Why Substitutionary Atonement?

[Vollbracht]

The quote you speak of refers to condemnation by God and his righteousness.

But the faithful are not condemned by God, rather the order of this age condemns them, as it did Christ.

There is the judgment of the order of this age and then there is the judgment of God.

Fine. So, then you do agree that when we suffer in Christ, we suffer not as ones condemned, fit for punishment.

 

[AlfredKeith]

oi_antz,

On the question of atonement and salvation, I am tired of reading a debate that only discusses half of the issue. Ref the following:

The Passover was the first of the Jewish festivals. It originated in Egypt while the Israelites were still living in captivity. God sent the ten infamous plagues on Egypt for holding the Israelites as slaves, and the last of these plagues was that God killed all of the firstborn of Egypt (recorded in Exodus 7-12). On the night this occurred, God commanded all Israelites to kill a lamb without blemish and put some of its blood on their doorposts. When God passed through the land of Egypt to kill the firstborn, he passed over the houses of the Israelites because they had the blood on their doorposts. The blood served as a sign between God and Israel (Exodus 12:12-13).

As part of the Passover, the Israelites would observe the Festival of Unleavened Bread. For seven days they would eat bread made without yeast. This was to commemorate their deliverance from Egypt. When they were set free, they left Egypt in great haste and did not have time to make bread with yeast in the normal manner. These historic events provide the historic significance of the Passover and the Festival of Unleavened Bread. The nation of Israel celebrated these events to commemorate deliverance from death and deliverance from slavery.

The eternal significance of the Passover centers on the blood of the lamb. On the night of the Passover, the Israelites sacrificed a lamb, and its blood provided deliverance from death. This sacrifice was pointing to a future sacrificial lamb whose blood would provide deliverance from death. We find this sacrificial lamb in the coming of Christ. Turning to the New Testament, we find that John the Baptist identified Christ as: “The Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world (John 1:29).” Also, in I Peter 1:18-19: You have known that you were not redeemed by perishable silver or gold from your futile behavior inherited from your forefathers, but by the precious blood of Christ like an unblemished and spotless lamb.

Finally, in I Corinthians 5:7 it tells us: “For Christ our Passover Lamb was sacrificed.” Another event serves as yet another sign of confirmation from God that Christ was the ultimate Passover Lamb. During Christ’s crucifixion, the Roman guards decided to “speed up” the crucifixion by breaking the victim’s legs. They broke the legs of the two thieves crucified with Christ; but when they came to him, they found that he was already dead, so it was not necessary to break his legs (John 19:31-35). The confirmation of this is found in Numbers 9:12. When the Passover lamb was sacrificed, God commanded that none of its bones were to be broken. This was to indicate the manner in which Christ would die (John 19:36).

Now we come to the Day of Atonement. This was an annual event where sacrifices were performed to make atonement for the sins of Israel. Under the Law of Moses, this was the one day each year that the high priest was allowed to enter the Most Holy Place in the Temple behind the veil and not be killed. God appeared in the cloud above the mercy seat in the Most Holy Place, and any sinful human in God’s direct presence would die (Lev 16:1-2). The high priest was the only one allowed to enter behind the veil, but only after he sacrificed a bull to make atonement for his sins (Lev 16:11-14).

After making atonement for himself, the high priest would then take two goats and cast lots over them. One goat was selected to be sacrificed, and the other was designated as the scapegoat. The high priest would sacrifice the selected goat and sprinkle some of its blood on the Mercy Seat of the Ark of the Covenant and in front of the Ark in the Most Holy Place. This was to make atonement for the sins of the nation (Lev 16:15-16). After doing this, the high priest would place his hands on the head of the scapegoat. He would pronounce all of the sins of the nation onto the head of this goat, and then this goat was sent out into the wilderness. This symbolized the sins of the nation being carried away (Lev 16:20-22).

There are two aspects of the Day of Atonement that have eternal significance: the sacrifices and the high priest. First, two goats were used on the Day of Atonement: a sacrificial goat and a scapegoat. The sacrificial goat was sacrificed and the scapegoat was set free. These two goats were symbolically pointing to two men. On the morning that Christ was condemned, Pilate brought him before the Jewish crowd along with Barabbas. Pilate then allowed one of them to be released, and the crowd chose Barabbas (Matt 27:15-26). The interesting point is that Christ was an innocent man, and Barabbas was a criminal. The innocent man was crucified, and the criminal was set free.

Returning to the Day of Atonement, the high priest would sacrifice one goat and then pronounce all of the sins of Israel onto the second goat. So the second goat, the one covered in sin, is the one that went free. In the same way, Christ, the innocent man, was crucified; and Barabbas, the criminal covered in sin, went free. In this event we find God’s eternal lesson on substitutionary atonement. On the day Christ died, Barabbas symbolically represented every human. Christ was crucified even though he was innocent, and the person covered in sin was allowed to go free. Every one of us should be able to look back at Barabbas and see ourselves.

The second aspect of the Day of Atonement is the high priest. The high priest was responsible for performing the annual sacrifice to make atonement for sin. He carried the blood of the sacrificial goat into the Most Holy Place in the Temple into God’s presence. When Christ was resurrected, he became the eternal high priest for all believers. He did not enter into the earthly Temple, but into the heavenly one. We find this described in Hebrews 8:1-2: But the main point on what is being said is that we have such a high priest who sat down at the right hand on the majestic throne in the holy heavens. He is also a minister in the true tabernacle which is built by God, not man.

Also in Hebrews 2:17: From which he was obligated to be made like the brothers in everything so that he could become a merciful and faithful high priest to God to make atonement for the sins of the people.

On the day Christ was resurrected, he ascended to heaven into the presence of God. He also led the righteous souls in Abraham’s Bosom into heaven with him. He then appeared before God in the heavenly Temple as the high priest of all righteous people and presented himself as the eternal atoning sacrifice for sin. In the Day of Atonement we see two types of symbolism: first, the sacrifice, and second, the high priest performing the sacrifice. Christ was both of these simultaneously. He was both the sacrifice and the high priest performing the sacrifice.

One question that previously baffled me was: Why did God have two separate annual festivals to represent Christ’s atoning sacrifice? We have a lamb being sacrificed during the Passover and then a goat being sacrificed on the Day of Atonement. Why was it necessary for there to be two separate festivals? There are two answers to this question. First, the Passover and the Day of Atonement looked forward to two separate events. The Passover pointed to the day Christ was crucified. The Day of Atonement pointed to the day that Christ was resurrected and ascended into heaven.

Second, the Passover and the Day of Atonement demonstrate that Christ’s death and resurrection are inseparable in providing our salvation. Consider I Corinthians 15:16-17: “For if the dead are not resurrected, neither has Christ been resurrected. If Christ has not been resurrected, your faith is useless, and you are still in your sins.” I often hear preachers say that our sin was completely atoned for at the cross through Christ’s death. But we find here that unless Christ has been resurrected, we are still in our sins. Christ’s death was not enough to provide salvation. He had to rise again and defeat death (the curse of sin) in order to save us (previously described in Chapter 5). This is affirmed in John 20:9: “For they did not understand from scripture that it was necessary for him to be resurrected from the dead.” Also, in Romans 4:25: “He was given over for our transgressions and was resurrected for our righteousness.” It is impossible to separate Christ’s death and resurrection when describing our salvation.

One final thing to point out is that the significance of the Passover and the Day of Atonement provide the formal definition of salvation: Salvation is atonement for sin and deliverance from death.

oi_antz: I am curious about your views on I Cor 15:16-17 and how they relate to salvation....

 

[AlfredKeith]

I haven't read the entire thread. So, if I post anything that has already been posted, I apologize.

The necessity of the doctrine is tied up in the absolute impossibility of atonement in any other way. If the doctrine was not held as necessary, it would indicate that atonement was possible in other ways. But it is not. Atonement requires the offering priest to be holy. None of us could ever qualify. It also requires the sacrifice itself to be perfect. Again, none of us could ever qualify. The only one who could satisfy the requirements would have to be one without sin, which precludes anyone except Christ from performing the Atonement.

I agree completely...read my post above.

 

[Cappadocious]

Fine. So, then you do agree that when we suffer in Christ, we suffer not as ones condemned, fit for punishment.

No, I think we do, according to the judgment of this age and its order.

 

[oi_antz]

I haven't read the entire thread. So, if I post anything that has already been posted, I apologize.

The necessity of the doctrine is tied up in the absolute impossibility of atonement in any other way. If the doctrine was not held as necessary, it would indicate that atonement was possible in other ways. But it is not. Atonement requires the offering priest to be holy. None of us could ever qualify. It also requires the sacrifice itself to be perfect. Again, none of us could ever qualify. The only one who could satisfy the requirements would have to be one without sin, which precludes anyone except Christ from performing the Atonement.

Please do read the entire thread, that is the level of attention that is required here. It will give you the ability to contribute to a meaningful discussion.

 

[Vollbracht]

No, I think we do, according to the judgment of this age and its order.

So what? The condemnation in judgment by "the order of this age" (whatever that is) is, at best, a distant second to the Judgment by God, Who is the final Word. Moreover, Penal Substitution is about the wrath of God and not the wrath of "the order of this age".

Now, unless you would like to say that we suffer in Christ as ones condemned in the eyes of God (not this "order of this age"), then I will still assume you agree.

 

[Cappadocious]

condemnation in judgment by "the order of this age" (whatever that is) is, at best, a distant second to the Judgment by God, Who is the final Word.

Amen.

Moreover, Penal Substitution

I reject Penal Substitution.

 

[Vollbracht]

I reject Penal Substitution.

Clearly.

But since I see no objection to the statement that we do not suffer in Christ as ones condemned in the eyes of God, I hope it would not be too forward of me to take that as an "I agree that we do not suffer in Christ as ones condemned in the eyes of God" and leave it at that.

Thank you for the discussion.

 

[Cappadocious]

Clearly.

But since I see no objection to the statement that we do not suffer in Christ as ones condemned in the eyes of God, I hope it would not be too forward of me to take that as an "I agree that we do not suffer in Christ as ones condemned in the eyes of God" and leave it at that.

Thank you for the discussion.

You imply that Christ suffered qua one condemned in the eyes of God. What does it mean for one to suffer qua one condemned in the eyes of another? Does the appraisal of the other characterize the suffering? Constitute it? Is it a mere disconnected appraisal?

 

[Vollbracht]

You imply that Christ suffered qua one condemned in the eyes of God. What does it mean for one to suffer qua one condemned in the eyes of another? Does the appraisal of the other characterize the suffering? Constitute it? Is it a mere disconnected appraisal?

Is this a searching to disagree or just to convolute? I imply that when we suffer in Christ, we suffer not as ones condemned, fit for punishment, as I have plainly stated at the first. That one must dance like John Travolta over something so orthodox and simple should be answer enough. Good bye.

 

[Cappadocious]

Is this a searching to disagree or just to convolute? I imply that when we suffer in Christ, we suffer not as ones condemned, fit for punishment, as I have plainly stated at the first. That one must dance like John Travolta over something so orthodox and simple should be answer enough. Good bye.

Why would "suffering as ones condemned, fit for punishment by God" even enter in to our discussion in the first place? Who suffers like that?

 

[oi_antz]

oi_antz,

On the question of atonement and salvation, I am tired of reading a debate that only discusses half of the issue. Ref the following:

The Passover was the first of the Jewish festivals. It originated in Egypt while the Israelites were still living in captivity. God sent the ten infamous plagues on Egypt for holding the Israelites as slaves, and the last of these plagues was that God killed all of the firstborn of Egypt (recorded in Exodus 7-12). On the night this occurred, God commanded all Israelites to kill a lamb without blemish and put some of its blood on their doorposts. When God passed through the land of Egypt to kill the firstborn, he passed over the houses of the Israelites because they had the blood on their doorposts. The blood served as a sign between God and Israel (Exodus 12:12-13).

As part of the Passover, the Israelites would observe the Festival of Unleavened Bread. For seven days they would eat bread made without yeast. This was to commemorate their deliverance from Egypt. When they were set free, they left Egypt in great haste and did not have time to make bread with yeast in the normal manner. These historic events provide the historic significance of the Passover and the Festival of Unleavened Bread. The nation of Israel celebrated these events to commemorate deliverance from death and deliverance from slavery.

The eternal significance of the Passover centers on the blood of the lamb. On the night of the Passover, the Israelites sacrificed a lamb, and its blood provided deliverance from death. This sacrifice was pointing to a future sacrificial lamb whose blood would provide deliverance from death. We find this sacrificial lamb in the coming of Christ. Turning to the New Testament, we find that John the Baptist identified Christ as: “The Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world (John 1:29).” Also, in I Peter 1:18-19: You have known that you were not redeemed by perishable silver or gold from your futile behavior inherited from your forefathers, but by the precious blood of Christ like an unblemished and spotless lamb.

Finally, in I Corinthians 5:7 it tells us: “For Christ our Passover Lamb was sacrificed.” Another event serves as yet another sign of confirmation from God that Christ was the ultimate Passover Lamb. During Christ’s crucifixion, the Roman guards decided to “speed up” the crucifixion by breaking the victim’s legs. They broke the legs of the two thieves crucified with Christ; but when they came to him, they found that he was already dead, so it was not necessary to break his legs (John 19:31-35). The confirmation of this is found in Numbers 9:12. When the Passover lamb was sacrificed, God commanded that none of its bones were to be broken. This was to indicate the manner in which Christ would die (John 19:36).

Now we come to the Day of Atonement. This was an annual event where sacrifices were performed to make atonement for the sins of Israel. Under the Law of Moses, this was the one day each year that the high priest was allowed to enter the Most Holy Place in the Temple behind the veil and not be killed. God appeared in the cloud above the mercy seat in the Most Holy Place, and any sinful human in God’s direct presence would die (Lev 16:1-2). The high priest was the only one allowed to enter behind the veil, but only after he sacrificed a bull to make atonement for his sins (Lev 16:11-14).

After making atonement for himself, the high priest would then take two goats and cast lots over them. One goat was selected to be sacrificed, and the other was designated as the scapegoat. The high priest would sacrifice the selected goat and sprinkle some of its blood on the Mercy Seat of the Ark of the Covenant and in front of the Ark in the Most Holy Place. This was to make atonement for the sins of the nation (Lev 16:15-16). After doing this, the high priest would place his hands on the head of the scapegoat. He would pronounce all of the sins of the nation onto the head of this goat, and then this goat was sent out into the wilderness. This symbolized the sins of the nation being carried away (Lev 16:20-22).

There are two aspects of the Day of Atonement that have eternal significance: the sacrifices and the high priest. First, two goats were used on the Day of Atonement: a sacrificial goat and a scapegoat. The sacrificial goat was sacrificed and the scapegoat was set free. These two goats were symbolically pointing to two men. On the morning that Christ was condemned, Pilate brought him before the Jewish crowd along with Barabbas. Pilate then allowed one of them to be released, and the crowd chose Barabbas (Matt 27:15-26). The interesting point is that Christ was an innocent man, and Barabbas was a criminal. The innocent man was crucified, and the criminal was set free.

Returning to the Day of Atonement, the high priest would sacrifice one goat and then pronounce all of the sins of Israel onto the second goat. So the second goat, the one covered in sin, is the one that went free. In the same way, Christ, the innocent man, was crucified; and Barabbas, the criminal covered in sin, went free. In this event we find God’s eternal lesson on substitutionary atonement. On the day Christ died, Barabbas symbolically represented every human. Christ was crucified even though he was innocent, and the person covered in sin was allowed to go free. Every one of us should be able to look back at Barabbas and see ourselves.

The second aspect of the Day of Atonement is the high priest. The high priest was responsible for performing the annual sacrifice to make atonement for sin. He carried the blood of the sacrificial goat into the Most Holy Place in the Temple into God’s presence. When Christ was resurrected, he became the eternal high priest for all believers. He did not enter into the earthly Temple, but into the heavenly one. We find this described in Hebrews 8:1-2: But the main point on what is being said is that we have such a high priest who sat down at the right hand on the majestic throne in the holy heavens. He is also a minister in the true tabernacle which is built by God, not man.

Also in Hebrews 2:17: From which he was obligated to be made like the brothers in everything so that he could become a merciful and faithful high priest to God to make atonement for the sins of the people.

On the day Christ was resurrected, he ascended to heaven into the presence of God. He also led the righteous souls in Abraham’s Bosom into heaven with him. He then appeared before God in the heavenly Temple as the high priest of all righteous people and presented himself as the eternal atoning sacrifice for sin. In the Day of Atonement we see two types of symbolism: first, the sacrifice, and second, the high priest performing the sacrifice. Christ was both of these simultaneously. He was both the sacrifice and the high priest performing the sacrifice.

One question that previously baffled me was: Why did God have two separate annual festivals to represent Christ’s atoning sacrifice? We have a lamb being sacrificed during the Passover and then a goat being sacrificed on the Day of Atonement. Why was it necessary for there to be two separate festivals? There are two answers to this question. First, the Passover and the Day of Atonement looked forward to two separate events. The Passover pointed to the day Christ was crucified. The Day of Atonement pointed to the day that Christ was resurrected and ascended into heaven.

Second, the Passover and the Day of Atonement demonstrate that Christ’s death and resurrection are inseparable in providing our salvation. Consider I Corinthians 15:16-17: “For if the dead are not resurrected, neither has Christ been resurrected. If Christ has not been resurrected, your faith is useless, and you are still in your sins.” I often hear preachers say that our sin was completely atoned for at the cross through Christ’s death. But we find here that unless Christ has been resurrected, we are still in our sins. Christ’s death was not enough to provide salvation. He had to rise again and defeat death (the curse of sin) in order to save us (previously described in Chapter 5). This is affirmed in John 20:9: “For they did not understand from scripture that it was necessary for him to be resurrected from the dead.” Also, in Romans 4:25: “He was given over for our transgressions and was resurrected for our righteousness.” It is impossible to separate Christ’s death and resurrection when describing our salvation.

One final thing to point out is that the significance of the Passover and the Day of Atonement provide the formal definition of salvation: Salvation is atonement for sin and deliverance from death.

Ok, thanks, this is definitely context that is valuable to have laid out so clearly here. I actually do not want to accept this indoctrination though, and I will see whether I can explain it well enough. Though I have a sense that my words will fail to convey my attitudes in one post, I will try. I expect you will not accept my position straight away too. It's a bit like this, that I remember happened between me and muddlegum on page 3. You have read meaning into the story that is not there, and it seems like you have done this in an attempt to prove the validity of substitutionary atonement. You have said that Barabbas being released instead of Jesus is the substitution. Although I am inclined to agree with you that true justice would have the murderer condemned and the innocent freed, and that there is parallel symbolism in that because Jesus laid down His life and Barabbas (along with the rest of us) were allowed to go on living, I do not describe that as substitution. Because Jesus did not take Barabbas' (our) place in death, rather that He took death so that we could go on living. Barabbas still died though, and so do we. So the word "substitution" does not apply in this sense, as I can see. Rather "ransom for many" is a perfectly accurate description.

oi_antz: I am curious about your views on I Cor 15:16-17 and how they relate to salvation....

I gather what St Paul is expressing is the gravity of the faith in Jesus Christ, whereby he is preaching that the Jewish Covenant cannot save, and that apart from the fact that Jesus has overcome death, there is no salvation. He also seems to be appealing specifically to some people who are disputing the idea of resurrection. I am not entirely sure why you have asked this of me, perhaps you could alter the question to be more specific.

 

[Cappadocious]

None of the OT sacrifice history in AlfredKeith's post suggests substitution.

 

[oi_antz]

I cited several passages, but I’m assuming you mean Rom 6:12. In general I agree that what God requires to forgive sin is repentance. But I wouldn’t cite this verse for that. The overall flow of that verse is now that you have been died and risen in Christ, therefore don’t sin.

When Jesus encountered people, at times he forgave them and they responded with repentance. Certainly God will forgive anyone who repents, but at times he takes the initiative.

I hate to have someone speak of God's forgiveness as though it is currency. Please keep that in mind. I don't even go so far as to presume that He needs anything in order to forgive, or that forgiving is necessarily even possible. Remember what Jesus implored to Him "Father, forgive them". Do you think His response would be "oh, ok then, I actually thought they knew what they were doing. Glad to know I was wrong". Actually, there was deep darkness that day. So we should not be taking His forgiveness for granted in any way whatsoever, and this goes to explain why I am becoming so aggressively opposed to Substitutionary Atonement doctrines that preach forgiveness as some God-given entitlement to those who somehow qualify.

But of course Rom 6 is about more than forgiveness. It’s about transformation. So even if we can repent on our own (and I’m Reformed enough to think that it’s never really on our own), we still can’t get past being sinners on our own. Rom 6:1-10 is about dying to sin and becoming new. That’s what the new covenant is about. It’s not just forgiveness but writing the Law in our hearts, and knowing God.

Sure, I agree with this statement. The defining characteristic of the gospel of Jesus Christ is that the hope of resurrection is now real and justified, and this hope is what motivates us to persevere. This particular hope was debated under the old covenant, and had not been revealed in reality at that time.

“This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.” (Mark 14:24). “This cup is the new covenant in my blood” (1 Cor 11:25) The usual understanding is that this is the new covenant of Jer 31:31. Cf 2 Cor 3:6, Heb 8:8. Heb 9:11-22 talks about the first vs second covenants, both of them established with a covenant sacrifice. 19 speaks of the sacrifice by Moses to initiate the first covenant.

Ok, can you please go ahead and state why you see this as implying some substitution?

I wouldn’t say scrapped. I’d say renewed.

It is besides the point for this, but it makes no difference to any point I expect to make. Please let me know whether you need me to clarify this.

While I’d agree, Paul wouldn’t acknowledge that. He believed that Jesus came to him directly, and that his message is directly from Jesus, not dependent upon the disciples. He’s quote emphatic about that.

(oi_antz asked for St Paul's statements to be provided to this effect, as follows):

Gal 1:11-12 For I want you to know, brothers and sisters,d that the gospel that was proclaimed by me is not of human origin; for I did not receive it from a human source, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.

Gal 1:15-17 But when God, who had set me apart before I was born and called me through his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son to me,e so that I might proclaim him among the Gentiles, I did not confer with any human being, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were already apostles before me, but I went away at once into Arabia, and afterwards I returned to Damascus.

I have received some correction from this, so thank you for that. But I still feel that the point I was making has some merit. The point is that St Paul did not know Jesus Christ in the flesh. However, he had been taught in Jewish customs and after his conversion on the road to Damascus, must have accepted The Holy Spirit's revelation of his knowledge in context of Jesus as Christ. Therefore what we see in St Paul's writings reflects mostly his understanding of Jewish customs in that context. I had spoken poorly, but it has been educational to do so. Thank you, and please let me know if this alters the point I was making, essentially that his understanding is formed on second-hand information.

 

[AlfredKeith]

None of the OT sacrifice history in AlfredKeith's post suggests substitution.

If your intent is to argue that Christ is an "atoning sacrifice" for sin instead of a "substitute," I do not have any reason to disagree with your remark. This came up in earlier posts regarding II Cor 5:21.

One version is: "He who did not know sin was made sin on our behalf"
- This translation implies that Christ is a substitute for us

The other version is: "He who did not know sin was made a sin offering on our behalf"
- This translation implies that Christ is a sacrifice for sin, but not a substitute

The whole concept of Christ as a substitute for sin is implied in my references by interpretation, but it is never explicitly stated as such. I can see the atoning sacrifice view as being just as equally as valid. Is that what you are trying to argue?

As you may be able to tell, I am not a hardliner in the argument for substitutionary atonement.

 

[AlfredKeith]

I gather what St Paul is expressing is the gravity of the faith in Jesus Christ, whereby he is preaching that the Jewish Covenant cannot save, and that apart from the fact that Jesus has overcome death, there is no salvation. He also seems to be appealing specifically to some people who are disputing the idea of resurrection. I am not entirely sure why you have asked this of me, perhaps you could alter the question to be more specific.

Regarding I Cor. 15:16-17, my intent was to point out that salvation is based upon both Christ's death and resurrection, not just his death alone. After reading your response, I realized that this point does not matter with regard to the question of accepting or rejecting substitutionary atonement.

As it turns out, I am actually learning from this thread. Reading the content posted by you, Hedrick, and Cappadocious, I am seeing arguments about the substitutionary atonement doctrine that are rarely debated. Referring to my response to Cappadocious above, do you follow the "atoning sacrifice" view regarding Christ and salvation?

 

[oi_antz]

Regarding I Cor. 15:16-17, my intent was to point out that salvation is based upon both Christ's death and resurrection, not just his death alone. After reading your response, I realized that this point does not matter with regard to the question of accepting or rejecting substitutionary atonement.

As it turns out, I am actually learning from this thread. Reading the content posted by you, Hedrick, and Cappadocious, I am seeing arguments about the substitutionary atonement doctrine that are rarely debated. Referring to my response to Cappadocious above, do you follow the "atoning sacrifice" view regarding Christ and salvation?

I can not see how it is necessary or beneficial to view it with such superstition, and does not seem to have any real impact on atonement for sin. In my view, the only way sin can be put right is by obedience to God's will, in that while we have knowledge of good and evil, the only way sin can be controlled and therefore propitiated, and the effects of sin reversed, is through obedience to God's will. Forgiveness can only be achieved by actually forgiving.

 

[hedrick]

hedrick said: ↑
“This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.” (Mark 14:24). “This cup is the new covenant in my
blood” (1 Cor 11:25) The usual understanding is that this is the new covenant of Jer 31:31. Cf 2 Cor 3:6, Heb 8:8. Heb 9:11-22 talks about the first vs second covenants, both of them established with a covenant sacrifice. 19 speaks of the sacrifice by Moses to initiate the first covenant.

Ok, can you please go ahead and state why you see this as implying some substitution?

We’re getting to buried in quotations. I don’t have quite the single-minded focus on substitution that you seem to. The question I was answering wasn’t directly about substitution. It was

hedrick said: ↑
Heb and the Words of Institution speak of Jesus’ death as a covenant sacrifice, to establish the new covenant of Jer 31:31.

Which words? I see that all the scriptures speak of His life as being that sacrifice (Hebrews 10:9). You have said it is His death. This might have identified the kingpin of our differing views.

The Words of Institution and Heb both see Jesus’ death as a sacrifice. 1 Thes 5:10 and Eph 5:2 also talk about Jesus dying for us. Not to mention Paul’s whole emphasis on the cross of Christ. I agree that his life as a whole was also a sacrifice.

 

[oi_antz]

We’re getting to buried in quotations. I don’t have quite the single-minded focus on substitution that you seem to. The question I was answering wasn’t directly about substitution. It was



The Words of Institution and Heb both see Jesus’ death as a sacrifice. 1 Thes 5:10 and Eph 5:2 also talk about Jesus dying for us. Not to mention Paul’s whole emphasis on the cross of Christ. I agree that his life as a whole was also a sacrifice.

Ok, thanks. I think everyone is able to understand without question why His death is spoken of as a sacrifice. However, to focus on that as the sole aspect of His sacrifice does not give justice to https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=isaiah+53:3&version=NIV - and by focusing on just His death, calling that "the sacrifice", it distracts from the gospel message which is that "the punishment that brought us peace was on him" - which is the meaning I see in "God loved the world so much that He gave His only son, so whosoever believes on Him should not perish, but have everlasting life". You probably can see that I am becoming increasingly sensitive to the subtle implications that are caused by this view of the gospel. I apologise for that, since it is possible I might yet be corrected and then this emotional behaviour will have been inappropriate. Thanks for your patience!

 

[fatherjimparker]

I am still just getting started on this topic, can someone who has been over this already please summarise for me what is the real reason that Substitutionary Atonement is believed to be a necessary doctrine?

Thank you.

It is one of many attempts to explain the work of Christ.

I suggest you read "On the Incarnation", by St. Athanasius for a good understanding of the work of Christ.