Why Substitutionary Atonement?

[hedrick]

The Bible says that repentance is the way to avoid God's wrath. In the NT, repentance means turning to Christ.

 

[hedrick]

wait a moment....hold the presses...what does punishment have to do with any of this? Wrath and punishment are not the same thing, so apparently we are talking about two completely different things here if you think that wrath and punishment are the same thing.

I certainly don’t think that. The point of the discussion is penal satisfaction. It say that in order to save us, Christ had to be punished on our behalf. That’s what I’ve been responding to.

not a clue...faith produces obedience not obedience faith....you lost me on this one, what does obedience have to do with anything when the John passage being discussed says faith/belief and not obedience.

The passage in John speaks of both. It says those who have faith have eternal life; those who disobey do not and will suffer God’s wrath. Since the verse talks about both faith and obedience, it seems reasonable to ask what the connection is. Since John 3:18-21 talks about the connection, and is part of the same section, that looked like a good place to look.

I agree that the normal sequence is that faith leads to obedience. But that’s not what John says. He says that those who are disobedience don’t want to come to Christ. I haven't had time to think about the implications of that. It's certainly not what one would expect.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand, you seem to be arguing for Christ's blood is our atonement rather than against it like you are claiming when disagreeing with us. huh?

Sure. Actually I’d say, with Paul, that both his death and resurrection are involved. But yes, his blood is a major part of the atonement. To my knowledge, no one in this thread objects to the idea that his death is atoning. The subject of the discussion is Penal Substitution. That’s a bit more specific. It doesn’t just say that Christ’s death is atoning. It says that Christ’s death atones for us because only Christ’s death can satisfy his wrath, where wrath is understood to demand punishment and thus having to be satisfied by punishing someone. Furthermore, the theory goes, because we have sinned against God, this demands infinite punishment, and only Christ can satisfy that. That’s what I was arguing against.

"Substitutionary atonement" is a bit broader than "penal substitution." To my knowledge everyone agrees that in some way Jesus is our substitute. Not everyone agrees with penal satisfaction.

 

[razzelflabben]

Have you ever considered that God withdrew from Jesus at that time because it was too painful to bear?

Have you ever considered Isaiah 53 where we are told that it pleased the Lord to bruise Him....if God took pleasure in Jesus sacrifice and suffering, why would the pain be too much for Him to bear? That would be a contridiction in scripture and I personally don't believe there is such a thing.

 

[razzelflabben]

Can you please explain why you are using the word "wrath" this way? No scriptures that you have presented have done this either. I see this as contributing to confusion while you and I might otherwise agree. I also suspect you and I may not agree on the purpose or intention of death as applied in Genesis 3:22 and Romans 6:23.

I have absolutely no clue what you are trying to say...sorry, I just don't and this seems to make it even muddier.

 

[razzelflabben]

I certainly don’t think that. The point of the discussion is penal satisfaction. It say that in order to save us, Christ had to be punished on our behalf. That’s what I’ve been responding to.

seems to me you are confusing punishment with consequences, it's a very common mistake.

The punishment for sin was pain in child bearing, weeds, etc. That punishment is not atoned for in the blood of the Lamb. On the other hand, death is the consequence of sin, that is spiritual separation from God. This consequence is there because God is so holy He cannot look upon sin. That is also where God's wrath comes into the picture, you see, punishment is because God needs to correct, consequence is because God is angry that we did not heed the correction. This is the reason for Jesus to come and die, to destroy the power of sin and death, you know, atone for the wrath of God, not change the correction/punishments. Hebrews 2:14...not sure how to find anything that testifies to the atoning blood of Jesus more clearly than that passage. His whole purpose for coming, suffering, and dieing was to satisfy God's wrath.

The passage in John speaks of both. It says those who have faith have eternal life; those who disobey do not and will suffer God’s wrath. Since the verse talks about both faith and obedience, it seems reasonable to ask what the connection is. Since John 3:18-21 talks about the connection, and is part of the same section, that looked like a good place to look.

where does it say obey...? KJV He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

HCSB The one who believes in the Son has eternal life, but the one who refuses to believe in the Son will not see life; instead, the wrath of God remains on him.

What other translations do you want? It is talking about belief, not obedience. Like I said, obedience flows from belief, not belief from obedience.

I agree that the normal sequence is that faith leads to obedience. But that’s not what John says. He says that those who are disobedience don’t want to come to Christ. I haven't had time to think about the implications of that. It's certainly not what one would expect.

that is because belief is an act of obedience and you aren't ready to discuss this topic in a meaningful way if you haven't already taken the time to think that through. Just saying, that is a pivotal part of the whole teaching in scripture.

Sure. Actually I’d say, with Paul, that both his death and resurrection are involved. But yes, his blood is a major part of the atonement. To my knowledge, no one in this thread objects to the idea that his death is atoning. The subject of the discussion is Penal Substitution. That’s a bit more specific. It doesn’t just say that Christ’s death is atoning. It says that Christ’s death atones for us because only Christ’s death can satisfy his wrath, where wrath is understood to demand punishment. That’s what I was arguing against.

wrath is defined as extreme anger....so we are back to the question of what punishment you think is on the table here? God's punishment laid out to man is found in Gen. when Adam and Eve sinned. This punishment is handed down and is added to on a person to person basis as is needed by a Loving Father. But like any good FAther, God does NOT punish in anger, that is reserved for His wrath. Wrath being extreme anger, not "a teachable moment" so to speak. I do think that maybe the core of the problem is the lack of understanding of what wrath is.

 

[razzelflabben]

The Bible says that repentance is the way to avoid God's wrath. In the NT, repentance means turning to Christ.

actually repentance means to turn away from sin and to Christ, but...

 

[hedrick]

God's punishment laid out to man is found in Gen. when Adam and Eve sinned. This punishment is handed down and is added to on a person to person basis as is needed by a Loving Father. But like any good FAther, God does NOT punish in anger, that is reserved for His wrath. Wrath being extreme anger, not "a teachable moment" so to speak. I do think that maybe the core of the problem is the lack of understanding of what wrath is.

I'm not so sure you actually believe in PSA, which means that I'm not sure how much (if at all) I disagree with you.

 

[oi_antz]

Have you ever considered Isaiah 53 where we are told that it pleased the Lord to bruise Him....if God took pleasure in Jesus sacrifice and suffering, why would the pain be too much for Him to bear? That would be a contridiction in scripture and I personally don't believe there is such a thing.

Yes, I have considered that passage. I do not consider that God did the bruising to Jesus, but that was done by those of His own people who did not receive Him.

 

[oi_antz]

I have absolutely no clue what you are trying to say...sorry, I just don't and this seems to make it even muddier.

Oh well, perhaps it just needs a bit of time and prayer. It is not like some harm will be done that is our fault for having waited on His perfect timing

 

[oi_antz]

The punishment for sin was pain in child bearing, weeds, etc. That punishment is not atoned for in the blood of the Lamb. On the other hand, death is the consequence of sin, that is spiritual separation from God. This consequence is there because God is so holy He cannot look upon sin. That is also where God's wrath comes into the picture, you see, punishment is because God needs to correct, consequence is because God is angry that we did not heed the correction. This is the reason for Jesus to come and die, to destroy the power of sin and death, you know, atone for the wrath of God, not change the correction/punishments.

I'd quite like to know why you have implied that the curse of death, (which was actually the revocation of the blessing of everlasting life), is because God was angry. If you have some scripture that shows that, please present it, because I did present Genesis 3:22 where that blessing was revoked and it does not imply that God was angry. All that God says is a question "what will happen if the man is now to live forever?" or a statement (depending on the translation) "now the man must not be allowed to live forever". So to my reading, the revocation of the blessing of everlasting life was more as wisdom, to protect the human and the whole of creation, from such consequences of having everlasting life while the human (the corrupted, sinful image of God) is still living to please it's self according to it's knowledge of good and evil. I notice too, that the mechanism of everlasting life is restored in Revelation 2:7 - those who have overcome sin are given the access to the tree of life by Jesus Christ. So it seems to show that God's plan was not to impose death as a consequence, but as a measure of protection that ensures only those who are capable of overcoming sin are entrusted with everlasting life. That is a wise decision, and Jesus has achieved it for us, but only if He truly does trust us that we will obey Him. Salvation was achieve by Jesus Christ's obedience to God's will, resisting sin to the point of death, so that God has full confidence that He can never be corrupted, and every authority on heaven and earth is rendered unto Him. He has proved worthy.

But I don't know whether there is possibly other scripture in your mind that demonstrates some anger or wrath behind God's decision to revoke everlasting life in the first place. If so, I'd quite like to see it.

I do think that maybe the core of the problem is the lack of understanding of what wrath is.

I think you could be making a very important observation with this, as I have found that you have done with love and pride vs love and hate. Would you be willing to explain what you think is this misunderstanding of wrath that might be useful to establish?

 

[ToBeLoved]

I'd quite like to know why you have implied that the curse of death, (which was actually the revocation of the blessing of everlasting life), is because God was angry. If you have some scripture that shows that, please present it, because I did present Genesis 3:22 where that blessing was revoked and it does not imply that God was angry. All that God says is a question "what will happen if the man is now to live forever?" or a statement (depending on the translation) "now the man must not be allowed to live forever". So to my reading, the revocation of the blessing of everlasting life was more as wisdom, to protect the human and the whole of creation, from such consequences of having everlasting life while the human (the corrupted, sinful image of God) is still living to please it's self according to it's knowledge of good and evil. I notice too, that the mechanism of everlasting life is restored in Revelation 2:7 - those who have overcome sin are given the access to the tree of life by Jesus Christ. So it seems to show that God's plan was not to impose death as a consequence, but as a measure of protection that ensures only those who are capable of overcoming sin are entrusted with everlasting life. That is a wise decision, and Jesus has achieved it for us, but only if He truly does trust us that we will obey Him. Salvation was achieve by Jesus Christ's obedience to God's will, resisting sin to the point of death, so that God has full confidence that He can never be corrupted, and every authority on heaven and earth is rendered unto Him. He has proved worthy.

But I don't know whether there is possibly other scripture in your mind that demonstrates some anger or wrath behind God's decision to revoke everlasting life in the first place. If so, I'd quite like to see it.

I think you could be making a very important observation with this, as I have found that you have done with love and pride vs love and hate. Would you be willing to explain what you think is this misunderstanding of wrath that might be useful to establish?

i agree with you.

God was only angry that we sinned because it separated man and God. God is holy and CANNOT abide with sin. It is impossible. So it was righteous. It is because He does not want to be separated from us either.

I would also like to address the other point made about if man would have lived forever in his sinful state. To me this would be terrible, because man has a sin nature which means we would be battling sin forever. Does not sound good to me.

At least in physically dying, we are taken to heaven and made perfect there by Christ, so there is a better life (so to speak) waiting us after this one. I think it was loving of God to do that.

I'd hate to live in this sinful world for eternity. Nope. Not me.

 

[razzelflabben]

I'm not so sure you actually believe in PSA, which means that I'm not sure how much (if at all) I disagree with you.

hum.....so when I tell you that I don't even know what PSA means because I believe what the bible says rather than what man says, you aren't sure whether or not I believe PSA? Just curious, what do you think it means when I say, "I don't have a clue what PSA means, what I believe is straight out of scripture."?

 

[razzelflabben]

Yes, I have considered that passage. I do not consider that God did the bruising to Jesus, but that was done by those of His own people who did not receive Him.

who said anything at all about God bruising Jesus? I said that God took pleasure in Jesus suffering. If you look deeper into the word of God you see that He took pleasure in Jesus suffering because of the good that HE knew would come of it. But that is off topic, the topic at this point is your claim that Jesus cried out, "My God My God why have you forsaken Me" because God was so overcome with grief that He turned away...I'm countering that claim with Isaiah 53 where it says that God took pleasure in Jesus suffering. Balls in your court, but you can't just deflect, you have to respond to the serve that was made.

 

[razzelflabben]

Oh well, perhaps it just needs a bit of time and prayer. It is not like some harm will be done that is our fault for having waited on His perfect timing

so, you can't clarify what you are trying to say? Where is it written in scripture that when someone asks you to clarify your point, you deflect to "it just needs a bit of time and prayer" rather than Love with Biblical Love that tries to reconcile with another?

 

[razzelflabben]

I'd quite like to know why you have implied that the curse of death, (which was actually the revocation of the blessing of everlasting life), is because God was angry. If you have some scripture that shows that, please present it, because I did present Genesis 3:22 where that blessing was revoked and it does not imply that God was angry. All that God says is a question "what will happen if the man is now to live forever?" or a statement (depending on the translation) "now the man must not be allowed to live forever". So to my reading, the revocation of the blessing of everlasting life was more as wisdom, to protect the human and the whole of creation, from such consequences of having everlasting life while the human (the corrupted, sinful image of God) is still living to please it's self according to it's knowledge of good and evil. I notice too, that the mechanism of everlasting life is restored in Revelation 2:7 - those who have overcome sin are given the access to the tree of life by Jesus Christ. So it seems to show that God's plan was not to impose death as a consequence, but as a measure of protection that ensures only those who are capable of overcoming sin are entrusted with everlasting life. That is a wise decision, and Jesus has achieved it for us, but only if He truly does trust us that we will obey Him. Salvation was achieve by Jesus Christ's obedience to God's will, resisting sin to the point of death, so that God has full confidence that He can never be corrupted, and every authority on heaven and earth is rendered unto Him. He has proved worthy.

I have the hardest time trying to follow anything you say, it all seems to me to be disjointed attempts to justify a position that you aren't even sure if you believe or not. But that is why I have several times ask for clarification and all you respond with it "time and prayer"....so....I'll pretend I understand your point and respond the best I can, if I missed it, I don't know what to tell you.

So let's try to unravel some of this....the reason that God did not want Adam and Eve to eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is because doing so took away their innocence and brought into the world a law that man could not live up to. IOW's if Adam and Eve had not eaten of the fruit, the law would not have come into the world. The law therefore is the consequence of their eating the fruit, kind of like if I gorge myself on candy, the resulting stomach ache is not the punishment handed to me by my parents, but rather the consequence of gorging myself on candy. Likewise, death (aka separation from God) is the consequence of the law, a law that only Jesus the Christ can fulfill. It is not the punishment for Adam and Eves sin, but the consequence of that sin.

But I don't know whether there is possibly other scripture in your mind that demonstrates some anger or wrath behind God's decision to revoke everlasting life in the first place. If so, I'd quite like to see it.

Oiy, I don't even know what this is suppose to mean????? but instead of clarifying, you just want to wait and pray...oiy....so let's talk about God's wrath...Romans 1:18 the wrath of God is against all unrighteousness and men of unrighteousness....compare that to the purpose of Jesus coming (already provided passage we will see if you are reading and trying to respond to what is said or just posting to hear yourself post) Here is a whole list of passages that tell us what the wrath of God is focused on, or the result of http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Bible-Verses-About-Wrath-of-God/

I think you could be making a very important observation with this, as I have found that you have done with love and pride vs love and hate. Would you be willing to explain what you think is this misunderstanding of wrath that might be useful to establish?

again, not clear as to what you are asking, so see above and ask specifics of what you don't follow

 

[oi_antz]

God was only angry that we sinned because it separated man and God.

Thanks for all your response. I'd just like to add to this, that God did seem angry. He was angry at the serpent mostly, but He was also angry at Eve. He was more angry at Adam though, because Adam listened to Eve even though he knew what God had commanded him. Also, remember that God and Adam had spent a lot of time together, naming animals and stuff before Adam knew Eve, whereas Eve is not shown to have spent much time with God - for her to believe a talking serpent is not quite as difficult to understand. But Adam - being holy, seeing Eve with a fallen conscience, choosing to take and eat, to join her instead of remaining holy and with God.. yeah, it's a heart breaking betrayal. There is other emotions to observe in the story too than anger.

Either way, that's sort of distracted from the point, which is that God has been angered by our individual sins, and the PSA theory states that because of Jesus' sacrifice, giving up His own life when it was not deserved to Him, that somehow God is less angry at us for our sins. I still don't see why that is supposed to be a valid logical conclusion. I am not sure whether you're for or against that idea, so what I've been looking for on this thread is those who are for that idea of PSA to show me why it is a justified, reasonable and right belief of atonement. As I said too in Post #33, I only really want discussion with those who are representing their own views of what is true (therefore, please don't defend a doctrine that you don't believe).

 

[oi_antz]

who said anything at all about God bruising Jesus? I said that God took pleasure in Jesus suffering. If you look deeper into the word of God you see that He took pleasure in Jesus suffering because of the good that HE knew would come of it. But that is off topic, the topic at this point is your claim that Jesus cried out, "My God My God why have you forsaken Me" because God was so overcome with grief that He turned away...I'm countering that claim with Isaiah 53 where it says that God took pleasure in Jesus suffering. Balls in your court, but you can't just deflect, you have to respond to the serve that was made.

I feel that The Holy Spirit as I read the scripture and when I read you is not supporting your view. Plus, you are not speaking to me in a holy spirit.

 

[oi_antz]

so, you can't clarify what you are trying to say? Where is it written in scripture that when someone asks you to clarify your point, you deflect to "it just needs a bit of time and prayer" rather than Love with Biblical Love that tries to reconcile with another?

Raz, I am going to PM you for this to help you understand my view, because I don't want this thread to become so drawn-out. I would need to request a moderator to clean-up the thread if that proceeds to happen, because this thread is an official investigation of truth in Jesus' name.

 

[razzelflabben]

I feel that The Holy Spirit as I read the scripture and when I read you is not supporting your view. Plus, you are not speaking to me in a holy spirit.

wow, that is pretty judgmental and inflammatory and lacks understanding of the evidence of the HS that is demonstrated in my life, but I will just for the sake of peace assume you are going to repent of this sin and proceed with Love from here on out.

 

[razzelflabben]

Raz, I am going to PM you for this to help you understand my view, because I don't want this thread to become so drawn-out. I would need to request a moderator to clean-up the thread if that proceeds to happen, because this thread is an official investigation of truth in Jesus' name.

more flaming isn't helping your case and if you want the thread closed, keep trying to flame me and see what happens.