Why Substitutionary Atonement?

[sahjimira]

I think we needed a substitute because no one of us could do it. God needed a perfect sacrifice which was Jesus. None of us would fill the bill...ever

 

[oi_antz]

God needed a perfect sacrifice

Hi there, thanks for your help with this. It seems that this bit that I have quoted is central to the PSA doctrine. Would you be able to explain your reason for this belief? I am able to view that God required Jesus' perfect forbearance to demonstrate His love, mercy and grace, but I have come to totally believe that Jesus' sacrifice could only make forgiveness harder rather than easier. In this way, it shows us the extent to which He is willing to forgive in order for us to be comfortable to confess our sin, in order that He can then forgive us. But I do not think that God took any sort of pleasure or relief from the way Jesus was treated. I would quite like to know how you prefer to view it though.

 

[sahjimira]

No I don't think God took pleasure in Jesus' treatment. I think we generally have little understanding of how horrible and offensive sin is to God. I know I'm guilty of this. God in Jesus showed His
unfathomable love in His sacrifice.

His total willingness to
forgive..something people have a hard time doing. When I feel slighted I think his Jesus forgave even as He was hanging in the cross! My being offended is puny compared to that.

 

[oi_antz]

No I don't think God took pleasure in Jesus' treatment. I think we generally have little understanding of how horrible and offensive sin is to God. I know I'm guilty of this. God in Jesus showed His
unfathomable love in His sacrifice.

His total willingness to
forgive..something people have a hard time doing. When I feel slighted I think his Jesus forgave even as He was hanging in the cross! My being offended is puny compared to that.

Thanks for explaining that, but still I do not see how this validates a substitutionary atonement doctrine. If you look at this answer from my perspective (as I do naturally!), it appears that you are trying to explain the value you get personally from believing that doctrine. But for me it does not provide any reason to treat the doctrine as more than a basic assumption for your given view of the gospel. Another interesting point, I can agree with all of the words in this reply, in absence of a PSA doctrine! I wonder how that can be possible, that such opposing doctrines can claim a given statement as true.. What do you think of that?

 

[sahjimira]

Don't know. Just my take on the matter. Can't really elaborate on what I've said already.

 

[oi_antz]

Don't know. Just my take on the matter. Can't really elaborate on what I've said already.

Oh well, it is nice that you have cared to help In that case, can I just ask one question from you, so I can be certain about what I have been wondering? When you said in post #123 that "No I don't think God took pleasure in Jesus' treatment." - did you consciously choose to omit the words "or relief" that I had used in post #122? If so, do you remember the reason why you chose to omit those words, and can you let me know what that reason was? I am tending to believe that probably you were torn by that statement, as on one hand PSA does imply that Jesus' sacrifice gave God some necessary relief from His wrath against sinners, but on the other hand it does not demonstrate a very holy character. If your reason was different, then it should be educational for me to learn of it. Thanks!

 

[razzelflabben]

Thanks for asking this Hedrick. I see that His life was given as a ransom for many. He said so Himself before the temple incident. Ransom has the definitive meaning:

a sum of money demanded or paid for the release of a captive.

.. and we know that the sum paid was Jesus' life. This causes me to ask two questions:

Who was released?
Who was this payment made to?

I would quite like to see your thoughts on this, Hedrick. I already know what I think.

I am not sure that I will get through all of this thread, but since you asked me to join....I'll start here.

Who was released? Scripture says that Jesus came to destroy or overcome (I am not much into semantic games though I do believe is careful wording) both sin and death...I Cor. 15 and others, like Heb. 2:14. This, release from the bondage of sin and death is for every believer who believes unto salvation. Romans 6:18, Romans 6:22 and Romans 8:2

Who is this payment made to? The payment is made to our account...Let me explain, according to Gen. through Rev., sin leads to death. Romans 6:23 and others. So, we have an account in which our sin earns the wage of death. The account has to be zeroed out for us to not face death...death here being spiritual death not fleshly death. More if you need to know more but we are headed out. So the debt is paid to our account, see, God is the judge, if you want to say it another way, the payment is made to the law.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

When you live in a relativistic world, breath relativistic air, and support relativistic government, there is no room for sin. There is no such thing. If no sin, then no need for punishment in a post-modern worldview. There is no need for any type of atonement. Is this what's at the root of the OP? If so, there is no resolution unless one deals with it first.

What's at the root of your issue with PSA, oi_antz? Is your worldview the issue, i.e. PSA doesn't fit your worldview, or is it something else?

 

[hedrick]

PSA isn’t the only way to deal with sin. Consider Romans 6. Through union with Christ we die with Christ to sin and are raised to new life. This seems to be the theory that’s closest to Jesus own explanation in the Words of Institution. It sees his death as establishing the new covenant. That’s normally understood as a reference to Jer 31:31, which speaks of changed hearts.

To deal with sin God doesn’t necessarily need punishment. He can cleanse us of it through repentance and new birth.

The first explanation Calvin gives in his chapter on the atonement in the Institutes is similar. He says that the atonement is based on Christ’s obedience, not just in his death but throughout his life. That is ours through our mystical union with Christ.

I would suggest that it’s not a good thing for Christians to start out when they don’t understand someone by attacking their motivations. There are plenty of Christians who have had historically and do have now other understandings of the atonement without basing it on “relativism.”

 

[jimmyjimmy]

PSA isn’t the only way to deal with sin. Consider Romans 6. Through union with Christ we die with Christ to sin and are raised to new life. This seems to be the theory that’s closest to Jesus own explanation in the Words of Institution. It sees his death as establishing the new covenant. That’s normally understood as a reference to Jer 31:31, which speaks of changed hearts.

To deal with sin God doesn’t necessarily need punishment. He can cleanse us of it through repentance and new birth.

The first explanation Calvin gives in his chapter on the atonement in the Institutes is similar. He says that the atonement is based on Christ’s obedience, not just in his death but throughout his life. That is ours through our mystical union with Christ.

I would suggest that it’s not a good thing for Christians to start out when they don’t understand someone by attacking their motivations. There are plenty of Christians who have had historically and do have now other understandings of the atonement without basing it on “relativism.”

I don't see any of my questions as attacks. Questions are not often attacks. I'm trying to understand the OP in order to best answer him.

Do you not agree that it's currently mainly liberals/relativists who take issue with PSA? It certainly wasn't a conservative who said it was "cosmic child abuse".

 

[hedrick]

I don't see any of my questions as attacks. Questions are not often attacks. I'm trying to understand the OP in order to best answer him.

Do you not agree that it's currently mainly liberals/relativists who take issue with PSA? It certainly wasn't a conservative who said it was "cosmic child abuse".

No. First, if you look at the history of theology, you'll see that the earliest theories in the Church were things like ransom or Christus victor. Today alternative theories are still held in the Eastern Church. Calvin seems to have used a variety of theories, and didn't particularly concentrate on penal substitution. When I read the Institutes my first reaction was that he didn't teach penal substitution at all, but I do see places that allude to it.

Today's interest in the mainline church can be traced to historical work pointing out how common Christus victor and other theories were for much of church history.

Yes, there is concern in both liberal and evangelical circles about the ethical implications of penal substitution. I’ve heard “cosmic child abuse,” but mostly from pop theology rather than serious liberal theologians. The bigger concern is that it doesn’t seem consistent with Jesus’ teachings, which are that God is always eager to forgive anyone who repents. That has led many of us to favor theories that involve bringing people to repentance.

There’s also been a collapse in the social basis for PSA. I would say that it was based on concepts Christians inherited from medieval society. (Remember that this wasn’t a common view earlier than that.) It’s based on a concept of justice that the bigger the person offended, the bigger the punishment, and therefore that offending God merits infinite punishment. There’s a whole set of assumptions there that aren’t so plausible outside the hierarchical society in which the theory came to us.

In effect I would accuse PSA as itself being relativistic, having been unconsciously inherited from the culture.

It’s also based on the assumption that sin has to be paid for by punishment. But this is contrary to both the prophets and Jesus. Not to mention Paul and Hebrews. (Hebrews understands OT sacrifices as cleansing, not punishment.)

---------------

But I have a more general concern. Protestants are committed to evaluating doctrines by Scripture, not by theories on the motivations of the people who support them. “Relativism” is an accusation that can easily backfire. When you start accusing liberal theology of being based on modern culture, you open yourself to the charge that traditional theology is base on traditional cultural assumptions. Better to forget that whole approach, and look at Scripture.

You’re right that alternatives to PSA, at least in the West, tend to be advocated by people who are trying to avoid being biased by traditional cultural assumptions. But that observation can be understood two ways: your accusation is that those people are being “relativistic.” My understanding of the situation is that in fact we are trying to *avoid* relativism of people who are unconsciously reading traditional assumptions into Biblical texts that don’t share them.

 

[oi_antz]

When you live in a relativistic world, breath relativistic air, and support relativistic government, there is no room for sin. There is no such thing. If no sin, then no need for punishment in a post-modern worldview. There is no need for any type of atonement. Is this what's at the root of the OP? If so, there is no resolution unless one deals with it first.

What's at the root of your issue with PSA, oi_antz? Is your worldview the issue, i.e. PSA doesn't fit your worldview, or is it something else?

Thank you for asking, and I did not perceive this as an attack on my motive.

I do not know how PSA can be reconciled to the idea that God is loving, righteous and just. It is not loving, righteous or just to have a perfectly innocent man suffer so that one can simply feel it is now OK to forgive people who are not perfectly innocent.

In fact, there is a logical issue with this too: if God truly does have these qualities perfected (love, righteousness, justice), then forgiveness cannot be made easier for Him by seeing Jesus Christ brutally eliminated by a world who hates the truth, but rather it must be the hardest thing God has ever needed to forgive. Remember too that Jesus said on the cross "Father, forgive them because they don't know what they are doing" - this indicates that Jesus was somewhat afraid for the people, on account of how gravely they must have been tempting God's wrath.

Yet, because He did go ahead and give up His only-begotten son, He shows to us that even if we think we are beyond redemption, that what He really wants more than anything else, is for us to trust Him and turn toward Him, so that we can get to know Him. Then He will teach us how to overcome sin, and we will be His people.

The problem caused by PSA, is that it mischaracterises God, making it logically impossible to reconcile the doctrine of salvation with the idea that God is loving, just and righteous. People who really love the truth are right to determine this a critical flaw in Christianity's claim to be a religion of truth.

Now that I have taken this view of scepticism toward that doctrine for quite some time, I have been reading the scriptures to see that the writers of the scriptures never even saw it that way in the first place. This doctrine is clearly a result of later refinement, which Hedrick has mentioned became very popular during the medieval era. Though also, aiki did show me a resource some time ago that listed earliest indications of the PSA doctrine, going right back to the first century CE. What I found quite interesting in this, is that Clement of Rome and Ignatius both make statements that I can find truth in, even in absence of PSA. Both of those early church fathers had known the original disciples of Jesus Christ (St. John and St. Peter). Whereas the remainder of those listed in the attached document were not coached by those who had personally known Jesus in the flesh. Whenever I mention this, I remember Jesus predicting such things in John 12:35.

 

[razzelflabben]

Thank you for asking, and I did not perceive this as an attack on my motive.

I do not know how PSA can be reconciled to the idea that God is loving, righteous and just. It is not loving, righteous or just to have a perfectly innocent man suffer so that one can simply feel it is now OK to forgive people who are not perfectly innocent.

where is this man that you speak of, you know, the perfectly innocent man? The only perfectly innocent man in history was Jesus and His suffering and death was a willing act of Love that others might not have to suffer the spiritual death that they had earned. So, again, the question must be asked, who is this perfectly innocent man you speak of?

In fact, there is a logical issue with this too: if God truly does have these qualities perfected (love, righteousness, justice), then forgiveness cannot be made easier for Him by seeing Jesus Christ brutally eliminated by a world who hates the truth, but rather it must be the hardest thing God has ever needed to forgive. Remember too that Jesus said on the cross "Father, forgive them because they don't know what they are doing" - this indicates that Jesus was somewhat afraid for the people, on account of how gravely they must have been tempting God's wrath.

I'm not following your "logical issue" here. I suspect it is because you do not understand what Biblical or God Love is, but it could be my just not following your "logic" so could you explain better so I can follow and respond? thanks.

Yet, because He did go ahead and give up His only-begotten son, He shows to us that even if we think we are beyond redemption, that what He really wants more than anything else, is for us to trust Him and turn toward Him, so that we can get to know Him. Then He will teach us how to overcome sin, and we will be His people.

The problem caused by PSA, is that it mischaracterises God, making it logically impossible to reconcile the doctrine of salvation with the idea that God is loving, just and righteous. People who really love the truth are right to determine this a critical flaw in Christianity's claim to be a religion of truth.

how please are Love, justice, and righteousness in contrast to salvation? Understanding Love, justice and righteousness are pivotal to the truth of salvation not in opposition to it. I really am not getting what your position really is.

Now that I have taken this view of scepticism toward that doctrine for quite some time, I have been reading the scriptures to see that the writers of the scriptures never even saw it that way in the first place. This doctrine is clearly a result of later refinement, which Hedrick has mentioned became very popular during the medieval era. Though also, aiki did show me a resource some time ago that listed earliest indications of the PSA doctrine, going right back to the first century CE. What I found quite interesting in this, is that Clement of Rome and Ignatius both make statements that I can find truth in, even in absence of PSA. Both of those early church fathers had known the original disciples of Jesus Christ (St. John and St. Peter). Whereas the remainder of those listed in the attached document were not coached by those who had personally known Jesus in the flesh. Whenever I mention this, I remember Jesus predicting such things in John 12:35.

Maybe the problem I am having in understanding your objection is that I don't know what PSA stands for. Personally, I believe the only way to truly know God and the intentions of God are to study the Bible in that it alone claims to be the authority of who God is and what He wants us to know. All other stuff is just man's attempt to make God in their own image. Thus all my arguments will be based on the Bible not the teachings of man about what the bible says.

 

[oi_antz]

Maybe the problem I am having in understanding your objection is that I don't know what PSA stands for.

PSA is an acronym for "Penalty Substitutionary Atonement" - the idea that the penalty for our sin was placed upon Jesus so that it would not be counted against us. This earlier post explains it quite well:

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/why-substitutionary-atonement.7890113/#post-68017013

 

[razzelflabben]

PSA is an acronym for "Penalty Substitutionary Atonement" - the idea that the penalty for our sin was placed upon Jesus so that it would not be counted against us. This earlier post explains it quite well:

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/why-substitutionary-atonement.7890113/#post-68017013

I know the teaching, I didn't know the acronym because I am much more concerned about the doctrines of God than the doctrines of man. Thanks for the info.

 

[ToBeLoved]

No. First, if you look at the history of theology, you'll see that the earliest theories in the Church were things like ransom or Christus victor. Today alternative theories are still held in the Eastern Church. Calvin seems to have used a variety of theories, and didn't particularly concentrate on penal substitution. When I read the Institutes my first reaction was that he didn't teach penal substitution at all, but I do see places that allude to it.

Today's interest in the mainline church can be traced to historical work pointing out how common Christus victor and other theories were for much of church history.

Yes, there is concern in both liberal and evangelical circles about the ethical implications of penal substitution. I’ve heard “cosmic child abuse,” but mostly from pop theology rather than serious liberal theologians. The bigger concern is that it doesn’t seem consistent with Jesus’ teachings, which are that God is always eager to forgive anyone who repents. That has led many of us to favor theories that involve bringing people to repentance.

There’s also been a collapse in the social basis for PSA. I would say that it was based on concepts Christians inherited from medieval society. (Remember that this wasn’t a common view earlier than that.) It’s based on a concept of justice that the bigger the person offended, the bigger the punishment, and therefore that offending God merits infinite punishment. There’s a whole set of assumptions there that aren’t so plausible outside the hierarchical society in which the theory came to us.

In effect I would accuse PSA as itself being relativistic, having been unconsciously inherited from the culture.

It’s also based on the assumption that sin has to be paid for by punishment. But this is contrary to both the prophets and Jesus. Not to mention Paul and Hebrews. (Hebrews understands OT sacrifices as cleansing, not punishment.)

---------------

But I have a more general concern. Protestants are committed to evaluating doctrines by Scripture, not by theories on the motivations of the people who support them. “Relativism” is an accusation that can easily backfire. When you start accusing liberal theology of being based on modern culture, you open yourself to the charge that traditional theology is base on traditional cultural assumptions. Better to forget that whole approach, and look at Scripture.

You’re right that alternatives to PSA, at least in the West, tend to be advocated by people who are trying to avoid being biased by traditional cultural assumptions. But that observation can be understood two ways: your accusation is that those people are being “relativistic.” My understanding of the situation is that in fact we are trying to *avoid* relativism of people who are unconsciously reading traditional assumptions into Biblical texts that don’t share them.

I have a much simpler theory.

Books were not mass produced until the printing presses. And all children were not educated earlier at the same level because many worked their own farms and had to make a living.

More Bibles available now. More people can read. People are now reading the Bible for themselves.

We have more reference books to help us understand hard concepts, so I think it is not so much culture, per se. But who had access to what materials and who had the education to read and understand it.

 

[hedrick]

An interesting theory. But PSA was developed by people who had access to Scripture. Common people didn't, but theologians certainly did. I don't think we can attribute it to lack of that access. But it does seem to be true that they had less access to other theologians. I guess it's possible that they didn't know the early Christian theories of the atonement very well, but I hate to attribute major theological movements to ignorance.

 

[ToBeLoved]

Hi there, thanks for your help with this. It seems that this bit that I have quoted is central to the PSA doctrine. Would you be able to explain your reason for this belief? I am able to view that God required Jesus' perfect forbearance to demonstrate His love, mercy and grace, but I have come to totally believe that Jesus' sacrifice could only make forgiveness harder rather than easier. In this way, it shows us the extent to which He is willing to forgive in order for us to be comfortable to confess our sin, in order that He can then forgive us. But I do not think that God took any sort of pleasure or relief from the way Jesus was treated. I would quite like to know how you prefer to view it though.

Why does substitutional atonement need to be what the PSA beliefs are.

They just gave a name to their understanding. It does not change that Christ is our atonement and justification. I'm not getting this?

 

[ToBeLoved]

I know the teaching, I didn't know the acronym because I am much more concerned about the doctrines of God than the doctrines of man. Thanks for the info.

Yes, doctrines of men.

This does not make the PSA Biblical in their beliefs.

Atonement and Jesus atonement, perfect sacrifice for sin is our atonement

 

[oi_antz]

Why does substitutional atonement need to be what the PSA beliefs are.

It doesn't, but I asked anyway. I have found rather that there is substitution in the atonement, especially seeing as Jesus is our advocate before God, then God's displeasure/shame due to our sin is borne upon Jesus' reputation/honour/glory/pride, and when we are disobedient we also make it difficult for Him to fulfil His objectives.

Seeing that so much of His task is entrusted to us as Christian disciples, really the sacrifice demonstrates that in giving up His life on behalf of His friends that we have become the substitute for Him (2 Corinthians 10:3-6). Whereas He was able to walk and talk the truth perfectly on earth (that is the reason that He was sent as Messiah - to redeem the world and establish the everlasting kingdom of God that would complete God's plan: John 15:22, Matthew 21:37); by His sacrifice though, He has been substituted by faulty humans of sinful origin who are prone to make quite bad mistakes (Matthew 24:48-49, John 12:35, Luke 19:14).

They just gave a name to their understanding. It does not change that Christ is our atonement and justification. I'm not getting this?

Some words that people who believe PSA justification use, are ok to me. What I find is that the spirit of salvation in those who believe PSA, is not really offensive. But, the mechanism of salvation that PSA implies is offensive. For an example, some words that offended me, that I couldn't sing in church a few weeks ago, are from the following song. Beautiful song, just I think the person who wrote it has believed wrongly about the mechanism of salvation:

Till on that cross as Jesus died,
The wrath of God was satisfied;
http://www.gettymusic.com/hymns-inchristalone.aspx

.. this reflects an idea that God needed Jesus to die on the cross so that He could forgive us, which I would agree is indirectly true according to what is implied in Hebrews 10:26-31. But what it suggests most strongly is that God got some personal feeling of relief - His wrath being satisfied by Jesus' crucifixion. Whereas I explained my objection to thatbrian with context in Post #132 :

"In fact, there is a logical issue with this too: if God truly does have these qualities perfected (love, righteousness, justice), then forgiveness cannot be made easier for Him by seeing Jesus Christ brutally eliminated by a world who hates the truth, but rather it must be the hardest thing God has ever needed to forgive."

.. So Christ's sacrifice can be effective to redeem the world from sin, because it established a means by which the world can come into worship in His name without any human intercessor having authority to pervert God's will and instruction to us as had happened under the first covenant (Mark 7:5-13, Matthew 12:2). By living a repentant life of faith on the basis of truth and spirit, we can be found fit for everlasting life (Hebrews 10:14, Romans 12:1-2).

I view that God's preference has always been that Israel would receive Jesus Christ the Messiah 2,000 years ago and allow Him to restore the world, but that typical of humankind we are slow to learn because we are confident of ourselves and tempted by our desires, and we suffer for it. That God has persevered though and offered the life of Jesus to do so, even offering mercy in the times of Noah! .. it gives us hope that He believes humankind can be redeemed. Furthermore, that Jesus Christ has been resurrected to everlasting life is a down-payment to seal that hope, and this is why the life-giving power of the gospel has victory over the life-destroying power of sin.