Penal Substitution.....?

[Philip]

2 thoughts on your post - just because Crossan doesn't want to express his faith through a theology that includes substitutionary atonement doesn't make it any less true.

As has been stated many times in this thread, no one is questioning substitutionary atonement. However, some of us do reject penal substitutionary atonement.

Secondly, God isn't reconciled to us, we're reconciled to Him - there's a world of difference.

Agreed.

 

[inchristalone221]

I don't want to sound arrogant, and I haven't been able to read this whole thread so far, but I just have to throw in this thought.

If Christ has not substitutionarily taken the wrath of God for our sins then we are damned. God is a just God and will punish those who are not conformed to His holiness.

Substitutionary atonement has historically always been the sine qua non of the gospel. If we give up s.a., what have we left?

 

[holdon]

His character is first and foremost Holy (not love)

I deny that God's character is foremost holy and not love. Holy means distance, separation. Before there was evil and sin, holiness had no meaning. Love does. It is eternal.

God is Love and God is Light. Realizing that will keep you out of a lot of trouble.

 

[Van]

Hi InChristAlone, the issue is not whether Christ died as a substitutionary atonement, but the reason God decreed that Christ must die. Reformed Theology teaches that God is just and His justness had to be satisfied, so Christ was punished for the sins of the elect. Others, while still accepting that Christ died because it was God's will, ascribe a different reason as to why God required Christ's sacrifice.

So no one here is an enemy of the cross, we all ferverently belief Christ's death on the cross is the centerpiece of the gospel. Our differences are in our understanding of why God required Christ to suffer and die. Why did God choose this method to reconcile all things to Himself.

The reasons offered are:
(1) To satisfy God's justice, Christ had to suffer and die as a substitute for the punishment due us due to our sins, PSA.
(2) To satisfy God's holiness, the perfect holy sacrifice of Christ provides the propitiation allowing those spiritually placed in Christ to be made holy and blameless.
(3) I am not sure I understand the governmental theory, but perhaps it says Christ had to die to satisfy God because God said so as the sovereign. If this misses the mark, someone will surely correct me.
(4) Because God is moral, His morality required it.

In sum, something about God's nature required the sacrifice of Christ to reconcile mankind, or a part of mankind, but exactly what it was we have no clue. My guess is number 2.

 

[cygnusx1]

I deny that God's character is foremost holy and not love. Holy means distance, separation. Before there was evil and sin, holiness had no meaning. Love does. It is eternal.

God is Love and God is Light. Realizing that will keep you out of a lot of trouble.

deny it all you like!!!


God is Love , but more central God is Holy ....... the angels don't sing Love Love Love (that was the Beatles) they sing Holy Holy Holy!


A book as long as Acts , which contains Apostolic sermons , hundreds converted , and full of wonderful records of the Early church does not even contain the word "love" .... no , not even once in the entire book!

 

[cygnusx1]

dbl post

 

[JJB]

This is the problem with the Moral Influence theory of the Atonement:

It never answers why Christ had to die. If God can "just forgive because He is sovereign" why does Christ come to die? Is Christ's work on the cross merely an example for us to follow?

The whole discussion of atonement rests on the interpretation of one of our Lord's words: "must".
It is from Mark 8:31

"And He began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again."

If you were present during this time of our Lord's teaching these things, and you were a good student, you would raise your hand and ask "Why must you suffer and be killed?"

 

[Flicker]

Is there an inner obsessive compulsion in God that he "must" do things? -- he "must" operate destruction upon the unconverted; he "must" pardon the converted; Christ "must" die on the cross; the Father "must" be propitiated by the human suffering of Christ on the cross?

I know some neurotic humans driven by their own inner compulsions, but God?

 

[JJB]

Describe "inner obsessive compulsion"

The word "must" is used by our Lord, no?

Back to my question, plz.

 

[cygnusx1]

This is the problem with the Moral Influence theory of the Atonement:

It never answers why Christ had to die. If God can "just forgive because He is sovereign" why does Christ come to die? Is Christ's work on the cross merely an example for us to follow?

The whole discussion of atonement rests on the interpretation of one of our Lord's words: "must".
It is from Mark 8:31

"And He began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again."

If you were present during this time of our Lord's teaching these things, and you were a good student, you would raise your hand and ask "Why must you suffer and be killed?"

that is precisely the right question Sister , and all you will get from anti-PSA advocates is something like

"To defeat the powers of sinfulness and evil in the world that prevent us from being recreated in the image of God, and reconciled in relationship to the Creator." and "Christ died to defeat sin and death and preach the Gospel to the souls in Hades." etc etc etc


which tells us nothing , we are still left at the question why!!

I ask why are you going to work John ?

and he replies because the weather permits it ............


this method is odd.......... like reading a few pages from a book , getting bored , yanking out the core of the book , hundreds of pages , then reading the conclusion , and declare to all a true understanding of the plot !

 

[JJB]

Dear Brother Cygnusx1,

I can actually agree that Christ did come as an example for us, but He does not stop there! No, no. Not merely an example, but a propitiation! Praise God for his love and mercy to us!

1 Peter 2:18-25 give us the example and the answer to the question of why Christ came.

21For you have been called for this purpose, since Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example for you to follow in His steps,

22WHO COMMITTED NO SIN, NOR WAS ANY DECEIT FOUND IN HIS MOUTH;
23and while being reviled, He did not revile in return; while suffering, He uttered no threats, but kept entrusting Himself to Him who judges righteously;
24and He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed. 25For you were continually straying like sheep, but now you have returned to the Shepherd and Guardian of your souls.

Who can follow the first step in His example? See it in verse 22? It seems to me that our first need of Jesus is as saviour! Praise God for his humbling mercy that He has poured out on His children.

God in his great love for us bore our sin and suffered on our behalf. There is the supreme example of love.

There is no evidence to be found in scripture that an example is sufficient to produce a repentance that is ground for forgiveness.

Lord, open eyes today to see your love and mercy poured out on our behalf through your Son's precious blood. In Jesus' name, Amen.

 

[cygnusx1]

Is there an inner obsessive compulsion in God that he "must" do things? -- he "must" operate destruction upon the unconverted; he "must" pardon the converted; Christ "must" die on the cross; the Father "must" be propitiated by the human suffering of Christ on the cross?

I know some neurotic humans driven by their own inner compulsions, but God?

this is the horns of the dilema ......... there are those who will insist that God can forgive without any atonement , without any shedding of innocent blood ............. but when asked was it necessary for Christ to die , they will say "oh yes" !

And should they reply no Christ wasn't meant to die , it was not God's will , then how do they explain Gethsemene ?

They cannot!

There are two distict ideas about the Atonement being necessary , the first is ...... No , it was not necessary that God should save anyone by atoneing for sin , God could have left mankind in sin , hopeless and helpless , with a certain outcome ..... destruction for all!

Then there is the factor of the necessity of God being righteous , upholding Righteousness and making all those who He would save ... JUSTIFIED , made righteous .... and God cannot deny His holiness ........ He cannot sin , anymore than He can permit sin to go unpunished ......... for to let sin go unpunished is to sanction sin , it is to compromise (something humans have no problem with) with wickedness.

 

[JJB]

BTW, the word "example" from the passage in 1 Peter, means "children's copying" -- step by step. Very diligently and carefully following.

 

[cygnusx1]

Dear Brother Cygnusx1,

I can actually agree that Christ did come as an example for us, but He does not stop there! No, no. Not merely an example, but a propitiation! Praise God for his love and mercy to us!

1 Peter 2:18-25 give us the example and the answer to the question of why Christ came.

21For you have been called for this purpose, since Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example for you to follow in His steps,

22WHO COMMITTED NO SIN, NOR WAS ANY DECEIT FOUND IN HIS MOUTH;
23and while being reviled, He did not revile in return; while suffering, He uttered no threats, but kept entrusting Himself to Him who judges righteously;
24and He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed. 25For you were continually straying like sheep, but now you have returned to the Shepherd and Guardian of your souls.

Who can follow the first step in His example? See it in verse 22? It seems to me that our first need of Jesus is as saviour! Praise God for his humbling mercy that He has poured out on His children.

God in his great love for us bore our sin and suffered on our behalf. There is the supreme example of love.

There is no evidence to be found in scripture that an example is sufficient to produce a repentance that is ground for forgiveness.

Lord, open eyes today to see your love and mercy poured out on our behalf through your Son's precious blood. In Jesus' name, Amen.

True JJB , you will find that all Christian attempts at answering the purpose of the atonement (including the incarnation view) have merit ........

but few wish to say God inflicts anyone with suffering much less His Own Son ........
they think God would have to have the same standing (feelings motives and desires) as those Roman Soldiers and those Jews that never wanted to see Christ ever again!

But God's actions , motives , desires (even within the same act) are nothing like sinful , but are always for good ....... and always about 'Love' ..... even the Love of Justice!

 

[inchristalone221]

Hi InChristAlone, the issue is not whether Christ died as a substitutionary atonement, but the reason God decreed that Christ must die. Reformed Theology teaches that God is just and His justness had to be satisfied, so Christ was punished for the sins of the elect. Others, while still accepting that Christ died because it was God's will, ascribe a different reason as to why God required Christ's sacrifice.

So no one here is an enemy of the cross, we all ferverently belief Christ's death on the cross is the centerpiece of the gospel. Our differences are in our understanding of why God required Christ to suffer and die. Why did God choose this method to reconcile all things to Himself.

The reasons offered are:
(1) To satisfy God's justice, Christ had to suffer and die as a substitute for the punishment due us due to our sins, PSA.
(2) To satisfy God's holiness, the perfect holy sacrifice of Christ provides the propitiation allowing those spiritually placed in Christ to be made holy and blameless.
(3) I am not sure I understand the governmental theory, but perhaps it says Christ had to die to satisfy God because God said so as the sovereign. If this misses the mark, someone will surely correct me.
(4) Because God is moral, His morality required it.

In sum, something about God's nature required the sacrifice of Christ to reconcile mankind, or a part of mankind, but exactly what it was we have no clue. My guess is number 2.

While I understand all those views of the atonement (and a few more that are so out there they aren't worth mentioning), I think you explained them pretty well just now (except the governmental theory, it's a little different then that, but the governmental theory is baseless to begin with so I don't mind).

I think if we do not answer 1 we lessen the character of God. However, I think that answer #2 has some merit in that we are united with Christ in His death and ressurection so that not only are our sins propitiated, but the positive and perfect righteousness and full obedience of Christ are judicially imputed to us (as part of Christ).

Only then, with no offense and perfect obedience, can we stand before a holy God and not be under His wrath.

I think the origin of these other views of the atonement comes from a general lack of understanding in the church of the holiness of God. Like R.C. Sproul says (paraphrased): we need to go a step or two behind justification and get the holiness of God back on the map if we are to reform the church.

 

[Flicker]

Like R.C. Sproul says (paraphrased): we need to go a step or two behind justification and get the holiness of God back on the map if we are to reform the church.

How would it transfigure us, individually and as a community, to come to the belief that God is Holy® and Just© -- that He enforces his law not by correcting the wronger, but by requiting wrong with destruction, upon the sinner or Christ as atonement?

I mean, I can understand how this theology could make people sad, anxious and manic, but how would it invigorate and humanize people?

 

[holdon]

God is Love , but more central God is Holy ....... the angels don't sing Love Love Love (that was the Beatles) they sing Holy Holy Holy!

That's because of that context in Es 6. ....

A book as long as Acts , which contains Apostolic sermons , hundreds converted , and full of wonderful records of the Early church does not even contain the word "love" .... no , not even once in the entire book!

Ah, and that must certainly mean that "God is holy" is more important than "God is love". ????

 

[depthdeception]

How would it transfigure us, individually and as a community, to come to the belief that God is Holy® and Just© -- that He enforces his law not by correcting the wronger, but by requiting wrong with destruction, upon the sinner or Christ as atonement?

I mean, I can understand how this theology could make people sad, anxious and manic, but how would it invigorate and humanize people?

Don't be fooled by the rhetoric: in this context, the "reform" of the Church is about dominating and dictating morality through fear, not invigorating people to dynamically follow the leadership of the HOly Spirit.

 

[Philip]

If Christ has not substitutionarily taken the wrath of God for our sins then we are damned. God is a just God and will punish those who are not conformed to His holiness.

This point has been addressed several times in this thread. God is sovereign -- whatever He chooses to do is just. If it pleases Him to forgive without punishing, then doing so is just.

Substitutionary atonement has historically always been the sine qua non of the gospel. If we give up s.a., what have we left?

This is why you should read the whole thread (or at least my posts). I have stated several times that I fully support substitutionary atonement, properly understood. I reject penal substitutionary atonement. I think DD, the other main opponent of PSA in this thread, agrees with position. I do not remember anyone in this thread rejecting substitutionary atonement itself.

 

[Philip]

This is the problem with the Moral Influence theory of the Atonement:

Has anyone in this thread suggest MI as the primary method of atonement?

If God can "just forgive because He is sovereign" why does Christ come to die?

This has been address several times in this thread. Christ had to die because the wicked could not accept His presence.

Is Christ's work on the cross merely an example for us to follow?

I don't think anyone in this thread has suggest such.

The whole discussion of atonement rests on the interpretation of one of our Lord's words: "must".
It is from Mark 8:31

"And He began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again."

Indeed, this tells us that Christ had to die. Further, it tells us why: the elders, chief priests, and scribes rejected Him. This passage does not suggest that Christ had to die to satisfy some form of justice. It does not suggest that Christ had to be punished.

If you were present during this time of our Lord's teaching these things, and you were a good student, you would raise your hand and ask "Why must you suffer and be killed?"

Why? The Teacher already told us. The wicked rejected Him.