Evangelicals splitting over atonement

[karen freeinchristman]

http://www.churchtimes.co.uk/content.asp?id=38093

This is interesting...

[higgs2]

"Rediscovering the glory of penal substitution"? :doh:

[AngCath]

Evangelicals are silly :P

[gtsecc]

http://www.churchtimes.co.uk/content.asp?id=38093

This is interesting...
Interesting?
Or sad that so many call upon the name of Christ, and have no idea why he came here?

[Tomoz]

Evangelicals are silly :P

Hey!! :)

Tom Wright's paper is worth a read if you have the time. It can be found at http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/news/2007/20070423wright.cfm?doc=205

As has been pointed out before, I don't know how anyone could say that a God who isn't angry at sin is a good God. But at the same time, the Father and the Son weren't working against each other at the cross, so I don't think the idea of a vengeful father and a loving son works either. The cross is the highest revelation of God's character - holiness and justice, and yet total, self-giving love - and how that has all come together and been upheld simultaneously!! Its amazing really.
But I do think we need to be holding on to penal substitution. There is more to the cross than God dealing with our personal sins, but it certainly isn't less than that.

[gtsecc]

ooh fudge
Now look here:
Atonement is simply a theological mistake.
Go get your Oxford Dictionary of the Church and look it up.
Trace the history of the theology – it has the major schools of thought listed, who started them why, and how they evolved.
If you want to know the why – go look it up.
In short
Roman Catholics are wrong.
Most Protestants are wrong.
Some Anglicans are right.
The EO are correct.

[Aymn27]

ooh fudge
Now look here:
Atonement is simply a theological mistake.
Go get your Oxford Dictionary of the Church and look it up.
Trace the history of the theology – it has the major schools of thought listed, who started them why, and how they evolved.
If you want to know the why – go look it up.
In short
Roman Catholics are wrong.
Most Protestants are wrong.
Some Anglicans are right.
The EO are correct.
thank you for your opinion...

[gtsecc]

thank you for your opinion...
opinion?
heck, look it up.
Go follow the history of the theology.
You can even do it from google and wiki probably.
It seems to me you are going to end up back at Anselm's - Cur Deus Homo? (Why Did God Become Man)
And you are going to read Augustine, and Aquinas, and you are going to see they are all working off of the Vulgate, and it goes back to the Romans 5:12 thing.
You know, you probably ought to go ahead and trace it all out for yourself. It is interesting, and it is the history of attonement theology, and it is crap. Once you figure that out for yourself, your are going to want to know where to turn for noncraptastic theology. Go to Anthansius - On the Incarnation.
See? It is easy!
Anselm - Why did God Become man? Bad Theology
Athanasius - On the Incarnation Good Theology

[gtsecc]

I mean don't let the fact that I am a jackass get in the way of learning something. Look at the thread title: Evangelicals Spliting Over Attonement.
Of Course they are - They are fundamentally drawing off of bad theology, Atonement, itself.
Atonement Theory is wrong, and why we can't be Roman Catholic or Evangelicals. A study of Atonement Theory will clearly show that we have to be either Eastern Orthodox or Anglican. Now, if I can't convince even a handful of Anglicans, then it makes me think it is just a hopeless cause to get our theology turned around, and the only course is to abandon ship.

[AngCath]

Surprising as it may or may not seem . . .
I agree with gtsecc on this one.

[IowaLutheran]

Once you figure that out for yourself, your are going to want to know where to turn for noncraptastic theology.

I'll have to remember that in seminary:

Craptastic theology classes = bad
Noncraptastic theology classes = good

Seriously, though, I'm a "Christus Victor" atonement kind of guy. No penal substitution for me.

[JasonV]

Glen,

Would you elaborate on why you feel the EO's have the atonement right? Just a condensed version would be fine.

[picnic]

Having been to word alive/spring harvest a few times as an undergraduate, I think it's a shame they have split but I guess there comes a point when splitting is preferable to staying together. I learnt a lot from those weeks - particularly from things they came under the word alive banner so it'll be ashame not to be able to experience word alive and Skegness butlins again.

[Tomoz]

Glen I'd like to draw your attention to the fact that in my post I said that there is more to the cross that God dealing with our personal sins (though it is not less than that).
Actually think it is fair to say that there was a whole lot going on at the crucifixion and if only the people who disagree with one another would actually talk, they may discover that their understandings of the cross aren't actually nessecarily contradictory but rather complement one another and help us to understand in a more complete way just what an absolutely amazing thing God achieved for his creation at the cross. It's not a competition.
Now Glen, I know you're a really knowledgeable guy, and my lack of understanding probably frustrates you. But rather than just treating me like I don't have a clue and need to go off and read Athanasius and THEN you'll talk to me, I really would appreciate you explaining your thoughts to me in more detail.

[Aymn27]

Hey!! :)

Tom Wright's paper is worth a read if you have the time. It can be found at http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/news/2007/20070423wright.cfm?doc=205

As has been pointed out before, I don't know how anyone could say that a God who isn't angry at sin is a good God. But at the same time, the Father and the Son weren't working against each other at the cross, so I don't think the idea of a vengeful father and a loving son works either. The cross is the highest revelation of God's character - holiness and justice, and yet total, self-giving love - and how that has all come together and been upheld simultaneously!! Its amazing really.
But I do think we need to be holding on to penal substitution. There is more to the cross than God dealing with our personal sins, but it certainly isn't less than that.
Tom..I think you are spot on....if there is no atonement..then Jesus was not the "lamb" of God...Scripture gives us numerous passages which confirm penal substitution and atonement theology - if the EO don't agree, too bad for them - maybe they would come to a better understanding of grace and freedom in Christ as opposed to a "works rigtheousness" theology - after all, don't some sects of the Orthodox still hold to the uncleanliness laws of Leviticus in regards to female menustration? - which means they are wrong - most likely in more than one area!

[higgs2]

Surprising as it may or may not seem . . .
I agree with gtsecc on this one.

Not surprised at all.

I do too.

:)

[gtsecc]

I really would appreciate you explaining your thoughts to me in more detail.


God has supreme authority.
Thy will be done.
I think we can find old testament examples of forgiveness where God speaks the word only, without any "debt payment."

So, why do many Christians seem to believe in one theory or another of “Atonement?”

Well, most of us here live in the west, and basically the entire western Church was shaped by years and years of Attonement theology, finally culminating in Archbishop Anslem of Canturbury’s Cur Deus Homo, (Why God Became Man.)
· God is just, so something has to happen.
· Jesus is the vehicle.
· His infinite worth is the only payment possible for our sins.

So, who is this payment to anyway? God or the Devil?
Either way it is problematic. And, it is binding God to a rather juvenille understating of justice as some sort of tit-for-tat system.


You know how Al Gore and others talk about trading Carbon emissions? You know, your company polutes, so you by stock in a company that doesn't pollute to kind of even thigns out?
Well, the Roman Catholics kind of devolved a similar idea – Works of Super Errogation.
Now, it seems like Bad Theology, so Anglicans renounce that in the 39 Articles.
But, I content that, again, this is just a poor correction, to a more fundamental problem – in this case, attonement theology. Get rid of atonement theology, and we won’t sit around trying to figure out how to trade units of sin, (or Good Works). I mean really, all Protestants and Roman Catholics are, are the two differing views on what to do with the stupid theology of Atonement.

[Tomoz]

God has supreme authority.
Thy will be done.
I think we can find old testament examples of forgiveness where God speaks the word only, without any "debt payment."

So, why do many Christians seem to believe in one theory or another of “Atonement?”

Well, most of us here live in the west, and basically the entire western Church was shaped by years and years of Attonement theology, finally culminating in Archbishop Anslem of Canturbury’s Cur Deus Homo, (Why God Became Man.)
· God is just, so something has to happen.
· Jesus is the vehicle.
· His infinite worth is the only payment possible for our sins.

So, who is this payment to anyway? God or the Devil?
Either way it is problematic. And, it is binding God to a rather juvenille understating of justice as some sort of tit-for-tat system.


You know how Al Gore and others talk about trading Carbon emissions? You know, your company polutes, so you by stock in a company that doesn't pollute to kind of even thigns out?
Well, the Roman Catholics kind of devolved a similar idea – Works of Super Errogation.
Now, it seems like Bad Theology, so Anglicans renounce that in the 39 Articles.
But, I content that, again, this is just a poor correction, to a more fundamental problem – in this case, attonement theology. Get rid of atonement theology, and we won’t sit around trying to figure out how to trade units of sin, (or Good Works). I mean really, all Protestants and Roman Catholics are, are the two differing views on what to do with the crappy theology of Atonement.



OK, thanks for that Glen.
The only thing is, the Bible seems to be absolutely shot through with atonement. Torah is going on about it all the time - the whole sacrificial system is about "making atonement" for oneself.

The New Testament picks up this same idea, with the same kind of language, but transfers it all to Jesus - the whole point is that his death is what the OT sacrificial system pointed to ('slain lamb' and all that). The Bible presents a holy God who can't just pretend sin doesn't matter - it has to be dealt with. And, in some way, the problem of sin is finally dealt with, atoned for, at the cross.
I think this is an understanding that doesn't just go back to the bible writers, but to Jesus himself (ransom for many etc.).

Now I guess all this isn't new to you, so tell me, what do you understand the bible to mean when it refers to 'Atonement'?

[gtsecc]

The Bible presents a holy God who can't just pretend sin doesn't matter - it has to be dealt with. And, in some way, the problem of sin is finally dealt with, atoned for, at the cross.

No. I disagree.
The way you have phrased that even sounds like Cur Deus Homo.
This theology has had so much influence, I don't think we can even be objective enought to realize its full magnitude.

Anyway,
I need to find an OT example of forgiveness without attonement, and then I need to expand on the lamb idea, which absolutely does point to a sacrifice, but I don't think I can get all that done today. But, knwo I am workign on it.

[Colabomb]

ooh fudge
Now look here:
Atonement is simply a theological mistake.
Go get your Oxford Dictionary of the Church and look it up.
Trace the history of the theology – it has the major schools of thought listed, who started them why, and how they evolved.
If you want to know the why – go look it up.
In short
Roman Catholics are wrong.
Most Protestants are wrong.
Some Anglicans are right.
The EO are correct.

Then why not cross the bosphorus?

[Tomoz]

No. I disagree.
The way you have phrased that even sounds like Cur Deus Homo.
This theology has had so much influence, I don't think we can even be objective enought to realize its full magnitude.

Anyway,
I need to find an OT example of forgiveness without attonement, and then I need to expand on the lamb idea, which absolutely does point to a sacrifice, but I don't think I can get all that done today. But, knwo I am workign on it.

Great, looking forward to it!

[higgs2]

Then why not cross the bosphorus?

A lot of Anglicans agree with the EO perspective too. No need to cross. :)

[brightmorningstar]

Dear Tomoz,

I must say I am very blessed and encouraged by your posts on this, (didn’t our hearts burn – Luke 24:32)

I agree it seems somehow illogical how anyone could say that a God who isn't angry at sin could be a good God.
You wrote “The cross is the highest revelation of God's character - holiness and justice, and yet total, self-giving love - and how that has all come together and been upheld simultaneously!! Its amazing really.
But I do think we need to be holding on to penal substitution. There is more to the cross than God dealing with our personal sins, but it certainly isn't less than that.
I think this is it exactly, it is this and more. I do not see any contradiction with Chritus Victor either, I think its Christus Victor and PS and more.
I get the impression Steve Chalke was rather more saying that we shouldn’t see the cross as cosmic child abuse, which is right, although to me he does seem to be missing an element or two.
Jeffrey John’s statements are a concern. What he said he was taught is this…..
God was very angry with us for our sins, and because he is a just God, our sin had to be punished. But instead of punishing us he sent his Son, Jesus, as a substitute to suffer and die in our place. The blood of Jesus paid the price of our sins, and because of him God stopped being angry with us. In other words, Jesus took the rap, and we got forgiven, provided we said we believed in him.
This isnt far off what the Bible says holistically and specifically in places, to call it repugnant and nonsense suggests even the basics haven’t yet been grasped. I think God was angry with our disobedience, having told us sin leads to death and chosen to become dying sinners, I think Jesus separates the sin from the sinner.

[erin74]

How do you understand Romans without atonement??? esp Romans 3


21 But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify.
22 This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference,
23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
24 and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.
25 God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished--
26 he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.
27 Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On that of observing the law? No, but on that of faith.
28 For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law.
29 Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too,
30 since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith.
31 Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law.


Sorry to quote such a large chunk - it is really tricky to break up Romans - I probably should have included passages from before this too.

Those who were forgiven prior to Christ were still atoned for by his blood - their faith in the one who was to come. God saw their faith, and credited it to them as righteousness (see Romans and Hebrews).
Their sin was still dealt with by Christ's blood.

[brightmorningstar]

Thanks erin74.
I think I agree with you
"but he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished"
I think Romans also says that the sins were ultimalety unpunished because the OT sacrifice was insufficient.

I think this shows faith in God is doing what is right according to God. We dont just have faith in Jesus Christ becuase we believe in Him, our faith is manisfested in seeking to obey His teaching... this is our love for God.

[erin74]

Thanks erin74.
I think I agree with you
"but he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished"
I think Romans also says that the sins were ultimalety unpunished because the OT sacrifice was insufficient.

I think this shows faith in God is doing what is right according to God. We dont just have faith in Jesus Christ becuase we believe in Him, our faith is manisfested in seeking to obey His teaching... this is our love for God.
Yes - I was eating dinner as I was looking, so didn't have time to chase up that verse - but it was what I was getting across.

[Iosias]

http://www.churchtimes.co.uk/content.asp?id=38093

This is interesting...

Very sad. :(

1 John 2:19 "They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us."

[Colabomb]

A lot of Anglicans agree with the EO perspective too. No need to cross. :)

However it is not in the Anglican Tradition to berate and tear down those who disagree with you. I have no problem with eastern Thought. I do take major offense at referring to other's beliefs as "crap" theology.

[Iosias]

I do take major offense at referring to other's beliefs as "crap" theology.

As do I, I prefer the term "heresy" :P

Any way here is Gill's exegesis of Romans 3:25 :)

Whom God had set forth to be a propitiation,.... Redemption by Christ is here further explained, by his being "a propitiation": which word may design either Christ the propitiator, the author of peace and reconciliation; or the propitiatory sacrifice, by which he is so; and both in allusion to the mercy seat, which was a type of him as such. The apostle here uses the same word, which the Septuagint often render כפרת "the mercy seat", by; and Philo the Jew calls it by the same name, and says it was a symbol, της ιλεω του θεου δυναμεως "of the propitious power of God" (b). Christ is the propitiation to God for sin; which must be understood of his making satisfaction to divine justice, for the sins of his people; these were imputed to him, and being found on him, the law and justice of God made demands on him for them; which he answered to satisfaction, by his obedience and sacrifice; and which, as it could not be done by any other, nor in any other way, is expressed by "reconciliation", and "atonement": whence God may be said to be pacified, or made propitious; not but that he always loved his people, and never hated them; nor is there, nor can there be any change in God, from hatred to love, any more than from love to hatred: Christ has not, by his sacrifice and death, procured the love and favour of God, but has removed the obstructions which lay in the way of love's appearing and breaking forth; there was, a law broken, and justice provoked, which were to be attended to, and Christ by his sacrifice has satisfied both; so that neither the wrath of God, nor any of the effects of it, can fall upon the persons Christ is the propitiation for, even according to justice itself; so that it is not love, but justice that is made propitious: for this is all owing to the grace and goodness of God, who "hath set him forth", for this intent, in his eternal purposes and decrees; in the promises of the Old Testament, in the types, shadows, and sacrifices of the old law; by the exhibition of him in our nature, and in the ministration of the Gospel; and this is said to be

through faith in his blood. The "blood" of Christ is that, by which Christ is the propitiation; for without the shedding of that blood, there is no redemption, no peace, no reconciliation, or remission of sin; and "faith" in his blood is the means by which persons become partakers of the benefits of his propitiation; such as peace, pardon, atonement, justification, and adoption: and the end of Christ's being set forth as a propitiation, on the part of God's people, is,

for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God: by "sins that are past", are meant, not sins before baptism, nor the sins of a man's life only, but the sins of Old Testament saints, who lived before the incarnation of Christ, and the oblation of his sacrifice; and though this is not to be restrained to them only, for Christ's blood was shed for the remission of all his people's sins, past, present, and to come; yet the sins of the saints before the coming of Christ, seem to be particularly designed; which shows the insufficiency of legal sacrifices, sets forth the efficacy of Christ's blood and sacrifice, demonstrates him to be a perfect Saviour, and gives us reason under the present dispensation to hope for pardon, since reconciliation is completely made: "remission" of sin does not design that weakness which sin has brought upon, and left in human nature, whereby it is so enfeebled, that it cannot help itself, and therefore Christ was set forth, and sent forth, to be a propitiation; but rather God's passing by, or overlooking sin, and not punishing for it, under the former dispensation; or else the forgiveness of it now, and redemption from it by the blood of Christ, "through the forbearance of God"; in deferring the execution of justice, till he sent his Son, and in expecting satisfaction of his Son; which shows the grace and goodness of God to his people, and the trust and confidence he put in his Son: the other end on the part of God, in setting forth Christ to be a propitiation, was

to declare his righteousness Psa_22:31; meaning either the righteousness of Christ, which was before hid, but now manifested; or rather the righteousness of God the Father, his faithfulness in his promises relating to Christ, his grace and goodness in the mission of his Son, the holiness and purity of his nature, and his vindictive justice, in avenging sin in his own Son, as the surety of his people: the execution of this was threatened from the beginning; the types and sacrifices of the old law prefigured it; the prophecies of the Old Testament express it; and the sufferings and death of Christ openly declare it, since God spared not his own Son, but sheathed the sword of justice in him.

(b) Philo de Vita Mosis, l. 3. p. 668.

[Aymn27]

How do you understand Romans without atonement??? esp Romans 3



Sorry to quote such a large chunk - it is really tricky to break up Romans - I probably should have included passages from before this too.

Those who were forgiven prior to Christ were still atoned for by his blood - their faith in the one who was to come. God saw their faith, and credited it to them as righteousness (see Romans and Hebrews).
Their sin was still dealt with by Christ's blood.
It is impossible to read Romans and not get atonement...actually...I was rather scandalized to know that there were Christians who disagreed with the "theology" - and I used quotes on theology because I honestly cannot see how anyone can read Scripture (especially Romans) and walk away rejecting Christ's death as an atonement for sins....that boggles my mind!

[Iosias]

It is impossible to read Romans and not get atonement...actually...I was rather scandalized to know that there were Christians who disagreed with the "theology" - and I used quotes on theology because I honestly cannot see how anyone can read Scripture (especially Romans) and walk away rejecting Christ's death as an atonement for sins....that boggles my mind!

An extract from a talk I gave:


So first; THE NATURE OF CHRIST’S DEATH.



(a) The Scriptures set forth the atoning work of Christ as being propitiation, reconciliation, a ransom and redemption. All of these may be summed up as satisfaction. This is the key idea which is contained in all the scriptural terms describing the atonement:


Propitiation: this means to ‘pacify’ or ‘appease’ and is used in 1 John 4:10[1] (http://www.christianforums.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=34457573#_ftn1). It presupposes wrath and the purpose of propitiation is the removal of this wrath, i.e. the justice of God is appeased and God has been satisfied.


Reconcilliation: Romans 5:10 states that “When we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son”.This emphasises our separation from God which was caused by sin. Our reconciliation with God is only possible because the demand of the righteousness and justice of God is totally met, i.e. satisfied.


Redemption: this presupposes bondage and is the delivery of someone from bondage by the intervention of a ransom price. When in Mark 10:45 we are told that Christ came “to give his life a ransom for many” it means that Christ satisfied the demand of him who set the ransom-price. And so Christians are said to have been “bought with a price” (1 Corinthians 6:20 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=53&chapter=6&verse=20&version=9&context=verse)). The death of Christ satisfies God and so redeems us from the curse of the Law – its penal sanctions.


Now consider, if satisfaction for the debt of sin is made for any man, then that man's debt of sin and guilt is gone. From the moment that satisfaction has been made, that debt is forever removed from before the bar of God's justice. Hence God, for the sake of His own righteousness and justice cannot hold that debt against the man for whose debt satisfaction has been made. His debt is gone from before God, his debt of punishment has been discharged by his Surety.


(b) So we see that the death of Christ was satisfactory. But more, it was vicarious (1 Peter 2:24[2] (http://www.christianforums.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=34457573#_ftn2)). Because of our total depravity we are wholly unable to make satisfaction for ourselves. Christ died not for himself upon the cross but as a substitute for others. We read in Isaiah that he was wounded for our transgressions, bruised for our iniquities, bearing the sin of many. This I hold sufficiently show that Christ died as a substitute for others. (In Isaiah 53 we find substitution and intercession linked but I will come onto that later)



(c) Finally, the death of Christ was efficacious. It actually accomplished something – its intended effect. The death of Christ was to make vicarious satisfaction. By his death it was intended to make satisfaction for the sins of those for whom he died, he died for many to make satisfaction for many and that satisfaction has been obtained, he has taken away their sin. Their right to all the blessings of salvation was forever established there, at the cross.

[1] (http://www.christianforums.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=34457573#_ftnref1) Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.

[2] (http://www.christianforums.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=34457573#_ftnref2)Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.

[brightmorningstar]

Ah ok who says forums cant be beneficial and a blessing and living and active .... excellent

Many Thanks AV1611 :)

[Iosias]

Many Thanks AV1611 :)

I hope it is of some use.

[erin74]

It is impossible to read Romans and not get atonement...actually...I was rather scandalized to know that there were Christians who disagreed with the "theology" - and I used quotes on theology because I honestly cannot see how anyone can read Scripture (especially Romans) and walk away rejecting Christ's death as an atonement for sins....that boggles my mind!
stunned doesn't half describe how I felt when I discovered some don't hold to atonement....

Oh and AV1611 - I love the word propitiation and it's use. There really is no other word that does the concept justice.

[Aymn27]

I hope it is of some use.
Of use...most definitely! What a blessing!!

[marciebaby]

Anyway,
I need to find an OT example of forgiveness without attonement, and then I need to expand on the lamb idea, which absolutely does point to a sacrifice, but I don't think I can get all that done today. But, knwo I am workign on it.


Well?

[brightmorningstar]

Yes propitiation is spot on.
I see no conflict in PSA, or Cristus Victor or most of it as we can see from scripture Jesus achieved many things on the cross.
In fact Derek Prince points out that it was one all sufficient sacrifice, we are perfected forever, it was a divinely ordained exchange where we have made for us total and ultimate forgiveness and healing.
He achieved
Righteouness in place of sin
Life in place of death
Blessing in place of curse
Abundance in place of poverty
Glory in place of shame
Acceptance in place of rejection
The new man in place of the old

[Simon_Templar]

I personally hold both the 'eastern' view, recapitulation + theosis, whatever you want to call it, and the view of penal substitution... why?

because both are clearly present in scrpiture. For the more traditional, both have been taught by the church and accepted within the bounds of orthodoxy. I think both sides do a disservice to themselves by focusing too exclusively on their own view. I know for me it was a great revelation and greatly aided me practically and in understanding when I (re) discovered the more eastern view of things.

There is a great move in the western church to forget the wrath and judgement of God. This is a move born of convenience and of lack of the fear of God. As I'm sure most of you have heard, the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom. Work the rest out ;)

[Tomoz]

There is a great move in the western church to forget the wrath and judgement of God. This is a move born of convenience and of lack of the fear of God. As I'm sure most of you have heard, the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom. Work the rest out ;)

Maybe some christians are balking at the idea of the wrath of God because they think that those who believe in it reckon His wrath, really, still lingers on those who are in Christ - like he doesn't really want to forgive us, but for the love of his Son (and most definitely NOT us) he's prepared to grudgingly hold back the thunderbolts.

Maybe we need to be upholding the wrath of God on one hand, but also making it clearer that God's overflowing love and mercy are absolutely freely and joyfully poured out to us who are in the beloved - when God looks at us, he smiles. Understanding that in the light of God's true attitude to sin makes it all the more amazing.

[brightmorningstar]

Yes I agree Tomoz, His wrath is against sin. He hates the sin but loves the sinner. Its kind of QED from the gospel. He has already proved it. John 3:16, He did it and did it once and for all.
:clap: for us.

[Tomoz]

Yes I agree Tomoz, His wrath is against sin. He hates the sin but loves the sinner. Its kind of QED from the gospel. He has already proved it. John 3:16, He did it and did it once and for all.
:clap: for us.

Yep, Isn't God amazing?

[karen freeinchristman]

I personally hold both the 'eastern' view, recapitulation + theosis, whatever you want to call it, and the view of penal substitution... why?

because both are clearly present in scrpiture. For the more traditional, both have been taught by the church and accepted within the bounds of orthodoxy. I think both sides do a disservice to themselves by focusing too exclusively on their own view. I know for me it was a great revelation and greatly aided me practically and in understanding when I (re) discovered the more eastern view of things.

There is a great move in the western church to forget the wrath and judgement of God. This is a move born of convenience and of lack of the fear of God. As I'm sure most of you have heard, the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom. Work the rest out ;)I agree, ST. Both views are valid and neither should be held to the exclusion of the other. :thumbsup:

Maybe some christians are balking at the idea of the wrath of God because they think that those who believe in it reckon His wrath, really, still lingers on those who are in Christ - like he doesn't really want to forgive us, but for the love of his Son (and most definitely NOT us) he's prepared to grudgingly hold back the thunderbolts.

Maybe we need to be upholding the wrath of God on one hand, but also making it clearer that God's overflowing love and mercy are absolutely freely and joyfully poured out to us who are in the beloved - when God looks at us, he smiles. Understanding that in the light of God's true attitude to sin makes it all the more amazing.Good points made, Tom!

[Secundulus]

1 John 2:3-5 (English Standard Version)

3And by this we know that we have come to know him, if we keep his commandments. 4Whoever says "I know him" but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him, 5but whoever keeps his word, in him truly the love of God is perfected. By this we may be sure that we are in him:

It always comes back to how we define sin and what we think are his commandments.

As others have said, I think both the Eastern and Western view of salvation are both taught in the scripture. I believe that what the Eastern Church calls Theosis, we in the West have called Sanctification. Both refer to the process by which we become perfected in God's sight.

I think this process of perfection is reflected in the scripture quoted above. It is our gradual ability to follow God's commandments in their entirety so that we become his righteous people.

It is not simply some warm fuzzy good feeling of love and acceptance such as a gnostic might obtain during meditation.

[brightmorningstar]

Thanks Secundulus .. another post I have found very helpful ...

excellent:thumbsup:

[Simon_Templar]

Maybe some christians are balking at the idea of the wrath of God because they think that those who believe in it reckon His wrath, really, still lingers on those who are in Christ - like he doesn't really want to forgive us, but for the love of his Son (and most definitely NOT us) he's prepared to grudgingly hold back the thunderbolts.

Maybe we need to be upholding the wrath of God on one hand, but also making it clearer that God's overflowing love and mercy are absolutely freely and joyfully poured out to us who are in the beloved - when God looks at us, he smiles. Understanding that in the light of God's true attitude to sin makes it all the more amazing.
This is the key issue in a number of the 'sticky' debates going on across the board in christian circles.

God's wrath rests upon sin. The choices we make in life join us either to the body of sin, or to the body of Christ (and in that, to God).

God has made clear that in order to be joined to Christ, what we must do is surrender. surrender our desires, our ideas, our imaginations, our will.. everything, and in surrender we will be conformed to Christ, and joined to Christ.

The other option is to join ourselves to sin, and thus to be under the wrath of God which rests upon sin.


There certainly are legalists who go out of their way to bring condemnation even on God's people. Yet more and more the church in all sectors (not just talking about anglicanism, but evangelicals, charismatics, everyone) is moving towards forgetting the wrath of God even upon sin. The simple reason is that people don't want to surrender their desires and wills, so they must justify themselves.

It is a move to confrom God to ourselves, rather than the other way around.

[erin74]

Maybe some christians are balking at the idea of the wrath of God because they think that those who believe in it reckon His wrath, really, still lingers on those who are in Christ - like he doesn't really want to forgive us, but for the love of his Son (and most definitely NOT us) he's prepared to grudgingly hold back the thunderbolts.

Maybe we need to be upholding the wrath of God on one hand, but also making it clearer that God's overflowing love and mercy are absolutely freely and joyfully poured out to us who are in the beloved - when God looks at us, he smiles. Understanding that in the light of God's true attitude to sin makes it all the more amazing.
Romans again - lots to say about God's wrath.

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth." 1:18

There's plenty after that that talks about God's wrath and judgement. We certainly would be wise to fear God.

[Ahazmat]

No. I disagree.
The way you have phrased that even sounds like Cur Deus Homo.
This theology has had so much influence, I don't think we can even be objective enought to realize its full magnitude.

Anyway,
I need to find an OT example of forgiveness without attonement, and then I need to expand on the lamb idea, which absolutely does point to a sacrifice, but I don't think I can get all that done today. But, knwo I am workign on it.
EZK 18 forgiveness without atonement.

[gtsecc]

Who is the debt paid to?

[Secundulus]

29 The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold,  (http://www.christianforums.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=34687465#_ftn1)the Lamb of God, who  (http://www.christianforums.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=34687465#_ftn2)takes away the sin  (http://www.christianforums.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=34687465#_ftn3)of the world!

English Standard Version. Jn 1:29

Given this verse and the significance of the lamb in the temple sacrifices, it seems to me that the writer of the Gospel of John thought that the debt was paid to God.

[Aymn27]

29 The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold,  (http://www.christianforums.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=34687465#_ftn1)the Lamb of God, who  (http://www.christianforums.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=34687465#_ftn2)takes away the sin  (http://www.christianforums.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=34687465#_ftn3)of the world!

English Standard Version. Jn 1:29

Given this verse and the significance of the lamb in the temple sacrifices, it seems to me that the writer of the Gospel of John thought that the debt was paid to God.
well of course it was...what..have we created a God that is only mercy and demands no justice? Romans is an entire letter dedicated to this idea...either you are under his wrath or his grace.....

[gtsecc]

I think if people follow the "justice" idea out to its logical conclusion, it creates a system of justice, that God is then beholden to. Justice proceeds from God, not the other way around. You can trace the whole thought train back to Augustine, and then back to Tertullian. And, you all will remember that Tertullian was a heretic.

[Simon_Templar]

I think if people follow the "justice" idea out to its logical conclusion, it creates a system of justice, that God is then beholden to. Justice proceeds from God, not the other way around. You can trace the whole thought train back to Augustine, and then back to Tertullian. And, you all will remember that Tertullian was a heretic.

Its a matter of how you look at it.

God is justice, there is no standard of Justice to which God is beholden, except himself. thus there is no standard of justice by which he can be judged. We can not take any of his actions and imagine that we could declare them unjust.

Yet, Justice being an essential part of God's nature, just like love, and truth, and holiness, etc, means that God can no more stray from justice, or change in his justice, than he could in his love, or truth.

He can't be held accountable to justice, neither can he depart from justice.

[gtsecc]

He can't be held accountable to justice, neither can he depart from justice.
See, that is just mental gymnastic. You are still saying He is beholden to justic, rather than if He does it, it is by very definition - just.n It is all bad theology, and "correctionaly" theology making things worse. Recapitulation is the answer.

[Simon_Templar]

See, that is just mental gymnastic. You are still saying He is beholden to justic, rather than if He does it, it is by very definition - just.n It is all bad theology, and "correctionaly" theology making things worse. Recapitulation is the answer.
no, I'm saying that he is as he is. God can not change his nature. If his nature is Justice, then his justice can not change any more than any other part of him.

Thus, God could not give justice in one case and withhold it in another because it would be changing his very nature. You might as well suggest that God could become imperfect, or he could become evil.
Its just part of his immutable nature.

I don't disagree with recapitulation, but that doesn't change the fact that recapitulation wouldn't even be necessary if God could just say, "hey you know what, I've changed and now I'm going to just accept this whole situation, so you're all good, come on back and we'll have a big party".

The unchanging justice and holiness of God are pre-requisite even to recapitulation, because without them, there is no need for any kind of redemption at all.

[gtsecc]

I think justice is barking up the wrong tree.
The point is holyness.

Justice, is a Jewish idea, and points to the law, and is ultimately close, but not complete.

Holyness is the fulfilment of humanity, and points towards Christ.

[Aymn27]

I think justice is barking up the wrong tree.
The point is holyness.

Justice, is a Jewish idea, and points to the law, and is ultimately close, but not complete.

Holyness is the fulfilment of humanity, and points towards Christ.
I would say that justice and holiness are inseperable...God is just because He is HOLY! That is why He has a male nature - not female..but that's another debate ;)

[karen freeinchristman]

I would say that justice and holiness are inseperable...God is just because He is HOLY! I agree!

That is why He has a male nature - not female..but that's another debate ;):scratch:

[gtsecc]

Can we at least agree God does not use a "tit for tat" justice system?

[Tomoz]

How can we become holy without Christ's death? We are slaves to sin, and it is Jesus' death that frees us of that to grow more into his likeness.

No matter what our views of authority are (Church? Bible?), the NT still carries apostolic authority and it is drenched with the belief that Jesus died for our sins - not just from the apostles, but from Jesus himself. I don't think we'll be able to reduce that to one atonement theory or another - that minimises the fullness of the cross - but any attempt to get around Jesus death and resurrection being the fact from which all Christian thought and living proceeds will hit brick wall after brick wall.

[Iosias]

Isaiah 53:1-12 "Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the LORD revealed? For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him. He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not. Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth. He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken. And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth. Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities. Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors."

[Ahazmat]

Isaiah 53:1-12 "Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the LORD revealed? For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him. He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not. Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth. He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken. And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth. Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities. Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors."
Nice refresher on the suffeing of Israel as an example to mankind. What is the point?

[Ahazmat]

What is tit for tat to a transdimentional being?

[Colabomb]

Nice refresher on the suffeing of Israel as an example to mankind. What is the point?


Not only is that OBVIOUSLY a messianic prophesy, the Church for 2000 years has interpreted it as such.

[gtsecc]

What is tit for tat to a transdimentional being?
Applying an imperfect human idea about justice, to God.
Jesus, also seems to tell us to forgive, rather than get even. So, "tit for tat" attonement is very problematic.

[Iosias]

Nice refresher on the suffeing of Israel as an example to mankind. What is the point?

It is a Messianic prophesy and speaks of Christ's death. :)

Acts 8:30-35 "And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest? And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him. The place of the scripture which he read was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth: In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: and who shall declare his generation? for his life is taken from the earth. And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man? Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus."

[JohnOwen007]

Jesus, also seems to tell us to forgive, rather than get even.

Absolutely, and forgiveness hurts, particularly for very serious sins! One of my best friends forgave his Dad for 12 years of sexual abuse. That really was difficult for him to do. Why? What happens when we forgive? We choose not to take our hurt and anger out on the one who sinned against us. That is, we absorb the pain and anger ourselves. In other words, we let our own sense of justice punish us.

That's a small and imperfect picture of what God achieved on the cross in Christ. It's so clear in Scripture:

Roma 3:25 (NRSV) "[Christ] whom God put forward as a sacrifice of atonement by his blood, effective through faith. He did this to show his righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over the sins previously committed;"

Notice that God "passed over sins" in the OT era because ultimately his forgiveness arises from Christ's "sacrifice of atonement". And God's forgiveness stems from the fact that he absorbed his own hurt and anger against us on the cross in Christ.

So, "tit for tat" attonement is very problematic.

Not at all. It's very profound. The "tit for tat" in forgiveness arises from the hurt and anger people feel when they are sinned against. We feel it, God feels it. If God didn't get hurt and angry at evil, he wouldn't be a loving God at all. Hence, to forgive cost us, and it costs God (so much more of course). If it didn't cost God, he'd be an indifferent uncaring God.

That's why the Bible sees the atonement as the pinnacle display of God's love for us:

1Joh 4:10 (NRSV) "In this is love, not that we loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the atoning sacrifice (hilasmos - propitiation) for our sins."

Every blessing.

[Ahazmat]

Romans? Maybe Paul is in error? Some read in Jesus's warning to the churches, and Ephesis (sp?) a rebuke to Pauls teachings. It is a rebuke from Jesus himself from after the crucifiction.
Tit for Tat in the long view of God is too complicated a concept for the human mind. IMO.
I am really enjoying reading the discussions here. :)

[Renton405]

I mean don't let the fact that I am a jackass get in the way of learning something. Look at the thread title: Evangelicals Spliting Over Attonement.
Of Course they are - They are fundamentally drawing off of bad theology, Atonement, itself.
Atonement Theory is wrong, and why we can't be Roman Catholic or Evangelicals. A study of Atonement Theory will clearly show that we have to be either Eastern Orthodox or Anglican. Now, if I can't convince even a handful of Anglicans, then it makes me think it is just a hopeless cause to get our theology turned around, and the only course is to abandon ship.




"WITHOUT SHEDDING OF BLOOD IS NO REMISSION". Heb. 9:22

[Iosias]

Romans? Maybe Paul is in error? Some read in Jesus's warning to the churches, and Ephesis (sp?) a rebuke to Pauls teachings.
I am sure some do but that does not make it correct.

2 Timothy 3:16, 17 "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works."

2 Peter 1:20, 21 "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."

[Iosias]

That's why the Bible sees the atonement as the pinnacle display of God's love for us:

1Joh 4:10 (NRSV) "In this is love, not that we loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the atoning sacrifice (hilasmos - propitiation) for our sins."

Every blessing.

:amen: :thumbsup:

[gtsecc]

God loved us so much, He killed his son.


or


God loved us so much, he permanently combined divinity with humanity in the 2nd person of the trinity, and lived every aspect of human life, from gestation to, and including death, to perfect it all in himself as the new Adam.

[Aymn27]

God loved us so much, He killed his son.


or


God loved us so much, he permanently combined divinity with humanity in the 2nd person of the trinity, and lived every aspect of human life, from gestation to, and including death, to perfect it all in himself as the new Adam.
Well..the first is worded insufficiently....but even so I don't see how the two are at odds with each other...they don't compete with each other but complement each other....it's not an either/or proposition...

[Secundulus]

God loved us so much, He killed his son.


or


God loved us so much, he permanently combined divinity with humanity in the 2nd person of the trinity, and lived every aspect of human life, from gestation to, and including death, to perfect it all in himself as the new Adam.

I agree that your second statement is more appealing. But don't we have to ignore Paul's teachings to arrive at that conclusion? Are we free to ignore scriptures like that? I'm just trying to understand how you can reject the first statement entirely.

[gtsecc]

I agree that your second statement is more appealing. But don't we have to ignore Paul's teachings to arrive at that conclusion? Are we free to ignore scriptures like that? I'm just trying to understand how you can reject the first statement entirely.
I am not rejecting Paul so much as the idea that a Holy God requires the murder of an innocent to pay a debt to either:
Himself,
The Devil,
A justice (? Doesn’t sound like justice to me) system created by God, but that He is now Himself beholden to.

[gtsecc]

I agree that your second statement is more appealing. But don't we have to ignore Paul's teachings to arrive at that conclusion? Are we free to ignore scriptures like that? I'm just trying to understand how you can reject the first statement entirely.
I am not rejecting Paul so much as the idea that a Holy God requires the murder of an innocent to pay a debt to either:
Himself,
The Devil,
A justice (? Doesn’t sound like justice to me) system created by God, but that He is now Himself beholden to.

[brightmorningstar]

Dear gtsecc,
But why would you dispute that? Because you cant understand it? There are quite a few things I dont fully understand but I have faith from what Jesus Christ has demonstrated :)

[gtsecc]

Dear gtsecc,
But why would you dispute that? Because you cant understand it? There are quite a few things I dont fully understand but I have faith from what Jesus Christ has demonstrated :)
I dispute it because it doesn't seem to me to be the correct teaching. I believe in God, and I believe in Christianity because it makes the most sense. If Christianity did not make sense, I would keep on believing in God, but I would convert to something else. Further, I was never taught this debt payment idea while growing up in the church. Only later in life did I hear people talk about it, and then I thought wow, that does not make any sense, but it does seem like it is part of the faith. I grew suspicious of this system, and found the Orthodox explanation far superior to the typical Western one. When presented both soteriologies, I can't for the life of the world figure out why anyone would choose debt payment over recapitulation. Is it because they have not heard of it before? Is it because they have some sadistic need for punishment? Which one presents a more loving God? I totally don’t get some folks on this issue. It is as if I am looking a wall, and it is blue, and some folks are insisting that it is Red. Again, the difference comes down to the Western OBSESSION with sin. Now, I am not saying we are not all sinners. I am saying that sin is only part of the problem, or possibly a symptom. Recapitulation just fits it better.

Further more, if we look at salvation from the debt payment side, why then did He need to become Man? All you have to do is kill the divinity, with its infinite worth, and boom there you go – salvation. That makes the humanity pointless, doesn’t it?

[Secundulus]

I understand atonement this way. From the book of Hebrews and from the writings of Paul we understand that the sacrifice of Jesus was the fulfillment of the old testament sin sacrifice of a lamb. Blood was shed to forgive sin and the blood of Jesus, being perfect, forgave all sin.

Did God's justice require blood to forgive sin? Why couldn't he forgive sin without blood, just because he choses to?

Maybe, like with the sacrements, he uses physical symbology to communicate to physical beings. For some reason, sin is important to him. Why? I don't know. Maybe he used the sacrifice of Jesus, as an atonement, to communicate to us the gravity of sin and the mercy he showed to us in forgiving our sin by believing in him and acknowledging our transgressions. Maybe he did not have to do it that way but chose to anyway.

As attested to in the Psalms, some, like David understood the forgiveness of God. But this idea, and the belief in the one true God never spread outside Israel. Maybe he needed a big event, like the death of himself for us, to shock us (the gentiles) into acknowledging him as the God who is one. Maybe he even did it this way because the idea was already in the pagan mind through various mythology.

Without a doubt, he is the new Adam as it states in the scriptures. But he becomes the new Adam by virtue of giving us a new start in following him and becoming what was intended from the beginning. Couldn't this new start be communicated to us by the shedding of his blood?

I think he is both the atonement for our past shortcomings and the new Adam that leads us into eternal life.

[Iosias]

God loved us so much, He killed his son.

Now you are starting to sound like Steve Chalke.

1. The Son voluntarily chose to die in our place,
2. God did not kill Christ, the Romans and Jews did.

[Iosias]

Further more, if we look at salvation from the debt payment side, why then did He need to become Man? All you have to do is kill the divinity, with its infinite worth, and boom there you go – salvation. That makes the humanity pointless, doesn’t it?

Gill:

2e. Fifthly, The ends of Christ’s incarnation are many; there is a cluster of them in the song of the angels at his birth; "Glory to God in the highest; and on earth peace, good will towards men" (Luke 2:14).

2e1. One end of Christ’s incarnation was, to show forth the glory of God in it; the glory of his grace, kindness, and goodness to men, in the mission of his Son in this way; the glory of his faithfulness in fulfilling his promise of it; the glory of his power in the miraculous production of Christ’s human nature; and the glory of his wisdom in bringing it into the world in such a manner as to be free from sin, and so fit for the purpose for which it was designed: and all this that God might be glorified in these his perfections; as he was by the angels, by Mary, by the father of John the Baptist, and by Simeon, at, or about, the time of Christ’s birth; and as he has been by saints in all ages since.

2e2. Another end of Christ’s incarnation was, to make peace with God for men on earth; to make reconciliation for sin, was the work appointed him in covenant; and to do this, was the reason of his being made in all things like unto his brethren; and this end is answered; he has reconciled sinners to God by his death, and made peace for them by the blood of his cross.

2e3. Another end of Christ’s incarnation was, not only to show the good will of God to men, but that they might receive the fruits of his good will and favour towards them; even all the blessings of grace, those spiritual blessings provided in covenant, and laid up in Christ; and which came by him our High Priest, and through his blood, called therefore, the blood of the everlasting covenant.

2e4. Particularly, Christ became man that he might be our God, our near kinsman, and might appear to have a right to redeem us; and he was, in the fulness of time, made of a woman, to redeem men from the law, its curse and condemnation; and that they might receive the adoption of children, and every other blessing included in or connected with redemption; as peace, pardon, and justification; for he was sent in the likeness of sinful flesh, that by the sacrifice of himself for sin, he might condemn it in the flesh; and that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, as represented by him, and so be completely justified in him; (see Gal. 4:4,5; Rom. 8:3,4).

2e5. Christ became man, that he might be a Mediator between God and men; and the better to perform each of the parts of his office as such, he took upon him the nature of man; that he might have something to offer as a Priest to be a Sacrifice for sin, and that he might make satisfaction for it in that nature that sinned; and that he might be a prophet like unto Moses, raised up, as he was, among his brethren; and having the Spirit of the Lord God upon him, might preach glad tidings to the meek; and that he might appear to be a King taken from among his brethren, as the kings of Israel were; and to be the Ruler, Noble, and Governor that proceeded from the midst of them, as was predicted he should (Jer 30:21), and so sit and reign upon the throne of his father David.

http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Doctrinal_Divinity/Book_5/book5_01.htm

[brightmorningstar]

Dear gtsecc,
I dispute it because it doesn't seem to me to be the correct teaching. Well it could be that you have wrongly attributed it as murder. But my basic premise is how can one doubt scripture is the correct teaching without one simply being a non-believer. I mean surely a believer believes the teaching is correct.
I believe in God, and I believe in Christianity because it makes the most sense. If Christianity did not make sense, I would keep on believing in God, but I would convert to something else. Yet you have just suggested the Christian view doesnt make sense.
Which one presents a more loving God? Penal substition presents a more loving God. If Christ suffered and died for me to pay the price of death that was due for me, thats incredible love,
why He had to do so is another question and something imo that goes back to Genesis 3, we will surely die.

[Iosias]

Galatians 3:13, 14 "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: That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith."

Galatians 4:4, 4 "But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons."

[erin74]

Absolutely, and forgiveness hurts, particularly for very serious sins! One of my best friends forgave his Dad for 12 years of sexual abuse. That really was difficult for him to do. Why? What happens when we forgive? We choose not to take our hurt and anger out on the one who sinned against us. That is, we absorb the pain and anger ourselves. In other words, we let our own sense of justice punish us.

That's a small and imperfect picture of what God achieved on the cross in Christ. It's so clear in Scripture:

Roma 3:25 (NRSV) "[Christ] whom God put forward as a sacrifice of atonement by his blood, effective through faith. He did this to show his righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over the sins previously committed;"

Notice that God "passed over sins" in the OT era because ultimately his forgiveness arises from Christ's "sacrifice of atonement". And God's forgiveness stems from the fact that he absorbed his own hurt and anger against us on the cross in Christ.



Not at all. It's very profound. The "tit for tat" in forgiveness arises from the hurt and anger people feel when they are sinned against. We feel it, God feels it. If God didn't get hurt and angry at evil, he wouldn't be a loving God at all. Hence, to forgive cost us, and it costs God (so much more of course). If it didn't cost God, he'd be an indifferent uncaring God.

That's why the Bible sees the atonement as the pinnacle display of God's love for us:

1Joh 4:10 (NRSV) "In this is love, not that we loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the atoning sacrifice (hilasmos - propitiation) for our sins."

Every blessing.
Great post.

Welcome to CF, and to the Anglican forum.

[gtsecc]

Dear gtsecc,
Penal substition presents a more loving God. If Christ suffered and died for me to pay the price of death that was due for me, thats incredible love,
why He had to do so is another question and something imo that goes back to Genesis 3, we will surely die.
I am convinced that you don't really understand penal substitution or recapitulation, or don't want to. Not being mean at all. I bet you simply learn better from talking to a person. If you are really interested, find an Orthodox Priest and discuss the subject.

[Colabomb]

I am convinced that you don't really understand penal substitution or recapitulation, or don't want to. Not being mean at all. I bet you simply learn better from talking to a person. If you are really interested, find an Orthodox Priest and discuss the subject.


Brother, do not assume that those who hold to Western Atonement do so out of ignorance. Talking to an Orthodox Priest will not always turn someone, it did not turn me.

Some very intellegent people, Brilliant men and women, have held to Western Atonement.

[Iosias]

I am convinced that you don't really understand penal substitution...or don't want to.

Could this not be true for you?

[Aymn27]

Could this not be true for you?
lol...I was thinking that perhaps the doctrine of the cross is too horrific for some..so they develop alternative theories....leaving behind the central message and understanding of salvation...

and...there are numerous other reasons I am not Orthodox nor perscribe to "Eastern" theology...while I have respect for their teachings, I do not have to assent to them...

[gtsecc]

Could this not be true for you?
It is always possible.
However, I really doubt it.

[Aymn27]

It is always possible.
However, I really doubt it.
rofl...surely you cannot be THAT confident!!!

[No Swansong]

It is always possible.
However, I really doubt it.
This comment does not surprise me.

[gtsecc]

How can I convince you?
I don’t think it is possible.
I suppose I could name all the people I have talked to that hold to Recapitulation, and name all the people I have talked to about Penal Substitution. Then we could compare how many on each side are able to articulate the opposing belief. Then you could count, more or less, and come up with a number. So, it would be like this: 80 percent of the Recapitulation folks can explain penal Substitution, and 10% of the PS folks can articulate recapitulation. But, that doesn’t prove anything.

[No Swansong]

How can I convince you?
I don’t think it is possible.
I suppose I could name all the people I have talked to that hold to Recapitulation, and name all the people I have talked to about Penal Substitution. Then we could compare how many on each side are able to articulate the opposing belief. Then you could count, more or less, and come up with a number. So, it would be like this: 80 percent of the Recapitulation folks can explain penal Substitution, and 10% of the PS folks can articulate recapitulation. But, that doesn’t prove anything.
Are you willing to admit that you are holding yourself out as the judge of who understands either concept? Not really an objective standard is it?

[gtsecc]

Are you willing to admit that you are holding yourself out as the judge of who understands either concept? Not really an objective standard is it?
Oh yes, absolutely. We, ultimate are bound by our own subjectiveness. Objectiveness is impossible.

[No Swansong]

On that we agree.

[brightmorningstar]

Dear gtsecc,
I am convinced that you don't really understand penal substitution Ah but likewise if you dont think PS is more loving then I would say you dont understand penal substitution.
I believe in PS and Christus Victor and other things about the cross including ransom. see no conflict.

[gtsecc]

Who is the ransom paid to?

[brightmorningstar]

Dear gtsecc,
I am not so certain who the ransom is paid to, but I am certain it is paid, Isaiah writes it, Mark records Jesus saying so, Paul writes it, the writer of Hebrews too.

[gtsecc]

Dear gtsecc,
I am not so certain who the ransom is paid to, but I am certain it is paid, Isaiah writes it, Mark records Jesus saying so, Paul writes it, the writer of Hebrews too.
Cite the passages, and I will give you an answer.

[Ahazmat]

God does not require the shedding of innocent human blood, as I understand it He bans human sacrifice. People, who had been conditioned by a nefarious clergy needed the death in order to be able to accept Gods Grace. Jesus is so amazing and his death eventually broke the power of the old religions over mankind. Next, as I read 53, I see it as a continuation of 52 and as addressing the sufferings of Israel. But it can be seen either way I guess. Belief in the validity of the traditional 53 interpretation is not necessary to follow Jesus the Christ, neither is a virgin birth for that matter.

Since we are considering Hebrew Scripture about Hebrew Prophets and a Hebrew Messiah Maybe it would be a good idea to see what the Hebrew biblical scolars have to say about it.


"The ONLY provision made for reconciling man to Himself is through

teshuvah (repentance - turning from sin and to 's instructions) and

blood atonement, for "Without the shedding of blood there is no

forgiveness of sins."

this claim is not Biblically true. If you read through Leviticus

chapters 4 & 5, you will see that even when the Holy Temple stood and

people offered sin sacrifices, "blood atonement" was not necessary.

For those that cannot afford an animal sacrifice, Leviticus directs

the person to bring FLOUR as the sacrifice. Obviously, there is not

blood in flour. Further, in talking of atonement for sin, the Bible

makes it clear that sacrifice is neither necessary nor the best way

for atonement. Charity, good deeds and prayer are a few other methods

that the Bible identifies as ways to atonement. For instance, in

Isaiah chapter 1:11-18, we read:

"" 11 To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto Me?

saith the LORD; I am full of the burnt-offerings of rams, and the fat

of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of

lambs, or of he-goats.

12 When ye come to appear before Me, who hath required this at your

hand, to trample My courts?

13 Bring no more vain oblations; it is an offering of abomination unto

Me; new moon and sabbath, the holding of convocations--I cannot endure

iniquity along with the solemn assembly.

14 Your new moons and your appointed seasons My soul hateth; they are

a burden unto Me; I am weary to bear them.

15 And when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide Mine eyes from

you; yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear; your hands are

full of blood.

16 Wash you, make you clean, put away the evil of your doings from

before Mine eyes, cease to do evil;

17 Learn to do well; seek justice, relieve the oppressed, judge the

fatherless, plead for the widow

18 Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD; though your

sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red

like crimson, they shall be as wool."

In the above quote, the Bible pointedly states that doing justice and

acts of lovingkindness brings atonement, and is better than sacrifice.

Further, G-d tells us in Hosea 6:6:

"For I desire mercy, and not sacrifice, and the knowledge of God

rather than burnt-offerings."

So we also learn that mercy and knowledge of G-d is better than

sacrifice. Proverbs 16:6 also highlights alternatives to sacrifice,

telling us:

"By mercy and truth iniquity is atoned; and by the fear of the LORD

men depart from evil.


"Yeshua is "the Lamb of God that takes away the sins of the world."6

The blood that poured out from His body while He hung on the execution

stake is the offering for sin in fulfillment of Tehillim (Psalms) 22

and Yeshayahu 53. Avinu Shebashamayim (our Father in Heaven) accepted

the sacrifice as evidenced by Yeshua's bodily resurrection from the

grave."

First off, human sacrifice is illegal in Judaism. The only items that

the Bible allows for sacrifices are cows, goats, sheep, some birds,

and flour. Calling Jesus "a lamb" does not qualify him to be an actual

sheep, which was an animal that was actually sacrificed. Let's also

compare how a proper sacrifice was completed, as opposed to Jesus'

death. It was mandatory that the sacrfice was killed through a ritual

that involved a knife, which was conducted at the Holy Temple by the

Priests. Everything else is Biblically wrong. In the case of Jesus, he

was killed on a cross, by the Romans, in an area that was away from

the Holy Temple. So, the manner of Jesus' death does not, in any way,

match the Bible.


____________

In the Torah portion Vayikra, the Torah describes the sacrifices that

atone for an individual's sin. In most cases, the Torah says "When a

person [odom] brings a sacrifice...". In one case, the Torah says,

"When a soul [nefesh] brings a sacrifice...". Why the change this one

time? Why in only one specific case does the Torah see fit to refer to

a nefesh?

When the Torah changes to the word "nefesh," the Torah is discussing

the flour offering. If a rich person sins, his offering is to be from

a large animal [e.g. cattle] which is quite expensive. If a person is

in the middle class, he brings two birds, a smaller expense. If a

person is a pauper, he brings a handful of flour as his sacrifice, a

relatively tiny expense.

A rich person thinks nothing of spending money. For him, it flows like

water. The middle class person can live with the smaller expense of

his two birds. The impoverished person does not have money for bare

necessities. Even though a handful of flour is very cheap for

everybody else, any expense, even for a handful of flour, is a

sacrifice. When the impoverished person brings his flour offering, he

is sacrificing his very soul for the Ribomo Shel Olam. To show that

this is the most precious sacrifice to Hashem, to acknowledge that the

pauper is sacrificing his own soul, the Torah says, "When a soul

brings a sacrifice...[the pauper will bring it from flour]."

[erin74]

Hey this thread has got me thining a bit. We've been doing Romans at church, and I keep thinking of this thread during the sermon.

Anyone up for going through Romans together?
I think it'd be really interesting, and seems to hit a lot of the topics we've been discussing lately.

[brightmorningstar]

Dear gtsecc,

Well you have a Bible dont you?:)
Cite the passages, and I will give you an answer.
Isaiah 35:10, Matt 20:28, Mark 10:45, 1 Tim 2:6, Heb 9:15