accepted Judah's offer to take Benjamin's place, do you think it would have been unjust? I don't.
.

Click to expand...

It is a very warm loving story, but as the story points out: Joseph, being a just ruler, did not accept the offer of an “innocent” person taking the place of a perceived guilty person (who was innocent in Judah’s opinion (he believed Benjamin)). If Benjamin had confessed to being guilty, Judah could have still offered to take Benjamin’s place, because Judah is the oldest and would have had partial responsibility for whatever Benjamin did. As parents we sometimes are responsible for our children’s behavior.

In penal substitution especially with Christ: We are truly guilty and Christ is truly innocent. Christ can in no way take any part of the blame for our sins, so he should feel no responsibility of our sinning (while a parent or Judah might feel somewhat partially responsible).

AnticipateHisComing said:

Jesus was not punished, certainly not by God. Jesus suffered according to God's plan.

Revelation 13:8 All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast—all whose names have not been written in the Lamb’s book of life, the Lamb who was slain from the creation of the world.

All that quote some OT rule on the atonement process need to realize that the rules written in the OT only define God's plan, not an absolute requirement that God is bound to follow. God could have been satisfied with animal sacrifices, but he knew a better (for us) plan was for his Son to die for us, John 15:13.

Jesus' death is the best example of God's qualities, just love. He is just and sin is an offense to be punished. His love is greater than we can imagine.

To take a verse that says Christ died for our sins and insist that it dictates SA reads too much into a simple text. Jesus was not punished equally to the sum of punishment deserved by every sin committed by all those going to heaven. How could we ever balance suffering by God to any amount of punishment we deserve for all our sins?

Click to expand...

Missed this going out to me also:

You really need to read my previous post especially 64, 71 and 73 to get us started.

In this post you say: “God could have been satisfied with animal sacrifices…” which I do not agree with but for different reasons. God does everything absolutely the best way, so when we talk about “God being satisfied”, God is never “satisfied” with anything less than the best thing He can do for us.

Christ’s coming and being tortured, humiliated and murdered “because” (for) us was at the best time, place and done the best way for us.

God does not personally “need” anything to be satisfied, but is satisfied with doing the very best for those who are willing to accept His help. The cross is for our sake.

I never like the phrase: “sin is an offense to be punished” or “Christ died for our sins”, since sin has no feeling and cannot be “punished”, but it is the sinner needing punishment or just/fair discipline (the same Greek word often translated “punishment”).

The Greek words translated “for” in the English have lots of issues:

There are many Greek words in this context which we translate with the English word "for." They include peri (which means "about" or "concerning"), dia ("because of" or "on account of"), and by far the most common, huper ("for," "on behalf of," or "for the sake of").


None of these prepositions necessarily invokes the meaning "in the place of." Hence the exact relationship between Christ's death and our salvation is not so clearly conveyed in any of these verses. That Jesus died "on account of" us and our sins is clear, but the Greek words translated "for" do not of themselves spell out a doctrine of Atonement.

The Greek word “anti” can be translated “instead of” but does not have to and you can check out how it is used the 22 times it is found in the NT. Anti is used twice in relationship to Atonement. The term is used solely in Matthew 20:28 and Mark 10:45, verses. There Jesus' death is described as being an actual ransom payment (and not like a ransom payment), so a word normally implying (in exchange or payment for) would be natural. The issue still remains because the ransom payment is not made to God the criminal kidnapper, but to sinful man holding the child within him from the Kingdom.

Jesus is not “punished” at all but when through all this to help us with our need for just/fair/loving discipline.

BobRyan said:

"Sin offering" is the word you are looking for.
"An offering for sin" -- the "sin offering".

Isaiah 53
6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.

7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.

8 He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.
...
10 Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand.

1 John 2:2 "He is the atoning sacrifice for our sin and not for our sin only but for the sins of the whole world"

1 Cor 5 "Christ our Passover has been sacrificed"
2 Cor 5 "He made Him who knew no sin -- to become sin in our behalf that we might be the righteousness of God - in Him"

Click to expand...

You pasted lots of verses with no explanation or interpretation of those verses, so what verse do you want to begin with and how are you understanding the verse?

2 Corinthians 5:21,

"He made Him who knew no sin to be sin "on our behalf",

that we might become the righteousness of God IN Him."

That does not say: “We have taken on Christ’s righteousness”, but does say Christ’s suffering sacrifice because of our sins, allows us (we might) become righteous (this is like those in the OT were righteous because of their faith and not because of Christ’s righteousness).

Where your translation says: “to be sin” other Bible translations provide you with this alternative “to be a sin offering”. The Greek word translated “sin” carries the mean of something about sin, since we do not know from the context in this verse what this means we cannot be sure, but we do know in the Greek OT, it is translated “sin offering” some times in the English.

If it is not “sin offering” then did Jesus become the intangible “sin” or become “sinful” or sinner or what? It certainly does not say: “Jesus took the place of the sinful person”.

justbyfaith said:

Galatians 5:19-21, Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these: Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviiousness, Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

Click to expand...

justbyfaith said:

I think that the tag on this thread, omg_heretic, says it all.

The doctrine of the subsitutionary atonement is one of the highest essentials of the faith. End of story.

I have tried to convince you of this at least twice; so now I think that obedience to the word would have me to reject you as an heretic according to Titus 3:10-11.

You are subverted and sinning, being condemned of yourself.

Click to expand...

If you were only one of authority to be able to dictate what was true and what was heresy. Maybe you have pope envy. Regardless, your ability to defend what you profess with scripture is lacking. Instead of refuting what I wrote, you post talk of heresies. I laugh at every one that brings up the heresy charge to shut down an argument they are loosing. I think they tried the same with Martin Luther.

BTW, there are multiple "doctrines"/understandings on SA. Why, because there is no clear direction from scripture to support exactly any one of them. So they argue amongst themselves that theirs is the best match for scripture. This is a hint that there is a problem with the doctrine.

There is something the various churches have in agreement. That is the Nicene Creed which is the SOF to be held by those that participate here. But, the one who accuses heresy says something at odds with the most widely accepted SOF.

justbyfaith said:

The Father became the Son, and also punished Himself as the Son, as the Father "before" he became the Son.

Click to expand...

bling said:

Penal Substitution has the following huge issues:

1.
17.

Yes God was dissatisfied with the system for reconciling His children prior to the cross (Ro.3:25), but after the cross we can be justly/fairly punished (disciplined) by being crucified with Christ.

Click to expand...

The most obvious argument against Penal Substitution is that it did not remove all punishment from God against his elect. Jesus death certainly did effect our eternal salvation, but often the Church is punished in this age to discipline us.

AnticipateHisComing said:

The most obvious argument against Penal Substitution is that it did not remove all punishment from God against his elect. Jesus death certainly did effect our eternal salvation, but often the Church is punished in this age to discipline us.

Click to expand...

We can be further disciplined (trained, taught, Parented, instructed) in this age beyond the punishment (discipline) for our personal rebellious disobedience while we were sinners.
Do you believe God forgave your sins 100%?
Wonderful Loving parents have no problem forgiving their rebellious disobedient children (like God), but that does not relieve the parent (and God) of needing, if at all possible, the disciplining of those repentant accepting children.

bling said:

You really need to read my previous post especially 64, 71 and 73 to get us started.

Click to expand...

I agree with your rejection of penal substitution. I don't go along with you alternative ransom theory. I believe I have argued this with you before, so I don't need to get started on it again.

bling said:

In this post you say: “God could have been satisfied with animal sacrifices…” which I do not agree with but for different reasons. God does everything absolutely the best way, so when we talk about “God being satisfied”, God is never “satisfied” with anything less than the best thing He can do for us.

Click to expand...

So you agree that the plan we got was one of many possibilities. We are in agreement that Jesus' death is a better plan for atonement than animal sacrifices. What you don't acknowledge is that animal sacrifices sufficed for a while just as the old covenant/law sufficed for a while. If you profess that the new covenant is better than the old, then why wait thousands of years for it? Wouldn't the best plan for God's people be the introduction of the the better covenant as early as possible?

I don't agree that God must always do what is best for us. Romans 9 certainly says some do not get the best deal. And, I think there is a Psalm that says God does not need us for anything.

bling said:

Christ’s coming and being tortured, humiliated and murdered “because” (for) us was at the best time, place and done the best way for us.

Click to expand...

I wonder about Matthew 1:17 calling out three periods of 14 generations from Abraham to Jesus. Regardless, Ephesians says God's plan was for his good pleasure, not ours.

bling said:

God does not personally “need” anything to be satisfied, but is satisfied with doing the very best for those who are willing to accept His help. The cross is for our sake.

Click to expand...

God does have requirements that need to be satisfied for salvation. If not you end up with universal salvation which ignores the justness quality of God. I certainly agree the cross was for our sake.

bling said:

I never like the phrase: “sin is an offense to be punished” or “Christ died for our sins”, since sin has no feeling and cannot be “punished”, but it is the sinner needing punishment or just/fair discipline (the same Greek word often translated “punishment”).

Click to expand...

I agree that sinners are punished, not sins. But, this is implied with offenses requiring an offender and "our" in "our sins" both referring to people that commit sins. My using "sin is an offense that needs to be punished" is right in line with "The wages of sin is death". I used the words to call out the justness quality of God. Justice is punishing the wicked.

bling said:

The Greek words translated “for” in the English have lots of issues:

There are many Greek words in this context which we translate with the English word "for." They include peri (which means "about" or "concerning"), dia ("because of" or "on account of"), and by far the most common, huper ("for," "on behalf of," or "for the sake of").


None of these prepositions necessarily invokes the meaning "in the place of." Hence the exact relationship between Christ's death and our salvation is not so clearly conveyed in any of these verses. That Jesus died "on account of" us and our sins is clear, but the Greek words translated "for" do not of themselves spell out a doctrine of Atonement.

The Greek word “anti” can be translated “instead of” but does not have to and you can check out how it is used the 22 times it is found in the NT. Anti is used twice in relationship to Atonement. The term is used solely in Matthew 20:28 and Mark 10:45, verses. There Jesus' death is described as being an actual ransom payment (and not like a ransom payment), so a word normally implying (in exchange or payment for) would be natural. The issue still remains because the ransom payment is not made to God the criminal kidnapper, but to sinful man holding the child within him from the Kingdom.

Click to expand...

I thank you for your work on the Greek, but it is all Greek to me and do not think it necessary to be Greek scholars to read the Bible in English. There is enough repetition of concepts stated multiple ways in the Bible so that the doctrines God would have us to know could be known. Atonement is mentioned numerous times in scripture. It is compared to a ransom. It is compared to a debt being paid. It is sometimes just being forgiven/forgotten. My problem is that the various SA explanations and others, including your emphasis on ransom, don't fit in with all that scripture speaks to the subject.

I have to stick with my idea that Jesus death was an act that demonstrated two of God's qualities, justness and love.

Romans 3:5 God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— 26 he did it to demonstrate his righteousness at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.

bling said:

Jesus is not “punished” at all but when through all this to help us with our need for just/fair/loving discipline.

Click to expand...

So many treat Jesus' death as a mechanism for forgiveness. SA really emphasizes this legalistic accounting. While Jesus death did effect forgiveness, his death doesn't just satisfy a just requirement of the Father, it is as you describe for our help and benefit.

Jesus' death is the basis of the new covenant which is a better covenant to bring the message of God's grace and glory to the world.