Penal Substitution

[atpollard]

Seven Theories of Atonement

#1 The Moral Influence Theory

One of the earliest theories for the atonement is the Moral Influence theory, which simply taught that Jesus Christ came and died in order to bring about a positive change to humanity. This moral change comes through the teachings of Jesus alongside His example and actions. The most notable name here is that of Augustine from the 4th century, whose influence has almost single-handedly had the greatest impact upon Western Christianity. He affirmed the Moral Influence theory as the main theory of the Atonement (alongside the Ransom theory as well).

Within this theory the death of Christ is understood as a catalyst to reform society, inspiring men and women to follow His example and live good moral lives of love. In this theory, the Holy Spirit comes to help Christians produce this moral change. Logically, in this theory, the Eschatological development too becomes about morality, where it is taught that after death the human race will be judged by their conduct in life. This in turn creates a strong emphasis on free will as the human response to follow Jesus’ example. Although Augustine himself differs here in that he did not teach free will, but instead that human beings are incapable of changing themselves, and require God to radically alter their lives sovereignly through the Holy Spirit.

This theory focuses on not just the death of Jesus Christ, but on His entire life. This sees the saving work of Jesus not only in the event of the crucifixion, but also in all the words He has spoken, and the example He has set. In this theory, the cross is merely a ramification of the moral life of Jesus. He is crucified as a martyr due to the radical nature of His moral example. In this way, the Moral Influence theory emphasizes Jesus Christ as our teacher, our example, our founder and leader, and ultimately, as a result, our first martyr.​

#2 The Ransom Theory

The Ransom Theory of the Atonement is one of the first major theories for the Atonement. It is often held alongside the Moral Influence Theory, and usually deals more with the actual death of Jesus Christ, what it actually means and the effect it has upon humanity. This theory finds its roots in the Early Church, particularly in Origen from the 3rd century. This theory essentially teaches that Jesus Christ died as a ransom sacrifice, paid either to Satan (the most dominant view) or to God the Father. Jesus’ death then acts as a payment to satisfy the debt on the souls of the human race, the same debt we inherited from Adam’s original sin.

The Ransom view could be summarized like this:

“Essentially, this theory claimed that Adam and Eve sold humanity over to the devil at the time of the Fall’ hence, justice required that God pay the Devil a ransom, for the Devil did not realize that Christ could not be held in the bonds of death. Once the Devil accepted Christ’s death as a ransom, this theory concluded, justice was satisfied and God was able to free us from Satan’s grip.” 1

Redemption in this theory means to buy back, and purchase the human race from the clutches of the Devil. The main controversy here with this theory is the act of paying off the Devil. Some have written that this is not a fair statement to say that all Ransom Theorists believe that the Devil is paid, but rather in this act of Ransom Christ frees humanity from the bondage of sin and death. In this way, Ransom relates the Christus Victor theory. But it’s worth differentiating here because in one way these views are similar, but in another way, they are drastically different.​

#3 Christus Victor

Classically, the Christus Victor theory of Atonement is widely considered to be the dominant theory for most of the historical Christian Church. In this theory, Jesus Christ dies in order to defeat the powers of evil (such as sin, death, and the devil) in order to free mankind from their bondage. This is related to the Ransom view with the difference being that there is no payment to the devil or to God. Within the Christus Victor framework, the cross did not pay off anyone but defeated evil thereby setting the human race free.

Gustaf Aulen argued that this theory of the Atonement is the most consistently held theory for church history, especially in the early church up until the 12th century before Anslem’s satisfaction theory came along. He writes that “the work of Christ is first and foremost a victory over the powers which hold mankind in bondage: sin, death, and the devil.” 2 He calls this theory the “classic” theory of the Atonement. While some will say that Christus Victor is compatible with other theories of the Atonement, others argue that it is not. Though I have found that most theologians believe that Christus Victor is true, even if it is not for them the primary theory of Christ’s death.​

#4 The Satisfaction Theory (Anselm)

In the 12th century, Anselm of Canterbury proposed a satisfaction theory for the Atonement. In this theory, Jesus Christ’s death is understood as a death to satisfy the justice of God. Satisfaction here means restitution, the mending of what was broken, and the paying back of a debt. In this theory, Anselm emphasizes the justice of God and claims that sin is an injustice that must be balanced. Anselm’s satisfaction theory says essentially that Jesus Christ died in order to pay back the injustice of human sin and to satisfy the justice of God.

This theory was developed in reaction to the historical dominance of the Ransom theory, that God paid the devil with Christ’s death. Anselm saw that this theory was logically flawed, because what does God owe satan? Therefore, in contrast with the Ransom theory, Anselm taught that it is humanity who owes a debt to God, not God to satan. Our debt, in this theory, is that of injustice. Our injustices have stolen from the justice of God and therefore must be paid back. Satisfaction theory then postulates that Jesus Christ pays pack God in His death on the cross to God. This is the first Atonement theory to bring up the notion that God is acted upon by the Atonement (i.e. that Jesus satisfies God).​

#5 The Penal Substitutionary Theory

Penal Substitutionary Atonement is a development of the Reformation. The Reformers, Specifically Calvin and Luther, took Anselm’s Satisfaction theory and modified it slightly. They added a more legal (or forensic) framework into this notion of the cross as satisfaction. The result is that within Penal Substitution, Jesus Christ dies to satisfy God’s wrath against human sin. Jesus is punished (penal) in the place of sinners (substitution) in order to satisfy the justice of God and the legal demand of God to punish sin. In the light of Jesus’ death, God can now forgive the sinner because Jesus Christ has been punished in the place of the sinner, in this way meeting the retributive requirements of God’s justice. This legal balancing of the ledgers is at the heart of this theory, which claims that Jesus died for legal satisfaction. It’s also worth mentioning that in this theory the notion of imputed righteousness is postulated.

This theory of the Atonement contrasts with Anselm’s Satisfaction Theory in that God is not satisfied with a debt of justice being paid by Jesus, but that God is satisfied with punishing Jesus in the place of mankind. The notion that the cross acts upon God, conditioning Him to forgiveness, originates from Anslems theory, but here in Penal Substitution the means are different. This theory of the Atonement is perhaps the most dominant today, especially among the Reformed, and the evangelical.​

#6 The Governmental Theory

The Governmental Theory of the Atonement is a slight variation upon the Penal Substitutionary theory, which is notably held in Methodism. The main difference here is the extent to which Christ suffered. In the Governmental Theory, Jesus Christ suffers the punishment of our sin and propitiates God’s wrath. In this way, it is similar to Penal Substitution. However, in the Governmental Theory, Jesus Christ does not take the exact punishment we deserve, He takes a punishment. Jesus dies on the cross therefore to demonstrate the displeasure of God towards sin. He died to display God’s wrath against sin and the high price which must be paid, but not to specifically satisfy that particular wrath. The Governmental Theory also teaches that Jesus died only for the church, and if you by faith are part of the church, you can take part in God’s salvation. The church then acts as the sort of hiding place from God’s punishment. This view contrasts both the Penal and Satisfaction models but retains the fundamental belief that God cannot forgive if Jesus does not die a propitiating death.​

#7 The Scapegoat Theory

The Scapegoat Theory is a modern Atonement theory rooted in the philosophical concept of the Scapegoat. Here the key figures Rene Girard and James Allison. Within this theory of the Atonement Jesus Christ dies as the Scapegoat of humanity. This theory moves away from the idea that Jesus died in order to act upon God (as in PSA, Satisfaction, or Governmental), or as payment to the devil (as in Ransom). Scapegoating therefore is considered to be a form of non-violent atonement, in that Jesus is not a sacrifice but a victim. There are many Philosophical concepts that come up within this model, but in a general sense, we can say that Jesus Christ as the Scapegoat means the following. 1) Jesus is killed by a violent crowd. 2) The violent crowd kills Him believing that He is guilty. 3) Jesus is proven innocent, as the true Son of God. 4) The crowd is therefore deemed guilty.

James Allison summarizes the Scapegoating Theory like this, “Christianity is a priestly religion which understands that it is God’s overcoming of our violence by substituting himself for the victim of our typical sacrifices that opens up our being able to enjoy the fullness of creation as if death were not.”​

 

[atpollard]

Some potential flies in the ointment for Penal Substitution:

• [Proverbs 16:12] It is an abomination for kings to commit wickedness, For a throne is established by righteousness.
  • Is punishing an innocent Jesus for our sins a wicked act?

• [Ezekiel 18:19-20] "Yet you say, 'Why should the son not bear the guilt of the father?' Because the son has done what is lawful and right, and has kept all My statutes and observed them, he shall surely live. The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself."
  • Does Penal Substitution violate THE LAW?

Just offering a place for discussion.
This was starting to derail another topic.

 

[atpollard]

However, the OT atoning sacrifices were the pattern, type, shadow of Jesus' atonement.

They were substitutionary--the animal died in the sinner's place.
They were penal--Leviticus 5:6-7, 14, 6:6, 26:41, 43.

Was God's WRATH poured upon the animals?

• Definition of wrath
  1 : strong vengeful anger or indignation
  2 : retributory punishment for an offense or a crime : divine chastisement
  

 

[Clare73]

Was God's WRATH poured upon the animals?

• Definition of wrath
  1 : strong vengeful anger or indignation
  2 : retributory punishment for an offense or a crime : divine chastisement

Did the sacrifices actually pay the penalty for and remit sin, or did they simply cover it until Jesus actually atoned for it by actually paying the penalty of God's wrath and condemnation?

 

[St_Worm2]

Did the sacrifices actually pay the penalty for and remit sin, or did they simply cover it until Jesus actually atoned for it by actually paying the penalty of God's wrath and condemnation?

Hello Clare et @atpollard, it seems to me that the latter is the case. For instance,

Hebrews 9
22 All things are cleansed with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.

Hebrews 10
4 It is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.

Romans 3
23 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 [left unpunished] the sins previously committed [committed beforehand by the saints of old].​

The Bible tells us that God passed over/left unpunished the sins that were committed in the past (by OT believers/saints), until they could finally be atoned for and forgiven by the only Sacrifice/the only shed blood that is capable of doing so, that of the Sin-bearer, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

God bless you!!

--David

 

[atpollard]

The issue is one of WRATH.

Only a biblically illiterate would argue that Jesus was not made sin in our place or that Jesus was not the “propitiation” (God’s word) for our sin.

The issue is finding anyplace that even HINTS that the Father was ever angry at the Son … the cornerstone of WRATH. Where does scripture describe the Father as feeling anything except LOVE for the Son?

 

[bling]

All the theories you addressed have huge problems and do a poor job explaining all the scripture.

Atonement is a huge topic. Jesus is not the atonement, but just the atonement Sacrifice, so what else is included, especially what is man’s part?

We talk about Christ paying God for our sins 100%, yet that means God had nothing left to forgive and if God forgave our sins 100% them Christ had nothing left to pay God, so which is it, since it cannot be both?

All the popular theories of atonement all having huge issues:

1. They make God out to be blood thirsty?

2. God is seen as being extremely wrathful toward His children?

3. All leave out man’s part in the atonement process, but do try to inject it someway?

4. They show universal atonement, which has to be illogically explained away to be for only those saved?

5. Jesus, Paul, John, Peter and the Hebrew writer explain Jesus going to the cross as literally being a ransom payment, yet the theories do a poor job explaining how these theories are ransom/kidnap scenario (the Ransom Theory of Atonement also does a poor job).

6. A rebellious disobedient child of a wonderful parent not only needs forgiveness, but fair/just Loving discipline conducted if at all possible, with the Parent (this is for best results), yet these theories only show forgiveness and not how atonement is a fair/just loving disciplining of the sinner.

7. It makes God out to be weak needing something like Christ going to the cross to forgive or accept the sinner and/or there is this “cosmic law” God has to obey.

8. They do not fit the definition for atonement in Lev.5 here minor sins (unintentional sins) are atoned for.

9. They do not explain the contrast between those forgiven before and after the cross Ro. 3:25.

10. They have no reason for why these explanations are left out of the Christ Crucified sermons given in the New Testament.

11. They do not fit, what the new convert can/should experience when coming to the realization they caused Christ to be tortured, humiliated and murdered (being crucified with Christ).

12. All will give illogical interpretations of verses and words in scripture, like (My God, My God why have you forsaken me) and the English word translating the Greek “for”.

13. They have or say: God forgives our sins 100% and Christ paid for our sins 100%, but that is contradicting the scriptural understanding of “paying” and “forgiving”, since if it truly “forgiven” there is nothing to be paid. It also cheapens sin.

14. The atonement sacrifice losses significance is lost by rolling it up with the death burial and resurrection.

15. We have Peter in Acts 2 giving a wonderful “Christ Crucified” sermon, yet there is no mention of Christ being our substitute or the cross “satisfying” God in some way and that is not presented in other sermons in scripture.

The cross is foolishness to the nonbeliever so it is not easy to explain:

To truly understand we need to go through every Old and New Testament verse concerning the atonement process and Christ’s crucifixion. I like to start with Lev. 5, but we might find the greatest understanding in Ro. 3:25, since there is Godly logic in what happened.

Atonement is one of those religious concepts which is best understood through experiencing it, then trying to explain it. Unfortunately, the new Christian is filled with ideas about atonement prior to experiencing it, so they are brain washed into trying to feel something that does not happen and quenching what should happen.

One of the advantages the Jews before Christ’s sacrifice had with atonement was personally going through the atonement process for very minor sins (unintentional sins). Lev. 5 explains why, what sinner goes through in the atonement process and might be a good place to start, since Lev. 4-5 is where atonement begins. There is also the advantage of the Lev. 5 atonement being for the individuals personal and actual sins.

We might be able to take the atonement process for very minor sins and extrapolate up to what it could be like for rebellious disobedience directly towards God requiring death for the sinner with no atonement possible under the Old Law.

It would be best to imagen yourself as a first century (BC) Jewish man who just accidently touched a dead unclean animal. If you are real poor you are going to have to work an extra job help someone else for money to buy a sack of flour. If you live in the city and have money you are going to have to go out and buy a lamb and some grain to feed it. You are not a shepherd, so you will have to drag or carry a balling, thirsty and hungry lamb to the altar. You get up early to hike into Jerusalem wait in line for hours to hand the flour or lamb to the priest and watch them go through their part of the atonement process which if you all did everything right will result in God forgiving you and you feeling forgiven.

There is more to what and why this happens which we can find in Lev. 5:

5…they must confess in what way they have sinned. (which we need to do in the atonement process)

6 As a penalty for the sin they have committed… Here the reason for atonement is given “as a penalty” (punishment but better translated disciplining).

If the sacrifice was made as a “payment” for a sin: these sins are all the same and God considers all people the same, so the sacrifice would need to be the same (a lamb for all or doves for all or flour for all) but they are not the same. The different values of the sacrifices, is an attempt to equalize the hardship/penalty (disciplining) on the sinners and does not suggest a payment being made to God especially a payment to forgive a sin. God does not need a bag of flour to forgive sins.

The intention of the sinner going through all this, would be, all the benefits that come from being Lovingly disciplined.

We really need to go through every verse relating to atonement and sacrifice to gleam a true understanding.


Try just this small part of atonement:

There is this unbelievable huge “ransom payment” being made: Jesus, Peter, Paul, John and the author of Hebrews all describe it as an actual ransom scenario and not just “like a ransom scenario”. And we can all agree on: the payment being Christ’s torture, humiliation and murder, the Payer being God/Christ, the child being set free (sinners going to God), but have a problem with: “Who is the kidnapper”? If there is no kidnapper than the ransom scenario does not fit, so who is the kidnapper?

Some people try to make God the receiver of the payment, which calls God the kidnapper of His own children which is crazy.

Some people say satan is the kidnapper (this is what the Ransom Theory of atonement has), but that would mean God is paying satan when God has the power to safely take anything from satan and it would be wrong for God to pay satan.

Some say it is an intangible like death, evil, sin, or nothing, but you would not pay a huge payment to an intangible?

Think about this

When we go to the nonbeliever, we are not trying to convince them of an idea, a book, a church, a doctrine or theology, but to accept Jesus Christ and Him crucified. If the nonbeliever accepts (Jesus Christ) there is a child released to go to the Father, but if the nonbeliever refuses to accept Jesus Christ and Him crucified a child is kept out of the Kingdom. Does this all sounds very much like a kidnapping scenario?

Is Jesus Christ and Him crucified is the huge ransom payment?

Yes, Christ is the ransom payment for all, but the kidnapper can accept or reject the payment. If the kidnapper rejects this unbelievable huge payment, the payers of the ransom are going to be upset with that kidnapper.

There is a lot more to say about this, but this is an introduction.

 

[St_Worm2]

The issue is one of WRATH.

Only a biblically illiterate would argue that Jesus was not made sin in our place or that Jesus was not the “propitiation” (God’s word) for our sin.

The issue is finding anyplace that even HINTS that the Father was ever angry at the Son … the cornerstone of WRATH. Where does scripture describe the Father as feeling anything except LOVE for the Son?

Where does the theory of penal substitution claim that the Father "felt anger" towards Jesus Himself?

He was angry with us (as His "enemies"), and His wrath was directed at Jesus (in a sense), but only because our sins were imputed to Him/credited to His account as our "substitute". He stood in our place before the Father and received from Him the punishment that "we" deserved.

The Bible tells us that Jesus saves us not only from our sins, but from His Father's wrath as well .. e.g. Romans 5:9-10, and it was His death on the Cross that accomplished both of those for us, yes (atonement for our sins, and satisfaction for the wrath that the Father held against us, that is).

All of this (how the atonement actually happened) is a Biblical mystery, which is why there are so many different "theories" about it, of course. If I'm still missing something important concerning penal substitution however (and I may well be), please let me know what it is.

Thanks

God bless you!!

--David

Isaiah 53
4 Surely our griefs He Himself bore,
And our sorrows He carried;
Yet we ourselves esteemed Him stricken,
Smitten of God, and afflicted.
5 But He was pierced through for our transgressions,
He was crushed for our iniquities;
The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him,
And by His scourging we are healed.
6 All of us like sheep have gone astray,
Each of us has turned to his own way;
But the LORD has caused the iniquity of us all
To fall on Him.
.​

 

[atpollard]

He was angry with us (as His "enemies"), and His wrath was directed at Jesus (in a sense), but only because our sins were imputed to Him/credited to His account as our "substitute".

Where does the Bible say that God’s wrath was directed at Jesus (in any sense)?

 

[St_Worm2]

Where does the Bible say that God’s wrath was directed at Jesus (in any sense)?

Hello again atpollard, the Bible NEVER says that the Father was angry with Jesus 'Himself'. It does say that He was angry at us/at our sins however, which Jesus bore in His body and died for in our stead.

So, the anger/wrath of God, which was originally meant for us, was directed toward our Savior instead (when He took our place on the Cross as our sin-bearing Substitute). It is in that sense alone that God's anger (which was meant for us and directed at our sins) was directed toward Him as our Sin-bearer.

One last question, where does the definition of "penal substitution" tell us that God was angry with Jesus Himself?

Thanks

God bless you!!

--David

1 Peter 2
24 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.
.​

 

[atpollard]

Hello again atpollard, the Bible NEVER says that the Father was angry with Jesus 'Himself'. It does say that He was angry at us/at our sins however, which Jesus bore in His body and died for in our stead.

So, the anger/wrath of God, which was originally meant for us, was directed toward our Savior instead (when He took our place on the Cross as our sin-bearing Substitute). It is in that sense alone that God's anger (which was meant for us and directed at our sins) was directed toward Him as our Sin-bearer.

One last question, where does the definition of "penal substitution" tell us that God was angry with Jesus Himself?

Thanks

God bless you!!

--David

1 Peter 2
24 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.
.​

Starting with your quote in 1 Peter 2 … note that it never talks about God being angry with anybody. (Just sayin’)

Let me offer a “what if” and you tell me if it has any BIBLICAL merit at all:

The WRATH of God is ALWAYS and EXCLUSIVELY directed against sin and, specifically, the sin of those that reject the salvation offered through the SON.

The WRATH of God is NEVER directed against those God loves … His Son and His Children.

Wrath is reserved and stored up against the reprobate and delivered on the day of judgement.
​

So HOW SURE ARE YOU that God is angry with OUR sins … the sins that are forgiven … the sins that Jesus bore … the sins that are as far away as the east is from the west?

 

[St_Worm2]

HOW SURE ARE YOU that God is angry with OUR sins … the sins that are forgiven … the sins that Jesus bore … the sins that are as far away as the east is from the west?

Hello again atpollard, God isn't angry with sins that have already been atoned for and forgiven by Him (if I said that, or even implied such a thing above, I apologize, because that's not what I believe). The sins of unbelievers are a different matter however, whether they be sins of an unbelieving reprobate, or sins of a saint to be (prior to being made alive in Christ .. Ephesians 2:4-5, we (saints to be) were just like everybody else, yes .. Ephesians 2:1-3?

That said, it feels a little bit like the goal posts are being moved when I answer (or perhaps that our thinking is simply on different wavelengths, so to speak). What might help is for me to have a better understanding of what you meant in this post.

The issue is one of WRATH. Only a biblically illiterate would argue that Jesus was not made sin in our place or that Jesus was not the “propitiation” (God’s word) for our sin. The issue is finding anyplace that even HINTS that the Father was ever angry at the Son … the cornerstone of WRATH. Where does scripture describe the Father as feeling anything except LOVE for the Son?

As I said earlier, the Bible never says that the Father is angry with the Son. Since this is the case, then how do you believe that God's "wrath" is being improperly taught by the atonement theory of "penal substitution"? I can't find it in your posited definition (or in other definitions) whether directly or by implication.

Or perhaps I am still missing the point that you are trying to make (about penal substitution and God's wrath)? If so, please enlighten me/us

Thanks

--David

 

[atpollard]

The WRATH of God is ALWAYS and EXCLUSIVELY directed against sin and, specifically, the sin of those that reject the salvation offered through the SON.

The WRATH of God is NEVER directed against those God loves … His Son and His Children.

Wrath is reserved and stored up against the reprobate and delivered on the day of judgement.

That is my only “point”. It is as much a question as a personal opinion. However, ultimately, ATONEMENT is not a topic that I am willing to debate.

 

[St_Worm2]

That is my only “point”. It is as much a question as a personal opinion. However, ultimately, ATONEMENT is not a topic that I am willing to debate.

Hello again atpollard, thank you for replying (again). Question, if you didn't want to discuss the atonement (or perhaps better, theories about the atonement), then why did you start a thread on the soteriology board that is specifically about it (and a fairly controversial part of it too)?

You know, just forget that last question. I think that it's time for me to bow out this thread, as I've asked several questions, well, one important one anyway that remains unanswered. As a result, I'm not getting any closer to understanding what you're actually after here/what the point is that you're trying to make.

I'll check back in and see if someone else's discussion with you sheds any light on the question(s) that I have, and if so, I'll join back in (if I think that I have anything to add).

Beyond that, I look forward to seeing you next time on a different thread

God bless you!!

--David

 

[atpollard]

Hello again atpollard, thank you for replying (again). Question, if you didn't want to discuss the atonement (or perhaps better, theories about the atonement), then why did you start a thread on the soteriology board that is specifically about it (and a fairly controversial part of it too)?

Just offering a place for discussion.
This was starting to derail another topic.

Just a point of clarification, I said I do not debate atonement, not that I do not discuss it. I tried my best to answer your question, but I have no desire to “defend” any position (even my own).

Besides, Penal Substitution isn’t nearly as controversial as ECT.

 

[atpollard]

One last question, where does the definition of "penal substitution" tell us that God was angry with Jesus Himself?

The common understanding of Penal Substitution is that the WRATH of God for our sin was transferred to JESUS. This is often stated as “JESUS suffered the wrath of God that we deserved” in sermons.

I question this common understanding (which was once my own) because I was once challenged to PROVE IT with scripture and searched for the biblical confirmation. What I found suggests that WRATH (defined as punishment motivated by anger) was never directed against Christ. Wrath is generally directed against sin and specifically directed against the damned on the Day of Wrath.

For people to claim Penal Substitution has nothing to do with the wrath of God is to deny how most people view it (including those that preach from pulpits). The transfer of wrath is central to the common understanding … I merely question its Biblical accuracy.

If you believe that Jesus did not suffer the WRATH of God for our sins, then you and I are in agreement with scripture.

 

[bling]

The issue is one of WRATH.

Only a biblically illiterate would argue that Jesus was not made sin in our place or that Jesus was not the “propitiation” (God’s word) for our sin.

The issue is finding anyplace that even HINTS that the Father was ever angry at the Son … the cornerstone of WRATH. Where does scripture describe the Father as feeling anything except LOVE for the Son?

You might want to read my post 7.

 

[atpollard]

All the theories you addressed have huge problems and do a poor job explaining all the scripture.

I merely presented the dominant theories throughout history in Post #1. I offer no opinion on any of them. I just find that a common set of "definitions" is usually beneficial to any conversation.

Atonement is a huge topic. Jesus is not the atonement, but just the atonement Sacrifice, so what else is included, especially what is man’s part?

As a Particular Baptist ... "man's part" is the same as the "part" that the canvas plays in creating a great painting ... we stand there as the artist does his work. We are recipients of a gift. "grace" (undeserved favor); "faith" (certainty of things unseen); "salvation" (transformation from death to life and from darkness to light). You and I will probably disagree on this part.

To truly understand we need to go through every Old and New Testament verse concerning the atonement process and Christ’s crucifixion. I like to start with Lev. 5, but we might find the greatest understanding in Ro. 3:25, since there is Godly logic in what happened.

Romans 3:

[ESV] 21 But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— 22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. 26 It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

[NLT]
21 But now God has shown us a way to be made right with him without keeping the requirements of the law, as was promised in the writings of Moses and the prophets long ago. 22 We are made right with God by placing our faith in Jesus Christ. And this is true for everyone who believes, no matter who we are.
23 For everyone has sinned; we all fall short of God’s glorious standard. 24 Yet God, with undeserved kindness, declares that we are righteous. He did this through Christ Jesus when he freed us from the penalty for our sins. 25 For God presented Jesus as the sacrifice for sin. People are made right with God when they believe that Jesus sacrificed his life, shedding his blood. This sacrifice shows that God was being fair when he held back and did not punish those who sinned in times past, 26 for he was looking ahead and including them in what he would do in this present time. God did this to demonstrate his righteousness, for he himself is fair and just, and he declares sinners to be right in his sight when they believe in Jesus.
​

Our "part" seems to be "faith in Jesus Christ" or "to believe".

Campus Crusade was fond of the imagery of the cross as a "bridge" across the separation between us and God. I think the OT Blood was needed to foreshadow the reality of the cross and put an exclamation point on the fact that "sin" is a BIG DEAL to a Holy God ... not something lightly shrugged of with a:

Man: "Sorry, God"
God: "Don't sweat it, forgiven and forgotten."

However I do not see WRATH as a critical element in the Romans 3 quote (except 'propitiation' ... acknowledging that WRATH is gone - not transferred).

​

 

[bling]

I merely presented the dominant theories throughout history in Post #1. I offer no opinion on any of them. I just find that a common set of "definitions" is usually beneficial to any conversation.


As a Particular Baptist ... "man's part" is the same as the "part" that the canvas plays in creating a great painting ... we stand there as the artist does his work. We are recipients of a gift. "grace" (undeserved favor); "faith" (certainty of things unseen); "salvation" (transformation from death to life and from darkness to light). You and I will probably disagree on this part.

I do not agree with your definition of: “faith” (certainty of things unseen). I see faith growing toward a “certainty”, but only in heaven is faith replaced with knowledge (certainty). Faith is most of the time a trust. All mature adults have a God gifted “faith”, which they can use to “worship and trust” in all kinds of things and people. A saving faith/trust, happens when one takes their God gifted faith and directs it toward the Creator of the Universe willing to accept His help/Charity as pure undeserved charity.

Romans 3:

[ESV] 21 But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— 22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. 26 It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

[NLT]
21 But now God has shown us a way to be made right with him without keeping the requirements of the law, as was promised in the writings of Moses and the prophets long ago. 22 We are made right with God by placing our faith in Jesus Christ. And this is true for everyone who believes, no matter who we are.
23 For everyone has sinned; we all fall short of God’s glorious standard. 24 Yet God, with undeserved kindness, declares that we are righteous. He did this through Christ Jesus when he freed us from the penalty for our sins. 25 For God presented Jesus as the sacrifice for sin. People are made right with God when they believe that Jesus sacrificed his life, shedding his blood. This sacrifice shows that God was being fair when he held back and did not punish those who sinned in times past, 26 for he was looking ahead and including them in what he would do in this present time. God did this to demonstrate his righteousness, for he himself is fair and just, and he declares sinners to be right in his sight when they believe in Jesus.
​

Our "part" seems to be "faith in Jesus Christ" or "to believe".

Campus Crusade was fond of the imagery of the cross as a "bridge" across the separation between us and God. I think the OT Blood was needed to foreshadow the reality of the cross and put an exclamation point on the fact that "sin" is a BIG DEAL to a Holy God ... not something lightly shrugged of with a:

Man: "Sorry, God"
God: "Don't sweat it, forgiven and forgotten."

However I do not see WRATH as a critical element in the Romans 3 quote (except 'propitiation' ... acknowledging that WRATH is gone - not transferred).

​

Any wonderful parent will not only forgive their rebellious disobedient child, but will also see to their fair just Loving discipline for all the benefits of disciplining their child. Parents are not mad or wrathful toward their children, but are doing what they should be doing if they can by disciplining the child.

How severe should our discipline be for us to realize the significance of our sins and the degree with which we are Loved and will our parent be joining us through it all? How about crucifixion?

If we could truly empathetically experience being crucified like God in heaven experienced being crucified while Christ was being crucified, would what God went through be good enough for our discipline?

 

[Fervent]

I find that a major deficiency in all of the atonement theories is they tend to begin with philosophically understanding New Testament passages on atonement, rather than developing an understanding of the pattern set in the OT sacrifices. When the OT material comes into the question, it is usually a matter of reading things into the text(such as the notion that the animals "represent" the offerers) rather than attempting to understand the sacrifices as those who were given them would have. For example, Leviticus and Hebrews both speak of cleansing in the blood without reference to the death of the animal. A major issue with interpreting the Levitical sacrifices comes from interpeters imposing a notion that the elements of the sacrifices are symbolic onto the text, rather than asking "What is happening in the offering?" The latter question leads to something that is curious to modern readers, as Leviticus declares that the offerings are food for God(a sweet savor, a meal offering).