• 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.

Deeper Understanding of Atonement

~Zao~

Wisdom’s child
Site Supporter
Jun 27, 2007
3,059
957
✟145,595.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
So you see Jesus as being like the innocent scapegoat in this example?
The innocent scapegoat with the sins place on the goat's head is the one set free, while Christ is being tortured, humiliated and murdered, so how does that fit?
Why wasn't the scapegoat tortured and cruelly killed?
If you were the goat that was being sacrificed I'm sure you would think it akin to what Jesus went through in His torturing on the day of the cross. The goat that was set free was the murdurous Barabas. That is justification for you. Propitiation otoh didn't actually set anyone free in the OT because Jesus was not yet sacrificed nor had He brought the blood of that sacrifice into the Holiest until He had ascended as the first fruit.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Hazelelponi
Upvote 0

bcbsr

Newbie
Mar 17, 2003
4,085
2,325
Visit site
✟209,036.00
Faith
Christian
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.
Actually is you read the verse that follows that it speaks of "the present time", contrasting the present time with the time frame he was talking about in Rom 3:25
 
Upvote 0

Hawkins

Member
Site Supporter
Apr 27, 2005
2,685
416
Canada
✟306,478.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
It's about justification, as someone may have pointed it out.

If God can forgive at will, it only means that God's realm is not a lawful realm but a lawless realm. You can imagine this by assuming that your city mayor can grant a pardon to any criminals at will. This only means that your city is a lawless city.

"Atonement" on the other hand means God Himself must be harmed in a way order to justify a pardon to be granted to a human, especially when talking about all mankind requires such a pardon of sin (or crime).

"Blood" is just to make the situation understandable to humans. God Himself cannot be harmed by blood shedding. He's harmed so partially when He was fully human. But mostly, God's harmed by swallowing insults from sinners from the day Jesus was crucified till the end of this world. He's also harmed by a prolonged covenant granted to humans such that under this covenant God Himself must bear with human sins till after the Final Judgment. Bearing with human sins till the Second coming is a promise to Noah for the first covenant granted to humans. Bearing with human sins harms God as God is completely sin-incompatible.
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
Reactions: Hazelelponi
Upvote 0

YeshuaFan

Well-Known Member
Oct 19, 2018
3,143
1,027
64
Macomb
✟70,194.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
I was just replying to the falsehood of the statement that "there is no place in scripture where God punishes the innocent to allow the guilty to go free,"
The PST theory is the best Atonement viewpoint, as that was the view Jesus and Paul expressed to us themselves!
 
Upvote 0

~Zao~

Wisdom’s child
Site Supporter
Jun 27, 2007
3,059
957
✟145,595.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
The PST theory is the best Atonement viewpoint, as that was the view Jesus and Paul expressed to us themselves!
I had to Google that and it still didn't make sense.
Manifest destiny is a manmade system to disenfranchise whoever they want to control for the purpose of monetary gains. How does PST theology differ?
 
Upvote 0

~Zao~

Wisdom’s child
Site Supporter
Jun 27, 2007
3,059
957
✟145,595.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
PST 302 - 1 Practical Theology
An examination of pastoral practices such as baptism, child dedication, funerals, communion, weddings, prayers for the sick, and public prayers. Students will consider these practices in light of their own theological convictions to develop a philosophy of ministry.

Huh?
 
Upvote 0

Blade

Veteran
Site Supporter
Dec 29, 2002
8,175
4,001
USA
✟654,188.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Thanks.. I lol disagree with some things like " we all deserve to justly be tortured, humiliated, crucified and go to hell from God.". Not the punishment God meant. "innocent" .... there are none. There are none righteous not one. Adam and Eve.. after they sinned get kicked out.. what ever is born.. no matter just born or older.. its born into a sinful world. ..aka flesh.

Now.. if you were blind you would have no sin.. you say you see your sin remains <--Christ said.. yet still have sin. Born into sin. We/some may be blind to the TRUTH aka CHRIST but unless you are born from above/born again. You are just flesh.

There is only one.. has is will.. Yeshua.
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
53,335
11,887
Georgia
✟1,091,317.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
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).

2 Cor 5 "he made him who knew no sin - to become sin for us - that we might become the righteousness of God in Christ".

Isaiah 53 "He took the stripes for us - to whom the stroke was due".

He suffers the second death in our place.

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?

It is a punishment for David - and shows the nation - that even the king cannot get by with murder - thus preserving order.


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?

Indeed - that is the point of it.

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?

No - because Christ paid the exact amount of torment and suffering owed for each sin, for each person, in all of time. You could never do that.

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.

Christ was born with a sinless nature - you with a sinful nature. Only Christ as God could accommodate the full load of torment and suffering owed by all sinners for all their sins in the lake of fire. His capacity for suffering - much greater than yours. His sinless nature pure - your sinful nature a blemished sacrifice - impure.

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?

Gal 2:20 - crucified with Christ
Romans 6:1-5 buried with him in baptism - death to sin, death to self.

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?

It is God paying the debt that His own Law says is owed for sin - the death sentence -- the suffering-and-death sentence. When the penalty of the law is upheld -- the law is in full force rather than abolished.

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”.


people condemned to hell both before and after the cross. The Law of God condemns all mankind as sinners in need of salvation.

Rom 3
19 Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God; 20 because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin.

Justification by Faith
21 But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction; 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; 25 whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed;

Instead of zapping each sinner the moment they commit their first sin - He draws them in grace to Himself... both OT and NT.


26 for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.
27 Where then is boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? Of works? No, but by a law of faith. 28 For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law. 29 Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, 30 since indeed God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith is one.
31 Do we then nullify the Law through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we establish the Law.


Before the cross - in Matthew 17 - both Moses and Elijah stand in glorified heavenly form - with Christ on the mount of transfiguration - fully forgiven.
 
Upvote 0

Dave L

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jun 28, 2018
15,549
5,879
USA
✟580,230.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Atonement in the OT was a fine levied and paid for in the sacrifice of a costly animal to God. It paid the debt for sin at the owner's expense. (But God also made provision for the less wealthy). Today we use money or time in jail to pay for our sins against the system. But this sacrifice in the OT didn't save, it only curtailed sin at a civil level as money and jail time does today.

But it taught a spiritual principle to the enlightened. That by laying their hands on the animal to be slaughtered, the animal was their costly substitute needed if their sin would be atoned for.

Jesus paid for our sins offering himself in our place to God for sins we could never pay for, even through suffering an eternity in hell. And on this basis God can remain just and good, receiving our due compensation in Christ's payment for sins in our behalf. While being perfectly loving by absorbing our debt in himself.
 
Upvote 0

~Zao~

Wisdom’s child
Site Supporter
Jun 27, 2007
3,059
957
✟145,595.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
It's interesting that the offering of the lamb was actually the family pet since they were to personally care for it for x amount of time before handing it over to the priest. Much like Hannah come to think of it. And then the sacrifice was used to feed the many with only a portion of it going to feed the priesthood. In Hannah's case tho the desire of her heart fulfilled the desire of God's heart and the priesthood got debunked. But I regress.

Come to think of it that's exactly what Hebrews says. Interesting.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
53,335
11,887
Georgia
✟1,091,317.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Leviticus 16 - "Day of Atonement" is a visual aide used by God to show that the Atonement doctrine must include the role of Christ as the "sin offering" -- as the "atoning sacrifice"... and also the role of Christ as the Hebrews 8:1-6 "High Priest". Both ministries of Christ are needed for it to work.

Atonement in the OT was a fine levied and paid for in the sacrifice of a costly animal to God. It paid the debt for sin at the owner's expense.

God points out in Isaiah 51 and in Hebrews 10:4-5 that the animal sacrifices did nothing at all. Not even the hand full of flour or dove did the trick when it comes to paying the full price for sin - the price of torment and suffering in the Rev 20 lake of fire.

(But God also made provision for the less wealthy). Today we use money or time in jail to pay for our sins against the system.

Only if the payment owed is not death. If the payment is death (for example - the payment for murder) then no amount of money or time in jail will do.

But this sacrifice in the OT didn't save, it only curtailed sin at a civil level as money and jail time does today.

Which is like saying nobody in the OT was forgiven of sin. But in fact forgiveness full and free was offerred in both OT and NT. Hence Enoch and Elijah taken to heaven without dying and Moses and Elijah stand in glory with Christ in Matthew 17 ... before the cross even happens. Fully forgiven of sins.

But it taught a spiritual principle to the enlightened. That by laying their hands on the animal to be slaughtered, the animal was their costly substitute needed if their sin would be atoned for.

Jesus paid for our sins offering himself in our place to God for sins we could never pay for, even through suffering an eternity in hell. And on this basis God can remain just and good, receiving our due compensation in Christ's payment for sins in our behalf. While being perfectly loving by absorbing our debt in himself.

And "not for our sins only but for the sins of the whole world" 1 John 2:2 including all who lived before Christ was born.
 
Upvote 0

Dave L

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jun 28, 2018
15,549
5,879
USA
✟580,230.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Leviticus 16 - "Day of Atonement" is a visual aide used by God to show that the Atonement doctrine must include the role of Christ as the "sin offering" -- as the "atoning sacrifice"... and also the role of Christ as the Hebrews 8:1-6 "High Priest". Both ministries of Christ are needed for it to work.



God points out in Isaiah 51 and in Hebrews 10:4-5 that the animal sacrifices did nothing at all. Not even the hand full of flour or dove did the trick when it comes to paying the full price for sin - the price of torment and suffering in the Rev 20 lake of fire.



Only if the payment owed is not death. If the payment is death (for example - the payment for murder) then no amount of money or time in jail will do.



Which is like saying nobody in the OT was forgiven of sin. But in fact forgiveness full and free was offerred in both OT and NT. Hence Enoch and Elijah taken to heaven without dying and Moses and Elijah stand in glory with Christ in Matthew 17 ... before the cross even happens. Fully forgiven of sins.



And "not for our sins only but for the sins of the whole world" 1 John 2:2 including all who lived before Christ was born.
But, all atonement was in the form of a fine for breaking Israel's laws, civil and religious. They taught spiritual truth to the discerning but could not save.
 
Upvote 0

~Zao~

Wisdom’s child
Site Supporter
Jun 27, 2007
3,059
957
✟145,595.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
But, all atonement was in the form of a fine for breaking Israel's laws, civil and religious. They taught spiritual truth to the discerning but could not save.
Considering the coliseum was paid for with the gold of the Menorah how could it be anything else?
 
Upvote 0

bling

Regular Member
Site Supporter
Feb 27, 2008
16,797
1,917
✟983,179.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
If you were the goat that was being sacrificed I'm sure you would think it akin to what Jesus went through in His torturing on the day of the cross. The goat that was set free was the murdurous Barabas. That is justification for you. Propitiation otoh didn't actually set anyone free in the OT because Jesus was not yet sacrificed nor had He brought the blood of that sacrifice into the Holiest until He had ascended as the first fruit.
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.

I still do not see from you examples and explanation how the goat which died stepped in and took the place of the goat set free especially since the one set free was never going to be killed in the sacrifice, so where is the Penal Substitution?
 
Upvote 0

~Zao~

Wisdom’s child
Site Supporter
Jun 27, 2007
3,059
957
✟145,595.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
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.

I still do not see from you examples and explanation how the goat which died stepped in and took the place of the goat set free especially since the one set free was never going to be killed in the sacrifice, so where is the Penal Substitution?
What was kosher then isn't now. Jus' sayin'
 
Upvote 0

bling

Regular Member
Site Supporter
Feb 27, 2008
16,797
1,917
✟983,179.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Actually is you read the verse that follows that it speaks of "the present time", contrasting the present time with the time frame he was talking about in Rom 3:25
I fully agree the verse that follow talk about the present time which is after the cross which the reader would mainly be concerned with.

The problem Paul is addressing throughout Romans is unrighteous division between the Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians in Rome. He is the best person to address this issue and it really needs to be resolved before severe persecution drives the Jewish Christians especially out of Rome.

The first half of Ro.3:25 is totally addressing the present-day situation (after the cross), but Paul throws in a reference to how it was before the cross to show significance through contrast: Ro. 3:25 last half says: … because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished. The before hand has to be before the cross since that is what Paul is talking about in the previous sentence.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: ~Zao~
Upvote 0

~Zao~

Wisdom’s child
Site Supporter
Jun 27, 2007
3,059
957
✟145,595.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I fully agree the verse that follow talk about the present time which is after the cross which the reader would mainly be concerned with.

The problem Paul is addressing throughout Romans is unrighteous division between the Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians in Rome. He is the best person to address this issue and it really needs to be resolved before severe persecution drives the Jewish Christians especially out of Rome.

The first half of Ro.3:25 is totally addressing the present-day situation (after the cross), but Paul throws in a reference to how it was before the cross to show significance through contrast: Ro. 3:25 last half says: … because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished. The before hand has to be before the cross since that is what Paul is talking about in the previous sentence.
Exactly. And propitiation wasn't accepted until the cross so the animal offerings were in lue of payment deferred.
 
Upvote 0

Hazelelponi

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jun 25, 2018
11,794
11,206
USA
✟1,034,317.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
2 Cor 5 "he made him who knew no sin - to become sin for us - that we might become the righteousness of God in Christ".

Isaiah 53 "He took the stripes for us - to whom the stroke was due".

He suffers the second death in our place.



It is a punishment for David - and shows the nation - that even the king cannot get by with murder - thus preserving order.




Indeed - that is the point of it.

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?



No - because Christ paid the exact amount of torment and suffering owed for each sin, for each person, in all of time. You could never do that.



Christ was born with a sinless nature - you with a sinful nature. Only Christ as God could accommodate the full load of torment and suffering owed by all sinners for all their sins in the lake of fire. His capacity for suffering - much greater than yours. His sinless nature pure - your sinful nature a blemished sacrifice - impure..

This is off topic:

Acts 2:24
 
Upvote 0

~Zao~

Wisdom’s child
Site Supporter
Jun 27, 2007
3,059
957
✟145,595.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Not sure what you are saying, but Penal Substitution is never right.
Honestly, I don't even know what Penal substitution is. Since God is one in three sacrificing yourself for a friend is completely biblical. But it gets too tangled in red tape and I have a life so if you can clarify the exact dimensions of the problem I'll go over them with you.
 
Upvote 0