Article: what is wrong the substitutionary theory of atonement.

JohnT · Jul 20, 2008

BOO HOO!!!

No one read my cut and paste. (Perhaps no one here is sufficiently smart to understand it! )

The question essentially boils down to to two questions:

1) What is the NATURE of the Atonement?
2) What is the EXTENT of the Atonement?

Asking what is its nature, we are first asking what was its original purpose, and we look to the Ot for that.

Made by Animal sacrifices: 
Ex. 29:36;
Lev. 1:4; 
Lev. 4:1315, 17, 18, 20, 2235; 
Lev. 5:610; 
Lev. 6:7; 
Lev. 9:7; 
Lev. 10:17; 
Lev. 12:68; 
Lev. 14:1232; Lev. 16:6, 10, 11, 1519, 2434; 
Lev. 17:11; 
Lev. 19:22;
Num. 15:2228;
Num. 28:30 v. 22;; 
Num. 29:5, 10, 11. 
Heb. 9:22

(Swanson, J., & Nave, O. (1994) New Nave's.)

After you study that, (and I expect all of you to do so) we have to look at the particular Day of Atonement, for that is a prefiguring shadow or type of permanent Atonement, the antitype.

Day of Atonement:

the great annual day of humiliation and expiation for the sins of the nation, the fast (Acts 27:9), and the only one commanded in the law of Moses. The mode of its observance is described in Lev. 16:310; 23:2632; and Num. 29:711.

It was kept on the tenth day of the month Tisri, i.e., five days before the feast of Tabernacles, and lasted from sunset to sunset.

(Easton, M. (1996, c1897). Easton's Bible dictionary.)

Then we must discover what the NT says about the Atonement; it can never be less than what we discovered in the OT, and must also be more than the OT.

For example, there is ample evidences that God spared His people in the Plagues, and at other times, by enforcing the Kosher Laws, and he said "None of these diseases shall come upon you". But healing was never a part of the OT Atonement. Prevention (via kosher) was foremost, but not healing.

Nevertheless when we read Isaiah 53, we see a clear picture of Messiah. None of us have problem with the "He was bruised for our transgressions" part, but the following part is troubling, "and by his stripes you were healed" Matthew, Luke and Peter repeat that verse in part and make reference to "By his stripes you were healed" Matt 8:17, Luke 4:18 and 1 Peter2:24.

OK, that is one issue to work on. Please do your homework, OK?

StormyOne · Jul 20, 2008

lol JohnT has jokes.... thanks for sharing your perspective..... I hope that someone follows your directives and gets that homework done....

Xenon · Jul 20, 2008

StormyOne said:
and how do you know what God wants? Need we go through the laundry list of horrendous things done by people who said they were using the bible and had God's permission? I would submit that as often as it has been used for good, it has been used for evil... I understand your view, I just don't share it....

I completely agree with you. Way too many people have done unrighteous things in the name of God. But you have to compare their deeds with what the bible actually says. Does a lynch mob who slow roasts lawbreakers on a spit (a specific case was referenced by Mark Twain in speaking against "righteousness") in the name of righteous judgment have a biblical leg to stand on? Given how much the bible says to have mercy, forgiveness, and love, I'd say no.

Honestly, I don't really listen if anyone calls themselves a Christian anymore. All you have to do is look at how they act, see if it satisfies "You shall love your neighbor as yourself," and you'll know. But I can see where you come from too. I just see it as a matter of separating God's word from what someone actually does.

Edit: Whoops! This thread has a totally different topic than this. Sorry to derail; I'll leave now....

JohnT · Jul 20, 2008

The Atonement (part 2): Its Extent.

When we look at the extent of the atonement, we must recognize that there are two entities, God and Man involved in addition to the Mediator, Christ Himself. It is God, who is angry at the sins of humankind, and it is humankind who broke Gods laws, and now justly deserving eternal punishment. Therefore, there is no inherent good in humankind, for all have sinned, and fallen short of the glory of God..

Since there is inherently nothing good in us whereby we can be saved, (TOTAL DEPRAVITY) we can do nothing to save ourselves. This is why any sort of Pelagianism, or semi-Pelagianism is a heresy. It assumes that there are certain meritorious works we can do, even if unregenerate, to make God love us more, or be less angry at our sinning.

This view is in error for two reasons:
PRIMARY is that it is not prefigured in the OT
Secondary if X is required to be done, are we not sure that it is actually X+1 or X+5, 9 etc? That is WORKS, pure and simple. And it is mixing something like soiled menstrual garments with the holy, incorruptible Atonement of Jesus Christ.

To insist on works is to insist that Jesus was insufficient on the cross. It is like standing at the foot of the cross, seeing our naked Savior slowly die, and shout out, Do more for us, Jesus; it is not enough!

This is further shown as a heresy in the fact that the Passover remembers the death of the firstborn in Egypt, and the sanctuary of being passed over by the Angel of Death to EVERY house that had blood covering the posts and lintel (a sign of the cross) irrespective of who was inside the blood-painted entrance. That also prefigures the sovereign, UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION of God. Only those in that particular house were spared regardless of role, or nationality or previous works; all others had the death of each firstborn (generations often were in the same dwelling).

In order to take on the sin nature of humanity, Jesus had to be sinless. Part of his sinless nature required that there could be no human instrumentality involved, That is why the Virgin Birth is a key doctrine. Had Joseph and Mary copulated, their child would be 100% human, only. Because Mary assented to being filled with Holy Spirit, the Child was conceived without copulation, and could also take on the nature of deity, perfect, sinless God. Therefore, Jesus is one Person, having two natures: he is 100% God, and simultaneously 100% man, without confusion or intermixing of parts.

As Man, he could take the place of humanity on the cross, and die, as God, he could tale the requirement for holiness to the cross, and be the innocent Lamb, dying so that humanity did not have to take the penalty required by being an intrinsic sinner.

This is an extremely terse rendition of the Atonement, If you think I am wrong, please show me the Scripture, book, chapter and verse IN CONTEXT.

JohnT · Jul 20, 2008

StormyOne said:
lol JohnT has jokes.... thanks for sharing your perspective..... I hope that someone follows your directives and gets that homework done....

Yepper. I have been a teacher too long!

Any who, I gave those references so readers can see from where I come. If they disagree, all I have to so is ask which of th Scriptures I cited is incorrect.

StormyOne · Jul 21, 2008

a question I stumbled across while reading info on this subject....

"It seems logical that if the death of Yeshua satisfied God's need for justice, and if humans made no contribution to the process, then salvation and atonement should be granted to everyone -- to Christian believers and unbelievers alike. It is unclear why only those individuals who trust Yeshua as Lord and Savior will attains salvation, atonement, and Heaven.

http://www.theopedia.com/Penal_subs..._see_it_as_.22a_form_of_cosmic_Child_Abuse.22

Adventtruth · Jul 21, 2008

JohnT said:
BOO HOO!!!

No one read my cut and paste. (Perhaps no one here is sufficiently smart to understand it! )

The question essentially boils down to to two questions:

1) What is the NATURE of the Atonement?
2) What is the EXTENT of the Atonement?

Asking what is its nature, we are first asking what was its original purpose, and we look to the Ot for that.

Made by Animal sacrifices: 
Ex. 29:36;
Lev. 1:4; 
Lev. 4:1315, 17, 18, 20, 2235; 
Lev. 5:610; 
Lev. 6:7; 
Lev. 9:7; 
Lev. 10:17; 
Lev. 12:68; 
Lev. 14:1232; Lev. 16:6, 10, 11, 1519, 2434; 
Lev. 17:11; 
Lev. 19:22;
Num. 15:2228;
Num. 28:30 v. 22;; 
Num. 29:5, 10, 11. 
Heb. 9:22
(Swanson, J., & Nave, O. (1994) New Nave's.)

After you study that, (and I expect all of you to do so) we have to look at the particular Day of Atonement, for that is a prefiguring shadow or type of permanent Atonement, the antitype.

Day of Atonement:

the great annual day of humiliation and expiation for the sins of the nation, the fast (Acts 27:9), and the only one commanded in the law of Moses. The mode of its observance is described in Lev. 16:310; 23:2632; and Num. 29:711.

It was kept on the tenth day of the month Tisri, i.e., five days before the feast of Tabernacles, and lasted from sunset to sunset.

(Easton, M. (1996, c1897). Easton's Bible dictionary.)

Then we must discover what the NT says about the Atonement; it can never be less than what we discovered in the OT, and must also be more than the OT.

For example, there is ample evidences that God spared His people in the Plagues, and at other times, by enforcing the Kosher Laws, and he said "None of these diseases shall come upon you". But healing was never a part of the OT Atonement. Prevention (via kosher) was foremost, but not healing.

Nevertheless when we read Isaiah 53, we see a clear picture of Messiah. None of us have problem with the "He was bruised for our transgressions" part, but the following part is troubling, "and by his stripes you were healed" Matthew, Luke and Peter repeat that verse in part and make reference to "By his stripes you were healed" Matt 8:17, Luke 4:18 and 1 Peter2:24.

OK, that is one issue to work on. Please do your homework, OK?

John I understand what you are saying here. The problem here is that some here don't trust the bible.

AT

sentipente · Jul 21, 2008

Adventtruth said:
John I understand what you are saying here. The problem here is that some here don't trust the bible.

AT

Could it be that your problem is that you obviously don't trust the Creator?

Adventtruth · Jul 21, 2008

JohnT said:
The Atonement (part 2): Its Extent.

When we look at the extent of the atonement, we must recognize that there are two entities, God and Man involved in addition to the Mediator, Christ Himself. It is God, who is angry at the sins of humankind, and it is humankind who broke Gods laws, and now justly deserving eternal punishment. Therefore, there is no inherent good in humankind, for all have sinned, and fallen short of the glory of God..

Since there is inherently nothing good in us whereby we can be saved, (TOTAL DEPRAVITY) we can do nothing to save ourselves. This is why any sort of Pelagianism, or semi-Pelagianism is a heresy. It assumes that there are certain meritorious works we can do, even if unregenerate, to make God love us more, or be less angry at our sinning.

This view is in error for two reasons:
PRIMARY is that it is not prefigured in the OT
Secondary if X is required to be done, are we not sure that it is actually X+1 or X+5, 9 etc? That is WORKS, pure and simple. And it is mixing something like soiled menstrual garments with the holy, incorruptible Atonement of Jesus Christ.

To insist on works is to insist that Jesus was insufficient on the cross. It is like standing at the foot of the cross, seeing our naked Savior slowly die, and shout out, Do more for us, Jesus; it is not enough!

This is further shown as a heresy in the fact that the Passover remembers the death of the firstborn in Egypt, and the sanctuary of being passed over by the Angel of Death to EVERY house that had blood covering the posts and lintel (a sign of the cross) irrespective of who was inside the blood-painted entrance. That also prefigures the sovereign, UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION of God. Only those in that particular house were spared regardless of role, or nationality or previous works; all others had the death of each firstborn (generations often were in the same dwelling).

In order to take on the sin nature of humanity, Jesus had to be sinless. Part of his sinless nature required that there could be no human instrumentality involved, That is why the Virgin Birth is a key doctrine. Had Joseph and Mary copulated, their child would be 100% human, only. Because Mary assented to being filled with Holy Spirit, the Child was conceived without copulation, and could also take on the nature of deity, perfect, sinless God. Therefore, Jesus is one Person, having two natures: he is 100% God, and simultaneously 100% man, without confusion or intermixing of parts.

As Man, he could take the place of humanity on the cross, and die, as God, he could tale the requirement for holiness to the cross, and be the innocent Lamb, dying so that humanity did not have to take the penalty required by being an intrinsic sinner.

This is an extremely terse rendition of the Atonement, If you think I am wrong, please show me the Scripture, book, chapter and verse IN CONTEXT.

JohnT thanks and I agree with you 100%. The problem is there are some who reject Penal atonemennt. You got some who hold to the MIT (Moral Influence Theory) of Atonement. THey say that Christ did not suffer for the sins of the world. They deny the legality and role of the law. No vacarious substitution for mankind. How do you address these issues?

AT

Adventtruth · Jul 21, 2008

sentipente said:
Could it be that your problem is that you obviously don't trust the Creator?

You responded to that posting...its very posible that you are one that does not trust the bible or penal atonement.

So if I trust the bible, which teaches this, I don't trust the creator?

Once again this is nonsense. You have a false dichotomy.

Why don't you address JohnT's postings? Are you afraid to engage his ideas?

AT

StormyOne · Jul 21, 2008

James McGrath suggests the following regarding the PSA:

Let me conclude by noting what are perhaps the biggest problems with penal substitution. One is Biblical, the other is moral. First, the Bible regularly depicts God as forgiving people. If there is anything that God does consistently throughout the Bible, it is forgive. To suggest that God cannot forgive because, having said that sin would be punished, he has no choice but to punish someone, makes sense only if one has never read the penitential psalms, nor the story of Jonah. The penal substitution view of atonement takes the metaphor of sin as debt and literalizes it to the extent that one's actions are viewed in terms of accounting rather than relationship. It is not surprising this is popular: in our time, debts are impersonal and most people have them, and it is easier to think of slates being wiped clean and books being balanced than a need for reconciliation. But the latter is the core element if one thinks of God in personal terms. And for God to forgive, all that the Bible suggests that God has to do is forgive.

The moral issue with penal substitution is closely connected with the points just mentioned. Despite the popularity of this image, to depict God as a judge who lets a criminal go free because he has punished someone else in their place is to depict God as unjust.

and this, emphasis mine:

When the author of Hebrews says that shedding of blood is necessary, the basis is presumably the fact that there was in Leviticus a sacrifice for everything, as it were. That only pushes the question back a stage, rather than answering it. Once again, I'd recommend Wenham's commentary on Leviticus, which suggests that the 'sin offering' was in fact a 'de-sinning offering', which purified the Temple so that a holy God could dwell in the midst of a sinful people. Hebrews takes up the idea and applies it to the 'real' Temple in the heavenly realm (insert lengthy discussion of Platonism here, or visit Ken Schenck's blog, where I'm sure he has plenty to say about Hebrews). This is why Hebrews has no real room for the resurrection of Jesus: Jesus dies and goes to heaven to present his sacrifice, to purify the heavenly tabernacle so that sinful human beings can draw near to God without their defilement driving him away or drawing his wrath. There's no obvious point at which to insert his going back for his body!

Hebrews is quite unique and just barely made it into the New Testament (under somewhat false pretenses, since its author consistently finishes his sentences, unlike Paul, and loves the genitive absolute construction, much to the chagrin of Greek students). Is it appropriate when many Christians use it as the guiding framework for interpreting the rest of what the New Testament has to say about Jesus' death?

Most biblical scholars agree that Hebrews was not written by Paul.... so then why use Hebrews as a foundation to interpret the other parts of the NT?

McGrath's article can be found here:
http://exploringourmatrix.blogspot.com/2007/12/whats-wrong-with-penal-substitution.html

StormyOne · Jul 21, 2008

another point to consider:

....the most serious problem with Penal Substitution is a historical one. We possess a massive amount of surviving writings from throughout the centuries of church history, and from these it can be seen how Christian doctrine changed over the centuries and how penal substitution was eventually invented. A couple of months ago I wrote this post outlining the theological changes in atonement doctrine that have taken place over the centuries. The doctrines necessary as precursors to penal substitution don't start appearing until the fourth century AD, and Penal Substitution itself doesn't appear until after the eleventh century.

The focus of my studies has been on the pre-Nicene Christian doctrine (ie Christianity prior to 325AD). The main view of the atonement during the period 100-325AD was that Jesus taught people how to live righteously and that by following his teachings they could live a life that pleased God and thereby pass the final judgment according to deeds. (See here, and here)

My interest in theology has always been in studying the atonement. I started out my studies because I was wondering which view of the atonement (such as Penal Substitution, Ransom from Satan etc) was taught by the disciples, the New Testament, and the early Christians. After much study, the view I have concluded is the correct one was not one I’d ever even heard of before I started my studies. The Biblical and the pre-Nicene Christians hold one and the same view: That by participating in Jesus’ lifestyle we please God like he did, and thus participate in his rewards. Jesus, by his teachings and the spirit, sets us free from the power of sinfulness, transforming our lives to live as he wills. There are somewhere between a hundred and three hundred New Testament passages that support this view (depending on how I count them), compared to the measly handful that can be misinterpreted to support Penal Substitution.

With regard to the need for blood to be shed for forgiveness, three notes are in order. Firstly, it’s not a metaphysical claim that “it’s utterly impossible to have forgiveness without sacrifice” (obviously such a claim would be bogus as our everyday experiences show), but rather an observation that “under the Mosaic Law, that’s how stuff happened to work”. Secondly, the Mosaic Law proscribed no sacrifices for intentional moral sins - the sacrifices cleanse ritual pollution and unintentional sins only. The Jews held that intentional sins were forgiven through repentance, and thus the phrase “repentance and forgiveness” became proverbial. Thirdly, no sacrifices in the Jewish system worked by penal substitution – there’s plenty of careful research been done into how the various different sacrifices were thought to work and the naïve claim they worked by penal substitution is untenable (see for example, Milgrom Leviticus, Finlan Problems with Atonement etc). The writer of Hebrews is engaging in an extended allegory, comparing Christ to the old sacrificial system over the course of his letter. Through the course of the allegory Christ is variously the priest, the sacrifice etc as need be for poetic similarity. It’s appropriate from an allegorical point of view that through his “blood” (ie death) Christ took away sin, like a sacrifice did by their blood (note: their blood, not their deaths – the death of a sacrificial animal was largely irrelevant in the Jewish sacrificial system). But in Hebrew’s view Christ does it better because he teaches us not to sin, and thus takes away our sinfulness, whereas sacrifices simply attempted to mop up (repeatedly) after sins.

A sacrificial model of the atonement and Penal Substitution are not the same thing at all. No sacrifices ever worked by Penal Substitution. Different sacrifices worked in different ways, and one of those ways was as a "gift" to God. So it is possible to construct a sacrificial model of the atonement that works as a gift theory (however such a theory has problems.)

http://exploringourmatrix.blogspot.com/2007/12/whats-wrong-with-penal-substitution.html
http://theogeek.blogspot.com/2007/08/brief-history-of-christian-atonement.html

StormyOne · Jul 21, 2008

Adventtruth said:
John I understand what you are saying here. The problem here is that some here don't trust the bible.

AT

And the problem would be? Is that a sin? Or is it the 11th commandment.... "Thou shalt trust in the bible..." Will God cause fire to rain down on all those who don't "trust the bible?"

JohnT · Jul 21, 2008

There are several theories regarding the Atonement of Christ. They are briefly:

Ransom to Satan: This view sees the atonement of Christ as a ransom that was paid to Satan to purchase man’s freedom from being enslaved to Satan. It is based on a belief that man’s spiritual condition is in bondage to Satan and that the meaning of Christ’s death was to secure God’s victory over Satan.

Recapitulation Theory: This view sees the atonement of Christ as reversing the course of mankind from disobedience to obedience. It believes that Christ’s life recapitulated all the stages of human life and reversed Adam’s disobedience.

Dramatic Theory: This view sees the atonement of Christ as securing the victory in a divine conflict between good and evil. The meaning of Christ’s death was to ensure God’s victory over Satan and provides a way to redeem the world out of its bondage to evil.

Mystical Theory: This view sees the atonement of Christ as a triumph over His own sinful nature through the power of the Holy Spirit. Those who hold this view believe that knowledge of this will mystically influence man and awake his “god-consciousness”.

Example Theory: This view sees the atonement of Christ as simply providing an example of faith and obedience to inspire man to be obedient to God. (This is what the Mormons believe, and why they strive so hard to be good)

Commercial Theory: This view sees the atonement of Christ as bringing infinite honor to God. This resulted in God giving Christ a reward which He did not need, and Christ passed that reward on to man. This theory, denies the true spiritual state of unregenerate sinners and their need of a completely new nature, available only in Christ

Governmental Theory: This view sees the atonement of Christ as demonstrating God’s high regard for His law and His attitude towards sin. Those that hold this view believe that man’s spiritual condition is as one who has violated God’s moral law and that the meaning of Christ’s death was to be a substitute for the penalty of sin. Because Christ paid the penalty for sin it is possible for God to legally forgive those who accept Christ as their substitute. This view falls short in that it does not teach that Christ actually paid the penalty of the actual sins of any people, but instead His suffering simply showed mankind that God’s laws were broken and that SOME penalty was paid. Notice that it is neither specific, nor fully efficacious.

Moral Influence Theory: This view sees the atonement of Christ as demonstrating God’s love, which causes man’s heart to soften and repent. Those that hold this view believe that man is spiritually sick and in need of help and that man is moved to accept God’s forgiveness by seeing God’s love for man. They believe that the purpose and meaning of Christ’s death was to demonstrate God’s love toward man. While it is true that Christ’s atonement is the ultimate example of the love of God, this view is also heretical because it denies the true spiritual condition of man and denies that God actually requires a payment for sin. This view of Christ’s atonement leaves mankind without a true sacrifice or payment for sin.

Poor Jesus! He died! Alas, I must accept what He did, and be a good person.

Simply stated, man, not God is the most sovereign in this theory. Of course it is true that while we were dead in our sins, Christ died for the ungodly, it completely obliterates the meaning of the terms “dead in our sins” and “ungodly”. A dead person is dead, having no will, conscience or emotion that would predispose us to listening to God. The term “ungodly” means that we are thoroughly corrupted by Adamic sin.

Therefore, it totally rejects the doctrine of TOTAL DEPRAVITY in that it believes that mankind is capable of doing BY HIS OWN WILL something that is pleasing to God; that is turning to Christ for forgiveness of sins.

In order for a theory of the Atonement to be adequate, it must first address the heresies inherent in each of the above erroneous theories.

FIRST it must not violate in any form any attribute of the Godhead. All the above do that.

SECOND it must show mankind in his true statue; incapable of doing anything to change the mind of a just, holy God’s anger against our sin.

THIRD it must take into account the nature of expiation, as stated in the OT: a sacrifice of an innocent to pay for the sins of a sinner.

FOURTH it must have an efficacious effect on both the offended party, God, and the offending party, mankind bring reconciliation by its inherent nature.

LAST, it must be eternal. Once applied, it never “slips off”. Otherwise, it raises the sovereignty of mankind above that of God, violating the first principle. Therefore the ONLY theory meeting those criteria is the Penal Substitution Theory. (Anselm’s)

Penal Substitution Theory: This view sees the atonement of Christ as being a vicarious, substitutionary sacrifice that satisfied the demands of God’s justice upon sin. In doing so Christ paid the penalty of man’s sin bringing forgiveness, imputing righteousness and reconciling man to God. Those that hold this view believe that every aspect of man, his mind, will and emotions have been corrupted by sin and that man is totally depraved and spiritually dead. This view holds that Christ’s death paid the penalty of sin for those whom God elects to save and that through repentance man can accept Christ’s substitution as payment for sin. This view of the atonement aligns most accurately to Scripture in its view of sin, the nature of man, and the results of the death of Christ on the cross.

Naturally there may be some minor variations, but that essentially is the best, and Biblically supported theory of the Atonement.

As a sidelight, what about healing? I believe it is in the Atonement, as mentioned in a previous post.

RC_NewProtestants · Jul 21, 2008

(note: their blood, not their deaths – the death of a sacrificial animal was largely irrelevant in the Jewish sacrificial system). But in Hebrew’s view Christ does it better because he teaches us not to sin, and thus takes away our sinfulness, whereas sacrifices simply attempted to mop up (repeatedly) after sins.

Pretty good article section but I disagee with it being irrelevant because it meant a good meal to both the family offering the sacrifice as well as the Priests and meals as a method of communing with others as well as with their God was fairly important.

sentipente · Jul 21, 2008

Adventtruth said:
You responded to that posting...its very posible that you are one that does not trust the bible or penal atonement.

So if I trust the bible, which teaches this, I don't trust the creator?

Once again this is nonsense. You have a false dichotomy.

Why don't you address JohnT's postings? Are you afraid to engage his ideas?

AT

Do you really think I have time to engage in speculation about speculations? Humans are creating theories regarding how a Creator they cannot directly access deals with evil in His universe. By definition they are all wrong. Enjoy the dance but don't invite me to it. Being able to show that A != B does not mean you have proven that B = C.

RC_NewProtestants · Jul 21, 2008

While it is true that Christ’s atonement is the ultimate example of the love of God, this view is also heretical because it denies the true spiritual condition of man and denies that God actually requires a payment for sin. This view of Christ’s atonement leaves mankind without a true sacrifice or payment for sin.

Clearly not written from an objective viewpoint, It is written with the presupposition of the penal theory being the only correct view.

It amounts to: The problem with the moral influence theory is that it is not the penal atonement theory.

JohnT · Jul 21, 2008

RC_NewProtestants said:
Clearly not written from an objective viewpoint, It is written with the presupposition of the penal theory being the only correct view.

It amounts to: The problem with the moral influence theory is that it is not the penal atonement theory.

You misunderstand.

The Moral Influence Theory is semiPelagian in that it attributes something to mankind that is impossible: the ability to do something well-pleasing unto God.

It eliminates the doctrine of total depravity, and THAT is a very serious issue.

Adventtruth · Jul 21, 2008

StormyOne said:
And the problem would be? Is that a sin? Or is it the 11th commandment.... "Thou shalt trust in the bible..." Will God cause fire to rain down on all those who don't "trust the bible?"

It comes across as if you are a guilty party here...Why are you so rattled and hostile. The tone that came through is as such. If thats your position kindly own up to it with out such a tone.

AT

Adventtruth · Jul 21, 2008

James McGrath suggests the following regarding the PSA:

Let me conclude by noting what are perhaps the biggest problems with penal substitution. One is Biblical, the other is moral. First, the Bible regularly depicts God as forgiving people. If there is anything that God does consistently throughout the Bible, it is forgive. To suggest that God cannot forgive because, having said that sin would be punished, he has no choice but to punish someone, makes sense only if one has never read the penitential psalms, nor the story of Jonah. The penal substitution view of atonement takes the metaphor of sin as debt and literalizes it to the extent that one's actions are viewed in terms of accounting rather than relationship. It is not surprising this is popular: in our time, debts are impersonal and most people have them, and it is easier to think of slates being wiped clean and books being balanced than a need for reconciliation. But the latter is the core element if one thinks of God in personal terms. And for God to forgive, all that the Bible suggests that God has to do is forgive

The problem with the above veiw is that the author (James McGrath) never takes into account the covenant God established with Abraham. If one understands and take into account the covenant God made with Abraham, then they understanad the so called penitential psalms where of the covenant.

(Act 3:25) Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed.

(Act 3:26) Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.

(1Co 10:16) The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?

(Mat 26:27) And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;
(Mat 26:28) For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

AT

Article: what is wrong the substitutionary theory of atonement.

Regular Member

Senior Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Senior Veteran

God is the Gospel!

Senior Contributor

God is the Gospel!

God is the Gospel!

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Regular Member

Senior Veteran

Senior Contributor

Senior Veteran

Regular Member

God is the Gospel!

God is the Gospel!

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency