Featured Catholics, Protestants, Baptists

No accusations from me, and my contempt is for your conduct here on the board as it misses the mark of Christian discourse. So I have no idea what you are talking about but in the future please leave me out of your conversations (don't talk to or about me and I won't talk to or about you).

 

Yes, I do disagree with what you have said....and I am sure you disagree with me. You followed me here just to say that? Again, please stop misrepresenting me. You do not know me. Just enjoy the conversation here with whomever you wish to dialogue....except me, just leave me alone.

I did not ask for your lies, insults, attacks, inferences or your taking things to a personal level. I have asked you to stop your insults, attacks, and assumptions of my intent yet you refuse. I have not followed you, I have not addressed you negatively except in response to these insults but you keep on....do you not recognize your behavior as sin or do you simply not care? Don't answer that....I don't want to know. Just leave me alone.

 

Martin,

My question is not so much an issue of Jesus taking the punishment of human sin, taking our sin, and dying in our stead. There are many places where we agree, even in terms of penal substitution atonement. But our framework may be a bit different (and here is where my questions arise). For example, we both read that Jesus bore our sins and that the Father lay our iniquities on his Son. We both read that human sin carries the punishment of death. And we both read that Jesus purchased us with his precious blood. So there is a since where we both agree that the atonement was penal (it dealt with the punishment of sin) and substitution (the Father gave the Son as an offering for us, Jesus is the "New Adam"). Insofar as my view here, I also agree that Jesus is the propitiation for our sins (more from Romans than the two verses in 1 John). So I believe that there is a common ground for us to discuss these things. We both look to God's Word, although we come back with a difference in understanding.

What I question is why we look at the atonement from the judicial standpoint, and exactly how some elements fit in that framework. One example that I offered was that we have a debt which must be paid regardless of the source of that payment. Suppose I make false statements about you on this board. That is a sin. The way I previously considered it was that God had to satisfy his justice by collecting in full the punishment for that sin. God therefore placed our sin on his Son and poured out his wrath (the punishment for those sins) on him to satisfy divine justice. This framework itself does not exist in Scripture, but it is a result of reasoning out Scripture. Origen's framework was that Jesus died as a ransom payment to Satan. Irenaeus' framework was headship (Adam and Christ). Eusebius held a distinctly Christus Victor position. Justin Martyr looked upon Christ as taking the punishment for human sin in his flesh as a substitute for mankind. So what I am exploring is this framework that I held for so long. I am not denying (and have not denied) any passage of Scripture (regardless of Internet Theologian's comments), but I do question some of the interpretations that many hold. That said, nothing in my view is beyond orthodoxy (which I have shown via commentary).

I am not taking Internet Theologian's interactions as reflective of your faith, although I know that you agree in terms of his theology. So I am probably clarifying for you what is already clear. We can explore this topic as brothers in Christ, knowing that we disagree but that our disagreements are founded in interpretation and conclusions - not in one or the other rejecting God's Word. Systematic theology itself incorporates human reasoning and theory (literally, it is part of the definition), so I think it acceptable that brothers disagree on issues to a point. We are united in Christ. No one is beyond testing their theology and theories against Scripture and by your interactions I sincerely believe that we can discuss these matters as men and brothers (iron sharpening iron). I fully admit that I do not have all of the answers and that my views are open to correction in this lifetime. I hope you understand because I value your comments and feedback although I do know that we disagree - but it may not always be this way (and if it is, we are still brothers in Christ). And I apologize for the lengthy response. I have appreciated your integrity, but as typical the insults of another made me want to clarify that I do not share his mentality when it comes to disagreement.

 

Maybe we agree and I just don't know it Biggrin

Lk1234,

The difference is the lens through which the atonement is viewed or the framework within which it is understood. Martyr presents Jesus as dying the death which was the punishment for human sin to redeem mankind, thus he took the punishment due us. If this is penal substitution theory then I agree. Origeon believed God offered his son in our place and Jesus suffered punishments instead of us by the hands of Satan and his demons in Hell thereby ransoming us with his blood. This is just as much penal substitution, but I disagree. We agree on Scripture but not fully on theology.

 

My view of the atonement is that on the Cross the Father laid our iniquity on His Son and offered Him as a guilt offering for man. Through Christ God was reconciling the world to himself. As the atoning sacrifice for the sins of mankind Jesus condemned sin in the flesh. Jesus bore our sins and purchased us with His own precious blood.

 

To illustrate what I am talking about when I explain it is theology and not Scripture that form our disagreement, let’s look at a few presuppositions (only three now) that are a foundation to Reformed Penal Substitution Theory. First, as atonement in this view centers on divine justice, there is the obvious issue that “justice” needs to be defined. For example, is God’s justice a retributive justice or a restorative justice? PST presupposes the former. Second, is sin a stain on men or a legitimate debt owed? PST assumes not only sin as literal debt owed but takes this debt as a literal need on the part of divine justice to be met. God has to collect what is owed to him, and this need is greater than delivering justice to the guilty (in fact, this need sets the stage whereby God creates a situation to collect from the Innocent on behalf of the guilty). This presupposes the idea that it is just for the innocent to be punished with the punishment of the guilty. Aquinas was the first to rationalize that a man could take punishment for another man if both were willing (penance). But even Aquinas rejected the idea that a man could take the punishment of another man concluding this unjust. For him this was a matter of satisfaction, of Jesus meeting the demands of human sin and this being stored as merit for those who come to faith in Christ. PST, however, takes for granted that a judge can justly punish an innocent man for the crimes of a guilty man with the punishment that guilty man deserved and this be “justice.” Third, PST takes as presupposition that God can only forgive a debt once he has collected all of that debt in full.

These are just 3 things inherent in PST, but they are not stated as being true in Scripture. They are part of a framework, an understanding, that must be held to accept PST. No other theory of atonement states any of the three presuppositions I listed. Yet most theories do hold to penal and substitution aspects of atonement. I hope this clarifies that I am not discounting Scripture but I am looking at the theories associated with PST. Maybe PST is right, may be it is not. It is often difficult to tell because some people cannot divorce their theology from actual Scripture. Thankfully many can and this discussion can be had.

 

Every passage concerning atonement does not have in mind the elect or non-elect. Often passages have in vision Jesus redeeming mankind (as the "Second Adam") and reconciling humanity to God. In one sense this is general as Jesus took the sins of man. In another it is specific as Jesus died to redeem those whom God would give to him. We can obviously say that Jesus bore our sins. Jesus lay down his life for his sheep - the elect. We can also say that when we do sin we have an advocate with the Father (there remains an issue of sin which is resolved continually in Christ).

I have a tendency to hold God's redemptive plan as being less centered on man than many would appreciate. So while some place the Atonement in terms of God saving a people within a divine courtroom setting, I tend to view God through Christ as reconciling the world to himself and on the Cross condemning the sin of mankind in the flesh thereby becoming the "Second Adam."

Another issue is that I view the determining factor in salvation to be the Father giving and not the Son dying. Christ's death is in itself the atonement for sin, but it is not in itself the salvation of man. Our salvation is not only the Son dying but also the Father giving. I realize we probably disagree but I hope this helps explain that disagreement.

So the question "who's sins did Jesus die for" is the framework itself that I am questioning here. My answer is that I am not sure that this is the right question to ask. The question is whether or not we are are saved, among the elect of God. So I am inclined towards leaving it as Justin Martyr stated:

“If, then, the Father of all wished His Christ for the whole human family to take upon Him the curses of all, knowing that, after He had been crucified and was dead, He would raise Him up, why do you argue about Him, who submitted to suffer these things according to the Father's will, as if He were accursed, and do not rather bewail yourselves? For although His Father caused Him to suffer these things in behalf of the human family, yet you did not commit the deed as in obedience to the will of God. For you did not practice piety when you slew the prophets. And let none of you say: If His Father wished Him to suffer this, in order that by His stripes the human race might be healed, we have done no wrong. If, indeed, you repent of your sins, and recognize Him to be Christ, and observe His commandments, then you may assert this; for, as I have said before, remission of sins shall be yours. But if you curse Him and them that believe on Him, and, when you have the power, put them to death, how is it possible that requisition shall not be made of you, as of unrighteous and sinful men, altogether hard-hearted and without understanding, because you laid your hands on Him?” (Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho)

 

I didn't give you "dumbs", I changed what I had given you to " dislike" (an obvious mistake). Grow up, become a man, put this childishness behind you. And leave me out of it.

Can you not understand that I neither value your opinions nor desire your fellowship? Deal with the issues of the op, rate my comments if you like. But there is absolutely no reason for you to direct anything to me personally. I could not care less if someone rates you as dumb; perhaps their honesty exceeds their manners. But leave me out of it. Grow up.

 

Continuing my thought, my answer is that I believe Christ died for the sins of mankind but also to redeem those who the Father had given him. I do not know that I could keep my view of salvation in the bounds of PST in terms of the Father making Jesus the target of the wrath that must be expressed and punishing him with our punishment. There are several implications to which I simply have not found satisfactory answers (for my satisfaction). So I am simply going back to what you could rightly determine to be a less worked out view of atonement.

While I am not saying PST is incorrect, I am saying that I have several issues and it would be dishonest of me to simply adopt the theory as my own.

 

I agree, Rev.

I’d go even further to say that a requirement to teach in a local church demands not only an acceptance of foundational truths (that Jesus was the object of this wrath on our behalf is foundational) but also a submission to those secondary doctrines that define local church doctrine. Too often churches do not vet their teachers.

To clarify my own statements, I am by no means denying that Jesus was the object of God’s wrath on our behalf. It was the will of the Father to crush Him and to offer Him as a guilt offering for us. This is foundational to Christian faith. I am, however, questioning a few aspects of one popular theory concerning exactly how this was worked out towards the salvation of the believer.

For example, you may teach divine justice demands God can only forgive a sin debt after he has collected payment for that sin in full. Therefore the Father lay our sins on His Son and looked upon Him as if He were guilty so that He could punish His Son with the punishment set aside for our sins. His wrath expended and the payment collected, God is then free to forgive as the demands of divine justice has been met. If your church teaches this then everyone in leadership should hold this view, absolutely and no questions asked. But others (like myself) do not hold or have rejected some aspects of this view to include some of the presuppositions of the interpretation (all interpretations carry some presupposition, I suppose). Does that make me right? No, of course not. But it does not make me wrong either. And it does not change the fact that I have denied no scripture in my interpretation.

What it makes me is honest. I have preached PST in the past. Now I am wrestling with some implications of that position that I cannot reconcile with Scripture. I would rather not have all of the answers than have the wrong ones. I hope you understand. I am not changing my position on Scripture but I am questioning some of the things I've brought into Scripture in the past. And I apologize when I do not express my thoughts clearly here.

 

Luke, I can provide others who question the same things. I didn't "discover" anything, but I did come to question some of my own presuppositions. There is a difference. I am working through some issues that I have with what I held. I don't expect anyone else to follow suit. And this is far off the topic of the OP.

 

Jonathan Williams

Several people posted a heretical article called "10 Problems with the Penal Substitution View of the Atonement" today. In the author's words, he finds it "unsettling" that "God had to vent his wrath on Jesus in order to forgive us." Below is a short response to each argument.

1a. Does God really need to appease his wrath with a blood sacrifice in order to forgive us?

Yes, Jesus explicitly said "My blood ... is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins." (Matthew 26:28). In Hebrews 9, we are told that redemption could only come through "His own blood", "not through the blood of goats and calves."

1b. Does this mean that the law of “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth” is the ultimate description of God’s character?

Jesus understood this to be an expression of God's justice, not a license for human revenge. Leviticus 24:21, "Thus the one who kills an animal shall make it good, but the one who kills a man shall be put to death." If we discard this law, we may as well punish killing an animal as murder, for this would not be injustice in God's sight.

1c. What are we to make of Jesus’ teaching that this law is surpassed by the law of love?
God is just, and therefore His loves justice. We cannot pit love and justice against each other.

1d. What are we to make of all the instances in the Bible where God forgives people without demanding a sacrifice (e.g. the prodigal son)?
This is a parable. By this rationale, we would have to conclude that a person can be saved without faith or go their entire Christian life without the Holy Spirit. The parable simply does not teach that people can be saved apart from a sacrifice.

2. If God’s holiness requires that a sacrifice be made before he can fellowship with sinners, how did Jesus manage to hang out with sinners without a sacrifice, since he is as fully divine and as holy as God the Father?
Because, God is also patient. No, He was not going to consummate His eternal kingdom among sinful men. And, whereas eternal life was merited by Christ's sacrifice, a fallen world was caused by the demerits of human sin.

3a. If Jesus’ death allows God the Father to accept us, wouldn’t it be more accurate to say that Jesus reconciles God to us than it is to say Jesus reconciles us to God?

The Mediator reconciled God and sinner, which involves reconciling God to man and derivatively man to God. From 2 Corinthians 5:19, God "not counting their trespasses against them" is inseparable from that "God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself."

3b. If God loves sinners and yet can’t accept sinners without a sacrifice, wouldn’t it be even more accurate to say that God reconciles God to himself than to say he reconciles us to God?

No, God remains just. The "variable" is human sin, which God detests. God is Himself, and that which contradicts Him is that or "who" which caused the need for reconciliation.

4. How are we to understand one member of the Trinity (the Father) being wrathful towards another member of the Trinity (the Son), when they are, along with the Holy Spirit, one and the same God? Can God be truly angry with God? Can God actually punish God?

How are we to understand one member of the Trinity (the Son) being begotten by another member of the Trinity (The Father), when they are the same God? Can God actually beget God? God is one in essence, three in Persons. This argument would make the Father, Son and Holy Spirit identical. Did the Father take on human flesh?

5. If God the father needs someone to “pay the price” for sin, does the Father ever really forgive anyone? Think about it. If you owe me a hundred dollars and I hold you to it unless someone pays me the owed sum, did I really forgive your debt? It seems not, especially since the very concept of forgiveness is about releasing a debt — not collecting it from someone else.

If I stole $100 from you, I should apologize to you should you demand I repay the $100 or not. If you demand I repay the $100, it would still be forgiveness for you to forgive my theft. Collecting a debt isn't antithetical to forgiveness. Jesus Christ paid the price for sin - which is to say that a Person of the Trinity paid the price for sin - He released us from a debt not by "cancellation" but on account of His blood.

6a. Are sin and guilt the sorts of things that can be literally transferred from one party to another?

Even on a human level things can be transferred. When two people marry, their debts and their assets become one in account. When a person is united to Christ, Christ's righteousness is credited to the sinner and the sinners sins are credited to Christ who by His perfect blood and righteousness can forgive.

6b. How are we to conceive of the Father being angry towards Jesus and justly punishing him when he of course knew Jesus never did anything wrong?

How are we to conceive of the Father sending Jesus to earth when He know Jesus did nothing wrong? The Father could justly punish the Son because the Son stood as the representative of sinners. When the Father punished the Son, He wasn't punishing the Son as innocent, but as a righteous Mediator who died in the place of sinners who did do much wrong.

7. If the just punishment for sin is eternal hell (as most Christians have traditionally believed), how does Jesus’ several hours of suffering and his short time in the grave pay for it?

Because Jesus Christ is not merely fully man, He was also fully God. And God is eternal. And it is God who must eternally mediate between an eternal God and temporal men whose flesh said Divine Person must take upon Himself. The ramification of this objection would be that it is inconsequential to our salvation that Jesus Christ is God. Perhaps Moses could have saved all men, had he not sinned.

8. If the main thing Jesus came to do was to appease the Father’s wrath by being slain by him for our sin, couldn’t this have been accomplished just as easily when (say) Jesus was a one-year-old boy as when he was a thirty-three year old man?
In Jesus' Active Obedience, he observed the law on our behalf. If Christ paid the penalty (passive obedience), but did not meet the demands of the law (active obedience), man would be in the position of pre-fall Adam: requiring perfect obedience to obtain eternal life. But, mankind already failed to live in perfect obedience, so man could not be saved. God planned that Jesus' active obedience would take over 30 years.

9. If it’s true that God’s wrath must be appeased by sacrificing his own Son, then don’t we have to conclude that pagans who have throughout history sacrificed their children to appease the gods’ wrath had the right intuition, even if they expressed it in the wrong way?

Jesus Christ died willingly, as a husband ought be willing to die for his wife. The children sacrificed to Molech did not die willingly, or at least they should not have. The sacrificial system that prefigured Christ was precise - and God did not command the sacrifice of other humans even though that a man would be the sacrifice would be correct intuition (Genesis 3:15).

10. What is the intrinsic connection between what Jesus did on the cross and how we actually live?

By His death, Jesus didn't only secure our justification. He secured all the blessings of redemption ... regeneration, justification, adoption, sanctification, glorification. The connection between what Jesus did on the cross and how we actually live is that Jesus secured our sanctification and glorification, and by the Spirit who proceeds from Him, enables us to live as sanctified people now, and glorified people in the life hereafter. All of salvation is received on the basis of Christ's blood and righteousness.

http://reknew.org/2015/12/10-problems-with-the-penal-substitution-view-of-the-atonement/

 

I agree with your assessment of the article. God's wrath is of course in view when we speak of atonement. The consequences if sin, I believe, provide ample evidence that God's wrath necessitated appeasement on our behalf.

That said, it does not mean that this wrath poured out on Christ is that combined punishments set aside for the individual sins of those being saved rather than simply the sins of man. Neither the questions or answers address what I am ultimately asking, which is why this philosophical and judicial framework is the correct lens through which through view the Atonement.