Why Substitutionary Atonement?

[Cappadocious]

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.

I would say I hold to a representational view, which sounds similar to what you mean by atoning sacrifice.

 

[oi_antz]

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.

Hey, thanks for this. I lost my interest while reading that, and don't think highly of all that he is saying. Many parts are good, but some parts are just presumptuous and seem wrong. I have been interested in other things since. There is a very strong theme here in this thread, that Substitutionary Atonement doctrine cannot be justified, even while those who believe it are available to be questioned.

 

[Soyeong]

If someone owed you money, but couldn't pay their debt, and you choose to forgive it, then it's not as simple as just wiping the books clean, but you must also take their debt upon yourself an absorb the loss. We had a sin debt and the punishment was death. In order for Jesus to forgive our debt, he had to likewise take our debt upon himself.

 

[fatherjimparker]

If someone owed you money, but couldn't pay their debt, and you choose to forgive it, it's not as simple as wiping the books clean, but you must also take their debt upon yourself an absorb the loss. We had a sin debt and the punishment was death. In order for Jesus to forgive our debt, he had to likewise take our debt upon himself.

That is incorrect.

Death is the consequence of sin, not a debt created.
Sin separates us from God who alone has life by nature.
When we sin we separate ourselves from the source of life.
When we repent, God graciously restores our relationship with him.
We have life only "in Christ."
Outside of Christ, there is no life.

 

[Soyeong]

That is incorrect.

Death is the consequence of sin, not a debt created.
Sin separates us from God who alone has life by nature.
When we sin we separate ourselves from the source of life.
When we repent, God graciously restores our relationship with him.
We have life only "in Christ."
Outside of Christ, there is no life.

When we sin, there is a legal debt to God because it is His law that has been broken.

Matthew 6:9-13 Pray then like this: “Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name.[a] 10 Your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven. 11 Give us this day our daily bread,[c] 12 and forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. 13 And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.[d]

Luke 11:2-4 And he said to them, “When you pray, say: “Father, hallowed be your name. Your kingdom come. 3 Give us each day our daily bread, 4 and forgive us our sins, for we ourselves forgive everyone who is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation.”

 

[fatherjimparker]

<<When we sin, there is a legal debt to God because it is His law that has been broken.>>

You do not create a debt when you break the law.

<<Matthew 6:9-13>> and <<Luke 11:2-4>> are about how to pray not about sin creating a debt.

 

[Soyeong]

When Jesus paid the penalty of our sins, he was paying our debt. The examples from the Lord's prayer show that they considered them to have similar meanings.

 

[fatherjimparker]

When Jesus paid the penalty of our sins, he was paying our debt. The examples from the Lord's prayer show that they considered them to have similar meanings.

The examples from the prayer have nothing to do with the atonement.

Death is not a punishment, it is the result of separating oneself from God who is life. Sin causes the separation.

 

[Soyeong]

The examples from the prayer have nothing to do with the atonement.

Death is not a punishment, it is the result of separating oneself from God who is life. Sin causes the separation.

The Lord's prayer expresses sin as debt. Yes, sin causes separation, but it is also a debt.

Colossians 2:14 by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross."

 

[oi_antz]

Hello Soyeong, thank you for contributing to this discussion. I wonder whether you have read what has been said already, because it seems you are making your statement which expresses quite an exercised point of view of Penal Substitutionary Atonement. However, the last few pages have achieved quite quickly an understanding that this is not necessarily the right way to view it. I will whet your thirst in this response, but please can I ask before continuing, look over the discussion and come up to date with what has been established and what has been proposed. You will see this is a serious inquisition. Thanks!

If someone owed you money, but couldn't pay their debt, and you choose to forgive it, then it's not as simple as just wiping the books clean, but you must also take their debt upon yourself an absorb the loss. We had a sin debt and the punishment was death. In order for Jesus to forgive our debt, he had to likewise take our debt upon himself.

I think it will be rude for me to explain every single problem I have with this statement when you have not yet received the previous information, but I would like to just point out an alternative view that I hold. Forgiveness means accepting a loss. Losing more still (is the unjust murder of an innocent son) can not make it easier, in fact it must demand more forgiveness. Yet, He did deem it necessary for Jesus to die, but up to that point in time we see His patience and perseverance, in case the tenant farmers would concede to give the fruit of the kingdom to Jehovah. Yet, they chose to kill the heir and claim the kingdom for their own interests. You will see one of the first questions I asked in this discussion was to Hedrick: regarding Jesus' comment "I must go now and give my life as a ransom for many". My question is "who was the payment made to"? I would like to know how you might answer that, if you will. Thank you

 

[fatherjimparker]

<< The Lord's prayer expresses sin as debt. Yes, sin causes separation, but it is also a debt.>>

One version of the prayer says "forgive us our sins" and one says "forgive us our debts." That does not mean that sins are debts.

<< Colossians 2:14 by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross." >>

The word translated "debt" is cheirographon. It refers to a note, such as for a loan, and thus is used as a metaphor.

When we sin, we separate ourselves from God and that separation results in physical death. Death is what one "earns" by sinning. (The wages of sin is death.)

What Christ did by dying as a man and raising again from death was to destroy the power of death to hold mankind. So all will be resurrected imperishable and immortal. (1Co 15:53)

The atonement was not a legal act or a banking act. It was an act of love.

 

[fatherjimparker]

<< If someone owed you money, but couldn't pay their debt, and you choose to forgive it, then it's not as simple as just wiping the books clean, but you must also take their debt upon yourself an absorb the loss. We had a sin debt and the punishment was death. In order for Jesus to forgive our debt, he had to likewise take our debt upon himself.>>

That is a false analogy.

God did not suffer any loss when man sinned so there was not loss to absorb.

Sin does not create a debt. It separates one from God.

Sin is a rejection of the wisdom, grace, instruction, love and provision of God and the choice to disobey His command which lead to life in favor of pursuing our own goals by our own wisdom and powers which lead to death (separation from God).

If my father offers me a million dollars and I say, "No thanks." I have not created a debt to my father. Neither do I create a debt to God when I decline to receive HIs love and grace.

The reason for the atonement was solely that God so loved mankind that He chose to destroy the power of sin and death to hold man forever. He did so by becoming a man, dying, and then defeating death's power by rising from the grave to new life.

 

[AlfredKeith]

A more appropriate analogy of sin debt would be that you owe a bunch of fines for offenses (like traffic tickets), and the judge (God) decides to allow those debts to be forgiven. The reason the judge allows them to be forgiven is because another (Christ) volunteers to pay those debts for you.

In our case, the "sin debt" that we have is death and separation from God. Christ volunteered to die to pay the debt by being killed to make atonement for sin and bring forgiveness (Heb 9:22). He then rose again and defeated death (II Tim 1:9-10). This removed the curse of sin and brought justification for all who put their faith in him (Rom 4:25). (This paragraph is really just a rewording of what fatherjimparker posted.)

 

[fatherjimparker]

<<A more appropriate analogy of sin debt would be that you owe a bunch of fines for offenses (like traffic tickets), and the judge (God) decides to allow those debts to be forgiven. The reason the judge allows them to be forgiven is because another (Christ) volunteers to pay those debts for you.

In our case, the "sin debt" that we have is death and separation from God. Christ volunteered to die to pay the debt by being killed to make atonement for sin and bring forgiveness (Heb 9:22). He then rose again and defeated death (II Tim 1:9-10). This removed the curse of sin and brought justification for all who put their faith in him (Rom 4:25). (This paragraph is really just a rewording of what fatherjimparker posted.)>>

That is an appropriate analogy if death were a debt that we owed. It is not; it is what we earn when we sin; our "wages." Death is what happen when someone separates himself from God Who alone is life. Since man has no life in himself, separation from God-Who-is-Life results in death.

And, no, it's not a "rewording" of what I said. I must have not said it very well for you have not understood my meaning. My apologies for my linguistic shortcomings.

I assert is that sin does not create a debt. Rather, it results in death. (physical and eternal) Paul said that the "wages" (what one earns) of sin is death. What we earn is not a debt.

John 15 provides a good illustration. "Branches" that are not connected to the "Vine" have no source of life. Jesus is the Vine and we are the branches. Sin separates us from the vine and, being separated from the source of life, we die. Branches that are cut off whither and die, are gathered up and thrown into the fire.

One result of death is that the human body decays and "returns to dust", thus destroying the image of God which is man.

By raising from death as a man, Christ destroyed the power of death to destroy the image of God in man.

All mankind will be raised imperishable and immortal, never to die a physical death again and the Image of God in man will never cease, even in Hell!.

Lo! I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed.

For this perishable nature must put on the imperishable, and this mortal nature must put on immortality. When the perishable puts on the imperishable, and the mortal puts on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written:

"Death is swallowed up in victory."
"O death, where is thy victory?
O death, where is thy sting?"

The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. (1Co 15:51-57)

The Greek word for justification (DIKAIOSUNE) unfortunately brings with it the Greek, secular, legal, meaning. The word DIKAIOSUNE, "justice", is a translation of the Hebraic word “tsedaka.” It has the meaning: "the divine energy which accomplishes man's salvation". It is parallel and almost synonymous to the other Hebraic word, “hesed” which means "mercy", "compassion", "love", and to the word, “emeth” which means "fidelity", "truth". These meanings provide an entirely different perspective from what we in the West usually conceive as justice. (See: "The River of Fire" 1980, by Alexandre Kalomiros)

The reason for Jesus' sacrifice was God's love for mankind. There was no "satisfaction of justice" any more than it would be an act of justice to save a person from drowning.

Salvation as the satisfaction of justice (or as the paying of a debt) as a concept of the atonement is a view that developed in the western church and culminated in Anselm of Canterbury's, 11th century, (unfortunate) tract, "Cur Deus Homo" (why God became man.) He proposed that the sin of Adam was an infinite offense against God and that a sacrifice of infinite value (Christ) was necessary** to assuage God's wrath and to satisfy God's infinite justice. (That view includes the erroneous view that death is God's punishment for sin rather than the consequence of removing oneself from the source of life. That notion makes God a torturer of everyone who won't do as He says.)

** I emphasized the word "necessary" because the concept subordinates God to some higher authority called, "necessity."

The legal view of the atonement is a western development. The view of the Eastern Church has always been that the atonement was an act of love, mercy, and grace. "It is by grace that you have been saved."

The reason we cannot be saved by works is that works are our duty; we were created to do good works which God prepared for us from the foundation of the earth that we should do them. (Eph 2:10) So doing good works or doing all the works of the Law cannot save anyone anymore than a person would expect a medal and a prize every day for showing up for work.

Luke 17:10 So you also, when you have done all that is commanded you, say, "We are unworthy servants; we have only done what was our duty."

I hope that is a clearer laying out of my understanding.

 

[oi_antz]

God did not suffer any loss when man sinned so there was not loss to absorb.

He has suffered a lot of grief though. I wonder whether you will accept the idea that this equates to losing joy.. Genesis 6:6 supports this.

Sin does not create a debt. It separates one from God.

Not always. If one loses something due to sin (eg, a loved one is lost according to a murderous sin), that loss accumulates hurt, which most often manifests as resentment to God. God may lose the love of that hurt one as a result of that sin, so the sinner in that case has caused a loss to God, and therefore has accrued a perceivable debt. This principle can be followed even to unloving acts done by His own woshipers, who in treating others in an ungodly way, generate resentment toward Him by those who if not for the sin, might have come to love Him.

The reason the judge allows them to be forgiven is because another (Christ) volunteers to pay those debts for you.

Can you please state the location of your scriptural basis for this belief?

In our case, the "sin debt" that we have is death and separation from God. Christ volunteered to die to pay the debt by being killed to make atonement for sin and bring forgiveness (Heb 9:22). He then rose again and defeated death (II Tim 1:9-10). This removed the curse of sin and brought justification for all who put their faith in him (Rom 4:25). (This paragraph is really just a rewording of what fatherjimparker posted.)

You can see as fatherjimparker has said, you have somewhat distorted what he said in order to promote your own understanding. Actually I can see vast differences in your view of the gospel to his, so I encourage you to acknowledge that. Even so, I wish to remind you the mecahnism by which salvation is achieved in Christ Jesus:

In the beginning before Adam and Eve's 'fall' (to partake of the knowledge of good and evil), the tree of life was made available so that they could live forever. There is no scriptural indication that they would have lived forever apart from having access to this tree of life. This is also supported by Genesis 3:22, wherein God decides to prevent Adam and Eve from accessing the tree of life so that they should not live forever. Notice here, this is not a punishment in wrath or anger, a penalty for sin, but apparently a preventative measure for some sort of protection, seemingly a result of God's wisdom. Read these words specificaly: "Behold" ... "And now, lest" - in the paraphrased version "New Living Translation", the translator's context is given this way: "Then the Lord God said, “Look, the human beings[e] have become like us, knowing both good and evil. What if they reach out, take fruit from the tree of life, and eat it? Then they will live forever!” ".

.. So we see that the certainty of death was imposed on Adam and Eve on the very same day that they chose to partake of the knowledge of good and evil. In Revelation 2:7 we see how salvation is achieved in Christ Jesus:

"To him who overcomes I will give to eat from the tree of life, which is in the midst of the Paradise of God.”’"

.. We see a promise here from Jesus Christ that He will give fruit from that tree of life, that is guarded by cherubim and a flaming sword. Notice in this: we are not promised access to the tree of life ourselves. This indicates that only Jesus has access to this tree of life, but that He wishes to share it with those who "overcome" or "are victorious". This is the mechanism by which everlasting life has been achieved in Christ Jesus.

Notice in this, that Jesus decides who is given this fruit from the tree of life. This ties in with Matthew 7:21 and John 10:27, wherein He declares His faith in His followers: "yes I know this person, he listens to me, and he does the will of my father in heaven".

So when the gospel is viewed in context of this mechanism, it is possible to view those scriptures you presented without relying on a Penal Substitutionary Atonement doctrine. Furthermore, with this understanding of the mechanism of salvation as being according to Jesus Christ's personal trust in us, I view with scepticism any claims of a magical granting of everlasting life based on some ritual-based cancellation of debt, especially that seem to be simply granted to some who accept a given belief and not to others who don't. Redemption from sin (which I have not mentioned here) and everlasting life just do not appear to work that way.

 

[AlfredKeith]

<You can see as fatherjimparker has said, you have somewhat distorted what he said in order to promote your own understanding. Actually I can see vast differences in your view of the gospel to his, so I encourage you to acknowledge that. Even so, I wish to remind you the mechanism by which salvation is achieved in Christ Jesus:>

After reading the posts by you and fatherjimparker, I definitely agree with your assessment that we are not describing this the same way.

fatherjimparker pointed out that death is the "wages" of sin (Rom 6:23) rather than a debt owed because of sin. I went back and pulled out my Strongs Exhaustive Concordance and looked up the terms "debt" and "owe." All of our views about sin incurring debt are based upon the parables of Jesus, which of themselves are analogies. Parables have spiritual truth, but are not always the best source of establishing doctrine.

<I wish to remind you the mechanism by which salvation is achieved in Christ Jesus:>
To clear this point, I definitely believe in salvation exclusively by faith through grace and not good works. I am not advocating that we earn our own salvation. Salvation is only though faith in Christ.

 

[oi_antz]

<You can see as fatherjimparker has said, you have somewhat distorted what he said in order to promote your own understanding. Actually I can see vast differences in your view of the gospel to his, so I encourage you to acknowledge that. Even so, I wish to remind you the mechanism by which salvation is achieved in Christ Jesus:>

After reading the posts by you and fatherjimparker, I definitely agree with your assessment that we are not describing this the same way.

fatherjimparker pointed out that death is the "wages" of sin (Rom 6:23) rather than a debt owed because of sin. I went back and pulled out my Strongs Exhaustive Concordance and looked up the terms "debt" and "owe." All of our views about sin incurring debt are based upon the parables of Jesus, which of themselves are analogies. Parables have spiritual truth, but are not always the best source of establishing doctrine.

What is the difference between spiritual truth and doctrine? This is something I have not considered before, and I do not know why you would make this distinction.

<I wish to remind you the mechanism by which salvation is achieved in Christ Jesus:>
To clear this point, I definitely believe in salvation exclusively by faith through grace and not good works. I am not advocating that we earn our own salvation. Salvation is only though faith in Christ.

That is OK, so long as you do not try to use that belief to undermine the importance of repentance. I was emphasising the way by which everlasting life is granted though, since those who pertain to Penal Substitutionary Atonement doctrines do not think much about it, and they assume it is some sort of magic granted to people who satisfy certain criteria. But the bible shows clearly that everlasting life is by partaking fruit from the tree of life. The gospel of Jesus Christ states He shares it with those He has deemed able to both live forever and possess knowledge of good and evil, while also not turning the world into a hell on earth. Clearly, given the nature of the world at present, there are some people who just cannot have the knowledge of good and evil without causing misery for others. This is why it is most important to overcome sin, as per Revelation 2:7 and Genesis 4:6-7. See Matthew 25:31-46 to observe this contrast.

 

[AlfredKeith]

What is the difference between spiritual truth and doctrine? This is something I have not considered before, and I do not know why you would make this distinction.

The reason I make this distinction is because the parables of Jesus were analogies that had spiritual truth, but did not always have literal doctrinal equivalence. This means that the parables of Jesus could not always be interpreted literally. To give an example, in the parable of the vineyard and the tenants (Matt 21:33-41):

33“Listen to another parable: There was a landowner who planted a vineyard. He put a wall around it, dug a winepress in it and built a watchtower. Then he rented the vineyard to some farmers and moved to another place. 34When the harvest time approached, he sent his servants to the tenants to collect his fruit. 35The tenants seized his servants; they beat one, killed another, and stoned a third. 36Then he sent other servants to them, more than the first time, and the tenants treated them the same way. 37Last of all, he sent his son to them. ‘They will respect my son,’ he said. 38But when the tenants saw the son, they said to each other, ‘This is the heir. Come, let’s kill him and take his inheritance.’ 39So they took him and threw him out of the vineyard and killed him. 40Therefore, when the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those tenants?”​

41“He will bring those wretches to a wretched end,” they replied, “and he will rent the vineyard to other tenants, who will give him his share of the crop at harvest time.” [NIV]​

If we apply a literal interpretation to this parable, verses 37-39 would imply that the Israelites recognized that Jesus was the Son of God and thought that they could claim the Kingdom of God for themselves by killing him. But we know that the Israelites never recognized him as the Son of God.

The point is: when interpreting the spiritual truth of parables and analogies in scripture, it is important to remember that some of them cannot be interpreted in a "true literal" sense. You have to recognize the point of the analogy and establish what the context is to determine the actual spiritual truth.

 

[oi_antz]

The reason I make this distinction is because the parables of Jesus were analogies that had spiritual truth, but did not always have literal doctrinal equivalence. This means that the parables of Jesus could not always be interpreted literally. To give an example, in the parable of the vineyard and the tenants (Matt 21:33-41):

33“Listen to another parable: There was a landowner who planted a vineyard. He put a wall around it, dug a winepress in it and built a watchtower. Then he rented the vineyard to some farmers and moved to another place. 34When the harvest time approached, he sent his servants to the tenants to collect his fruit. 35The tenants seized his servants; they beat one, killed another, and stoned a third. 36Then he sent other servants to them, more than the first time, and the tenants treated them the same way. 37Last of all, he sent his son to them. ‘They will respect my son,’ he said. 38But when the tenants saw the son, they said to each other, ‘This is the heir. Come, let’s kill him and take his inheritance.’ 39So they took him and threw him out of the vineyard and killed him. 40Therefore, when the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those tenants?”​

41“He will bring those wretches to a wretched end,” they replied, “and he will rent the vineyard to other tenants, who will give him his share of the crop at harvest time.” [NIV]​

If we apply a literal interpretation to this parable, verses 37-39 would imply that the Israelites recognized that Jesus was the Son of God and thought that they could claim the Kingdom of God for themselves by killing him. But we know that the Israelites never recognized him as the Son of God.

The point is: when interpreting the spiritual truth of parables and analogies in scripture, it is important to remember that some of them cannot be interpreted in a "true literal" sense. You have to recognize the point of the analogy and establish what the context is to determine the actual spiritual truth.

Thanks, I will consider this, and I might post a response if required.

 

[Mediaeval]

Thanks, I will consider this, and I might post a response if required.

Reading through F. D. Maurice's discourses on the Gospel of John (particularly 10:17,18: "Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.") I came across a passage that made me think of you, oi_antz, and the threads on this topic. As the saying goes, you can't beat something--in this case, PSA--with nothing, Maurice spoke of an alternative way in which the Father was satisfied by the Son's death:

...The 17th verse announces, that there was a Man in whom the Father was perfectly satisfied, and that the ground of His satisfaction was that this Man entirely loved men--entirely gave Himself up for men. He could be satisfied with nothing less than this; for nothing less than this was the expression of His own mind and will. In no act of less love than this could His love declare itself. The thought is so wonderful, the mystery is so deep, that men have shrunk from it as incredible, and have invented any reason to account for Christ's death but that which He gives Himself. That an entirely voluntary act should be yet the fulfilment of a commandment,-- that the highest power of giving away life and taking it should be realized in the most perfect obedience; this idea clashes so much with our natural pride and self-glorication, that we would rather think Christ died because He was not one with the Father,--that it was not the Father's love that was satisfied, but His wrath and fury,--than accept a statement which shows us that His thoughts are not as our thoughts or His ways as our ways; that He is not made after our image, though He would have us conformed to His.