Satisfaction Theory

[ArmyMatt]

Ezekiel 18:4
Behold, all souls are Mine; the soul of the father as well as the soul of the son is Mine. The soul who sins will die.

that doesn't necessarily make it a legal penalty.

 

[com7fy8]

a man will forsake his father to be with his bride.

Now, this is something I never got, before. I am curious, if I may ask here > did you get this in your own personal prayer meditation, or did someone else teach you this?

I do understand, by the way, that Jesus is asking a question, saying "My God". So, this can indeed be asking in love and faith, not in separation from God like ones claim Jesus was in while on the cross; and this question could be for our benefit. Yeah, ones do claim He was in total separation from God. But that would mean Jesus changed, and God can not change . . . I would say we need to consider.

Thank you for your time to explain what you have on this

 

[prodromos]

Now, this is something I never got, before. I am curious, if I may ask here > did you get this in your own personal prayer meditation, or did someone else teach you this?

I do understand, by the way, that Jesus is asking a question, saying "My God". So, this can indeed be asking in love and faith, not in separation from God like ones claim Jesus was in while on the cross; and this question could be for our benefit. Yeah, ones do claim He was in total separation from God. But that would mean Jesus changed, and God can not change . . . I would say we need to consider.

Thank you for your time to explain what you have on this

Have you read Psalm 22?

 

[ArmyMatt]

Now, this is something I never got, before. I am curious, if I may ask here > did you get this in your own personal prayer meditation, or did someone else teach you this?

I do understand, by the way, that Jesus is asking a question, saying "My God". So, this can indeed be asking in love and faith, not in separation from God like ones claim Jesus was in while on the cross; and this question could be for our benefit. Yeah, ones do claim He was in total separation from God. But that would mean Jesus changed, and God can not change . . . I would say we need to consider.

Thank you for your time to explain what you have on this

from someone else.

 

[hedrick]

Some ideas can be against biblical principles about God. Like implying he hates us and Jesus was punished to save us from God.

Since I'm not Orthodox I'm not going to express a personal opinion. However I'd like to prevent misunderstanding. Calvin is normally considered responsible for penal substitution (although I'm not convinced that this is really accurate*). He is clear on this subject: Despite the fact that we are corrupted by sin, God still sees his image in us and determines to redeem us. Jesus' death is because of God's love for us, not his hate for us.

-------

* While Calvin does speak of Jesus bearing God's wrath, his initial explanation of the Atonement in the Institutes is that the most significant aspect is Jesus' entire life of obedience, including but not limited to his obedience even to death. Through faith in him, that obedience becomes ours. Current Calvin scholarship says that Calvin used a number of different models for the atonement.

 

[peregrinus2017]

Even so, He did say, "why have You forsaken Me?"

My understanding of this is that when Christ says "My God, my God why have you forsaken me" he is quoting psalm 22. (Psalm 21 in the Septuagint.) Back then Psalms were not titled by number, but usually identified by the first line. Any Jew there that could hear him would have recognized this and been able to see this prophetic psalm being fulfilled before their eyes. And still many refused to believe.

 

[-Sasha-]

My understanding of this is that when Christ says "My God, my God why have you forsaken me" he is quoting psalm 22. (Psalm 21 in the Septuagint.) Back then Psalms were not titled by number, but usually identified by the first line. Any Jew there that could hear him would have recognized this and been able to see this prophetic psalm being fulfilled before their eyes. And still many refused to believe.

For He has not despised nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted;
Nor has He hidden His face from Him;
But when He cried to Him, He heard.

 

[com7fy8]

Have you read Psalm 22?

Yes, a few times.

 

[Tutorman]

I guess I'm just becoming conscious of the fact that most Christians don't actually recognize (or seek) any authority beyond their own interpretation of the Scriptures...

Maybe many evangelicals but not most Christians. There are Anglican, Catholic, Orthodox, and my communion where Christians do not look to their own authority but look to the Church

 

[hedrick]

Maybe many evangelicals but not most Christians. There are Anglican, Catholic, Orthodox, and my communion where Christians do not look to their own authority but look to the Church

It's actually not true of evangelicals either. While they recognize Scripture as authoritative, in practice there is an evangelical interpretative tradition just as much as a Catholic interpretative tradition. (Of course there are variants within both communities.)

 

[YCGP]

It does make sin God's problem.

There is often the assumption that God is somehow bound by these great cosmic laws, and even if He wanted to forgive us without extracting payment from someone in the form of punishment - He can't do so because those laws won't let Him.

Not only does God change toward us in such a scenario, but He's not even capable of simply choosing how to respond to us.

So if God is not bound by these cosmic laws, why did He feel the need to send His Son to pay for our sins? Did he have any other option?

 

[~Anastasia~]

So if God is not bound by these cosmic laws, why did He feel the need to send His Son to pay for our sins? Did he have any other option?

Do you mean could He simply freely forgive us without demanding blood/suffering payment?

Yes, He can.




Jesus' Incarnation, death, and resurrection is about SO MUCH MORE than legalistic payment by a whipping-boy. In fact, a whipping boy is NOT "just" which most of us would agree if it was a human father, a human son, and a human whipping boy. It's just a particular narrative that people are told they must accept in order to be "saved" that causes them to do the mental gymnastics to convince themselves it's about "justice".

I'm not belittling what Jesus did. The idea that He was simply a payment for sin that the Father needed in order to have the right to forgive us belittles both Jesus' wonderful salvation and the Father's sovereignty.

Jesus accomplished much by what He did. But the thing the early Christians focused on most was that He conquered death itself, making the way for our eternal life.

 

[Tutorman]

The recapitulation theory of the atonement I believe is the best theory

 

[truefiction1]

So if God is not bound by these cosmic laws, why did He feel the need to send His Son to pay for our sins? Did he have any other option?

No other option, because it was about restoring us to a way of Life, which required "fixing" us. God wasn't in need of any payment.

It's like this: You tell your child not to do something that will cause them to be injured. Then your child does it anyway, and is injured. Now, because you love your child and need them to be made whole again, you have to go and get them and do certain things that will make them all better again, like fetch a doctor, for example. So, there is a price for a child's mistake/disobedience, and since your child isn't capable of paying that price, you will have to pay it. Everything that God did in Christ, is what we needed to have done so that we can become whole again.