Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
The atonement view I subscribe to is laid out in the link in the main post. I subscribe to this because it's a look at how the Bible itself uses the word atonement, so I don't have to really theorize. When the Bible uses the term atonement, it's basically understood to mean a good work is done by a hero that 'makes up for' the damage done by a sinner.
Proverbs 16:6 is a good example: "By steadfast love and faithfulness iniquity is atoned for"
Is there any weakness in that argument?
I didn't realize that was so controversial, but then, I have never really studied on it much....I don't think so, but I still prefer calling it the Penal Substitution theory.
Originally Posted by Joshua_Masquelier
I personally take issue with PSUB (Penal Substitutionary Atonement). I have blogged about an alternate view that I've entitled Liberty. Please use this thread to post various thoughts, based in scripture, for and against PSUB.
This is my understanding of the doctrine. Christ came to die for sinners (Agree). He went to the cross for me (Agree). He died at the cross to wash me clean of my sins if I would place my faith in Him (Agree). He endured the vindictive retribution of God against the full sin debt of the elect by pouring his wrath onto Christ on the Cross (Strongly Disagree).
masqed.blogspot.com
The link given in the OP is only against the idea of Penal Substitution and said: popularly called "Satisfaction," which will hopefully be covered in a future post.The atonement view I subscribe to is laid out in the link in the main post. I subscribe to this because it's a look at how the Bible itself uses the word atonement, so I don't have to really theorize. When the Bible uses the term atonement, it's basically understood to mean a good work is done by a hero that 'makes up for' the damage done by a sinner.
Proverbs 16:6 is a good example: "By steadfast love and faithfulness iniquity is atoned for"
Is there any weakness in that argument?
A "sin offering" is a specific kind of Levitical Sacrifice, found in Leviticus 4-5. So you must base your understanding of "sin offering" on how the Bible describes it. And when you look at those sections of Scripture, you'll see that never was a transfer of punishment taking place on the animals. The animals sacrificed as "sin offerings" were not taking the death penalty in place of the sinner, and there is good evidence for this (e.g. see the link in the opening post)."Offering" isn't a magic word. It doesn't disprove penal substitution if Jesus offered Himself to God's punishment.As I noted earlier, the Greek here for "made sin" means "made a sin offering" as it's used in the OT. Even the language of "He who had no sin" recalls needing a sacrificial animal free of defect. The NASB and NIV in the footnote here even say "sin offering" for this verse.
But never did the OT sin offering receive God's wrath. That's what you've got to realize.
Hanging on a tree was done by men! It was a physical death inflicted by the Jews and Romans. That's not the same as God's Eternal Wrath being poured out on, e.g., a soul in hell.Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree." (Gal. 3:13).
Hanging from the tree is execution, a form of punishment.
He was punished in our place: "He became a curse for us".
Obviously, someone did the punishing: a righteous God.
The key term here is "chastisement," which the NIV wrongly translates as "punishment." A chastisement is about fatherly correction, which is different from a judicial retributive punishment. In other words, hellfire is not chastisement. Christians can still be chastised, even if they're not deserving of hellfire. This term alone undermines any PSub reading of this text.But He was wounded for our transgressions,
He was bruised for our iniquities;
The chastisement for our peace was upon Him,
And by His stripes we are healed.
All we like sheep have gone astray;
We have turned, every one, to his own way;
And the Lord has laid on Him the iniquity of us all. (Isa. 53: 5-6)
Jesus was whipped by the Romans, but this doesn't mean he was enduring the Father's wrath.By His stripes - flogging is punishment.
See above.He was punished by God: "It pleased the LORD to bruise Him" (v. 10)
We being healed does not mean our backs are spared. That's logically fallacious and exegetically unwarranted. That's like saying I was injured and healed in a hospital and so any legal punishments due to me went away. Rather, what Christ endured ended up bringing healing to us.We are healed - our backs are spared - substituion.
This is misleading and a bit oversimplified. While they didn't go into details about the atonement, the early church never spoke of it as Jesus being punished by the Father, and they especially never spoke of the Father dumping His Wrath on Jesus! Think about that for a bit. Consider that if PSub is true, then the early church failed to understand a key element of salvation.The early church did not have a single theory of the atonement.
The only reason why Protestants came up with the idea of Penal Substitution was because it was crucial for upholding their new doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone.
the early church never spoke of it as Jesus being punished by the Father, and they especially never spoke of the Father dumping His Wrath on Jesus! Think about that for a bit. Consider that if PSub is true, then the early church failed to understand a key element of salvation.
While it is certainly true that there is a Divine law that we violate when we sin, and that must be satisfied by Christ if we are to be saved, this should not be understood to mean that Christ is some sort of Divine whipping boy Who is literally punished in an extrinsic sense so that we don't have to be. Rather, sin incurs real damage to our personal ontology, and this damage is its own punishment, tormenting the damned when they stand in God's presence. What Christ does in the atonement is repair that damage, making up for it in His perfect offering of Himself, and thereby transforming us into genuine persons.
-snip-
Hanging on a tree was done by men! It was a physical death inflicted by the Jews and Romans. That's not the same as God's Eternal Wrath being poured out on, e.g., a soul in hell. -snip-
That says nothing about the Father pouring out His Wrath on Jesus. To be "made sin" means "to be made a sin offering," nothing to do with undergoing God's wrath.
So where are the Biblical texts? Please don't waste our time if you don't actually want to answer the question!
A redeemer does pay the price for sins, but that doesn't mean the redeemer takes the person's place! Many people in Scripture made atonement for sins and it never involved them taking the wrath or punishment in place of the sinner.
You can look all through Scripture and you'll not see any hint of Jesus enduring the Father's wrath.
I believe both Catholics and Protestants will go to Heaven so no need to drag each other down!
God bless
Says nothing only in your mind because you can't see how His wrath was poured out on the sacrifice instead of on the sinner. You just credit the sacrificer with "a good deed" which hollows out the entire concept of "sacrifice". That which is sacrificed bears the burden, pays the cost, endures the wrath at sin.
Most people don't realize that there are different views of the Atonement out there. Most Protestants (not all), especially Calvinists, believe in a form of Atonement called Penal Substitution. This view teaches that Jesus received the punishment the sinner deserved. Well, if the sinner deserves hellfire, then that's must be what Jesus endured in their place!
Consider the following quotes from well known Protestant (mostly Calvinist) authors:
- At 3 oclock that dark Friday afternoon, the Father turned His face away and the ancient, eternal fellowship between Father and Son was broken as divine wrath rained down like a million Soddoms and Gomorrahs. In the terror and agony of it all, Jesus cried, My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? (Thabiti Anyabwile, What does it mean for the Father to Forsake the Son? Part 3)
- We should remember that Christ's suffering in His human nature, as He hung on the cross those six hours, was not primarily physical, but mental and spiritual. When He cried out, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me," He was literally suffering the pangs of hell. For that is essentially what hell is, separation from God, separation from everything that is good and desirable. Such suffering is beyond our comprehension. But since He suffered as a divine-human person, His suffering was a just equivalent for all that His people would have suffered in an eternity in hell. (Boettner, Loraine. The Reformed Faith. Chapter 3.)
- The penalty of the divine law is said to be eternal death. Therefore if Christ suffered the penalty of the law He must have suffered death eternal; or, as others say, He must have endured the same kind of sufferings as those who are cast off from God and die eternally are called upon to suffer. (Hodge, Charles. Systematic Theology. Vol. 2, Part 3, Ch 6, Sec 3)
- So then, gaze at the heavenly picture of Christ, who descended into hell for your sake and was forsaken by God as one eternally damned when he spoke the words on the cross, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani! - My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? In that picture your hell is defeated and your uncertain election is made sure. (Luther, Martin. Treatise on Preparing to Die.)
- What prevents us from seeing God is our heart. Our impurity. But Jesus had no impurity. And Thomas said He was pure in heart. So obviously He had some, some experience of the beauty of the Father. Until that moment that my sin was placed upon Him. And the one who was pure was pure no more. And God cursed Him. It was if there was a cry from Heaven excuse my language but I can be no more accurate than to say it was as if Jesus heard the words 'God damn you', because that's what it meant to be cursed, to be damned, to be under the anathema of the Father. As I said I don't understand that, but I know that it's true. (R.C. Sproul. Together for the Gospel. April 17, 2008. Louisville, KY. Session V - The Curse Motif of the Atonement. Minute 55:01)
There are more quotes like this, but this should be enough to get people to stop and realize what exactly is being said.
- Hell is all about echoing faintly the glory of Calvary. That's the meaning of hell in this room right now. To help you feel in some emotional measure the magnificence of what Christ did for you when he bore not only your eternal suffering, but millions of people's eternal suffering when His Father put our curse on Him. What a Saviour is echoed in the flames of hell. So that's what I mean when I say hell is an echo of the glory of God, and an echo of the Savior's sufferings, and therefore an echo of the infinite love of God for our souls. (John Piper. Resolved Conference 2008. Session 8 The Echo and Insufficiency of Hell. Min 40:00)
Now the big question is: Does the Bible EVER say that Jesus endured the Wrath of the Father? NO! It is unbiblical and even blasphemy to suggest Jesus suffered the Father's Wrath. Look high, look low, and you'll NEVER find this taught in Scripture.
To understand the heart of salvation, THE CROSS, one must actually study the Bible on the matter and not blindly follow theologians:
http://catholicnick.blogspot.com/2010/07/atonement-according-to-scripture-more.html
They are though. Christ's Passive Obedience (Penal Substitution) is a component of the imputed righteousness of Christ which they sinner receives by faith in order to be justified. Think about it: one's view of the Atonement directly impacts their view of salvation/justification.Nice try...I guess. But that theory doesn't hold water because the two concepts are not dependent upon each other.
Give a few quotes from any Church Father that plainly says Jesus endured His Father's wrath. I've never seen such a quote.Never? The Patristics were an eclectic bunch and they've been proof-texted on this going all the way back to Clement's Epistle to the Corinthians. I cannot post links but they are easy to find. And of course the significance of these texts is a matter of robust debate. At any rate, the priorities of a particular stage of church history are not the final authority, and that goes for the 16th century as well.
The main problem is that it's false. It's simply not what the Bible teaches. That alone should be your main concern. If the Bible doesn't teach it, then it doesn't matter how awe inspiring it is, it's not a correct view.What, really, is the problem with substitution? Is it considered cruel? To me it's awe-inspiring that God would incarnate Himself and endure the pain of divine justice to spare His enemies. It silences any pretence of virtue or merit we might have about ourselves. I do not call this supremely heroic act of love "barbaric".
Curse here refers to a humiliating death. It does not refer to God's Wrath in the sense of a sinner suffering hellfire. In other words, he that is hanged is suffering a humiliating death.Wrong. It was the same.
Deut. 21:23 His body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but thou shalt in any wise bury him that day; (for he that is hanged [is] accursed of God that thy land be not defiled, which the LORD thy God giveth thee [for] an inheritance.
So, Gal 3:13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed [is] every one that hangeth on a tree:
Cursed (verb). By God. Made a curse (noun). By God.
We were cursed (separated from God) by the Law. The penalty was death and being dead, hanging on the tree. Christ was made the curse and thus redeemed (paid the penalty of death, cursed, separated from God) us.
While you are partly right, that isn't the Calvinist Protestant position exactly. The Lutheran-Calvinist view is more specific, that the death Jesus endured was not so much a physical as it was a spiritual one, invisibly taking place on his soul, by His Father venting His Wrath, as a sinner in hell endures it.When you say "made sin means he is made a sin offering," what you are saying is that he was the sacrifice for atonement, which is the Protestant position.
I think what it means is: he was made to suffer the consequence of sin, which is death, even though he was sinless.
I quote these Protestant scholars precisely because what they're saying isn't Scriptural. That's the point. It's about traditions of men versus the Word of God. The Bible tells us that Jesus died a physical death at the hands of the Romans. Nowhere do they say Jesus endured the Father's Wrath and nowhere do they indicate the suffering was principally spiritual.Rather than quotes from men, perhaps God's Word should be posted. It's not about man and his opinions one way or the other. It's about God and His Word. He tells us quite clearly why His only begotten Son was sent here and put to death, doesn't He? As a matter of fact the entire Gospel (good news) hinges on it. Doesn't it?
Originally Posted by brinny
Rather than quotes from men, perhaps God's Word should be posted. It's not about man and his opinions one way or the other. It's about God and His Word. He tells us quite clearly why His only begotten Son was sent here and put to death, doesn't He? As a matter of fact the entire Gospel (good news) hinges on it. Doesn't it?
I quote these Protestant scholars precisely because what they're saying isn't Scriptural. That's the point. It's about traditions of men versus the Word of God. The Bible tells us that Jesus died a physical death at the hands of the Romans. Nowhere do they say Jesus endured the Father's Wrath and nowhere do they indicate the suffering was principally spiritual.
And yes, you're right, the Gospel does hinge on a correct view of the Cross, so it's very urgent that Penal Substitution be abandoned.
IMO, any of these versions of the Atonement are compatible with Salvation by Faith.They are though. Christ's Passive Obedience (Penal Substitution) is a component of the imputed righteousness of Christ which they sinner receives by faith in order to be justified. Think about it: one's view of the Atonement directly impacts their view of salvation/justification.
I did. Re-read the opening post. Re-read the second post. Re-read my various comments.Post God's Word to support your view. Thank you for sharing your opinion, as everyone has, however it is His Word that speaks for God, and just as Jesus quoted it in the desert with satan, so are we to quote it, for it IS powerful, and speaks for itself, cutting through even the soul and the spirit, and it accomplishes all that God sends it out to do.
Let His Word speak for itself. It surely will.
Any view of the Atonement can be compatible with *A* form of Salvation by Faith Alone....BUT the historic Lutheran-Calvinist version of Salvation by Faith Alone is based upon the PSub view. Though most Protestants don't know it, there are true versions and false versions of "Salvation by Faith Alone".IMO, any of these versions of the Atonement are compatible with Salvation by Faith.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?