Atonemet (Not PSA....my position)

[JonC]

Well I am not your typical PSA theorist. I don’t even claim to be a PSA doctrine person. But I haven’t seen anything to say it is unscriptural so I don’t deny that it is true. I’m open to any problem with it. I’m still looking for one.



Romans 5:21
That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.


This looks like both sides in one sentence to me.

You are splitting hairs. And your split ends are dead ends.
If Jesus died and that means the second death has no effect on me, that sounds like He gave His life to redeem my life. In your nuanced way, no, Jesus is not spending eternity in Hell instead of me. But Jesus lived a perfect life and suffered the curse that He did not deserve for our sakes. And since propitiation sees Christ’s righteousness instead of my sin, and Jesus paid for my sin instead of me, I think you are the outlier in the conversation.


Enjoy your vacation.

Thanks. My vacation ends tomorrow.

Some of PSA depends on what judicial philosophy one applies. This is only unbiblical if the philosophy is wrong. Here it is up to PSA theorists to prove their philosophy correct. But typically it is just assumed.

PSA becomes problematic in a few places.

Many who hold the theory insist that God punished our sins on Jesus instead of us in order to clear us of the sin.

Obviously this directly contradicts at least four passages stating that God will not punish the just or clear the wicked. PSA theorists typically commit a "double heresy" regarding those passages.

Another is adding "instead of" inconsistently.

If the text or language dictates that Jesus bore our sins instead of us then we bear His righteousness instead of Him. He is now sitting at God's right hand as an unrighteous person.

Same with God laying our sins on Him. If it is removing thrm from us to put them on Him then God removes His righteousness to clothe us in it.


I believe the Early Church was more biblical. Jesus bore our sin, was made to be sin, became a curse, came under our curse. He shared in our infirmity, our curse, so that we will share in Hos righteousness. The Cross was God reconciling mankind to Himself, not counting man's sin against Him.

 

[DaveXR650]

The difference is more than focus. It includes what each view rejects.

For example, Christus Victor explains exactly why God set forth Jesus as a propitiation through His blood to be received by faith. It explains the reason that God's wrath had to be propitiated (that we would escape the wrath to come, because God will not clear the guilty, that Christ would be the Firstborn of many brethren, that God would be just and the justifier of those who have faith in Christ.

Penal Substitution theory deals with propitiation very superficially, and to the point they redefine the word to mean "wrath bearer".

Christus Victor says all that? I feel like Michael Douglas looking at the graffiti in "Falling Down". Where do you come up with this stuff?

 

[JonC]

That is the second death.


It is just a thought provoking question. All I did was reverse the thought that you denied.

I’m glad you don’t think so.




But his blood is obtained for an atonement by death. He gave His life to redeem ours.

You have a couple of problems.

First is the word wage. Death is the wage of sin (not of God). Sin (not God) produces death. Death is the power of Satan (not God). Death (not God) has been defeated in Christ.

In Genesis God refers to this death as "returning to the ground", to "dust". And it is appointed man once to die and then the judgment (something common to all men).

So no, Christ's suffering is not the Second Death. The Second Death is when death and hades is cast into the Lake of Fire (a result of the judgment against the wicked).


The second problem is the blood obtained. Yes, there is no forgiveness without the shedding of blood. This was an offering of obedience (a "gift" of obedience) and yes, Jesus was obedient unto Death, offering Himself as a guilt offering.

BUT men are never forgiven by the shedding of blood. They are forgiven by the "making of atonement", the blood applied, the cleansing.

This is why I said you are absolutely not forgiven by Christ's death. He is the Propitiation but this Propitiationmust be applied... it must be recieved by faith.

 

[JonC]

Christus Victor says all that? I feel like Michael Douglas looking at the graffiti in "Falling Down". Where do you come up with this stuff?

I get it from the Bible but also Early Church writings I have already quoted for you.

Remember - Christ shared in our sin, in our curse, so that we might share in His righteousness? That whole ECF thread.

It was not that long ago, Dude. You ain't that old yet.

 

[DaveXR650]

I get it from the Bible but also Early Church writings I have already quoted for you.

No. You don't. You make this up as you go along. No one believes all that is in Christus Victor, and no one needs all the mutilations you do to PSA. The reason no one can discuss anything with you is that you just can't respect what anyone else say enough to even site a source or give a quote. You could easily use a PSA definition from "Got Questions" or a dozen other places but we are all supposed to let you explain some unintelligible custom version that you make up.

This whole thread of yours started with your random points you call your view. I answered them point by point and you as always then go off in a million directions. Your views are not coherent, they change post by post and thread by thread, and they don't really fit in with what anybody else is saying, including those against PSA. I don't wish to discuss this with you but will answer as long as you keep bringing me into this.

 

[JonC]

No. You don't. You make this up as you go along. No one believes all that is in Christus Victor, and no one needs all the mutilations you do to PSA. The reason no one can discuss anything with you is that you just can't respect what anyone else say enough to even site a source or give a quote. You could easily use a PSA definition from "Got Questions" or a dozen other places but we are all supposed to let you explain some unintelligible custom version that you make up.

This whole thread of yours started with your random points you call your view. I answered them point by point and you as always then go off in a million directions. Your views are not coherent, they change post by post and thread by thread, and they don't really fit in with what anybody else is saying, including those against PSA. I don't wish to discuss this with you but will answer as long as you keep bringing me into this.

Well.... My position has not changed in over a decade. This is exactly what I have posted before. I do not always use the OT sacrifice system as evidence. I do not always use the Passover. I do not always use Genesis 3. I do not always use Isaiah 53 or ECF writings. I do use the NT every time.


I can try to help you grasp the theology if that is what you are asking. But I am not trying to change your belief (your belief is not my concern).

What part do you not comprehend?

 

[JonC]

@Ben1445

This was my first trip to Sedona. It is beautiful. I could not live here (I would miss live oaks, the ocean... maybe even alligators). But I will be back.

 

[JesusFan]

@JesusFan

This thread was to explain my belief to @Armchair Apologist .

It is not a place for you to defend your belief. It is definitely not a place for you to misrepresent my belief and make false statements.

If you have a question about what I believe then please ask. I am in no way asking that you adopt my view. Believe as you please.

"It is not a place for you to defend your belief. It is definitely not a place for you to misrepresent my belief and make false statements."
Please give us where I misrepresented your beliefs and made false statements

 

[JesusFan]

It is appointed man once to die and then the judgment. We will all suffer the wages of sin (death). But the judgment is different.

If you remain wicked, if you remain guilty of sin then you will suffer eternal punishment.

If you have recieved Christ as the propitiation God set forth through His blood by faith then you will be conformed into the image of Christ, made a new creation, been cleansed, the old you passed and a new come, then you will be righteous.

To borrow from the Early Church, Christ shared in our curse so that we will share in His righteousness. Not "instead of".


You cannot suffer the penaltyfor your own peace. That is a nonsense question (like "where does God's wrath go?".

Christ suffered and died (the penalty your sin produces) for your peace (although you die yet shall you live, death no longer carries a sting).


His blood is not obtained. He is the High Priest who enters the Most Holy Place not made with human hands through His own blood to make atonement for us. This we recieve by faith.

God cannot just forget that stored up wrath, as in order to have the very basis to forgive a sinner for breaking his law, must satisfy His divine wrath first, to make a propiation

 

[JesusFan]

Thanks. My vacation ends tomorrow.

Some of PSA depends on what judicial philosophy one applies. This is only unbiblical if the philosophy is wrong. Here it is up to PSA theorists to prove their philosophy correct. But typically it is just assumed.

PSA becomes problematic in a few places.

Many who hold the theory insist that God punished our sins on Jesus instead of us in order to clear us of the sin.

Obviously this directly contradicts at least four passages stating that God will not punish the just or clear the wicked. PSA theorists typically commit a "double heresy" regarding those passages.

Another is adding "instead of" inconsistently.

If the text or language dictates that Jesus bore our sins instead of us then we bear His righteousness instead of Him. He is now sitting at God's right hand as an unrighteous person.

Same with God laying our sins on Him. If it is removing thrm from us to put them on Him then God removes His righteousness to clothe us in it.


I believe the Early Church was more biblical. Jesus bore our sin, was made to be sin, became a curse, came under our curse. He shared in our infirmity, our curse, so that we will share in Hos righteousness. The Cross was God reconciling mankind to Himself, not counting man's sin against Him.

God the Father did not "punish" jesus for anything jesus had done, God the father placed upon Him our due wrath and condemnation due to jesus agreeing to be the sin bearer for His own people

 

[JesusFan]

Yes, it does.

God set forth Jesus as a propitiation through His blood to be received by faith; He is the Propitiation for the sins of the whole world, and He now propitiates on behalf of those who who believe. Jesus is the Firstborn of many brethren. This is necessary because God will not... He will never... clear the guilty.

You just disagree because you believe a specific philosophy should be applied to Scripture.

It did that by the shedding of his blood and by bearing those sins for us, by bearing the wrath and judgement due to us

 

[JesusFan]

Ummm..... yes. PSA holds that Jesus experienced God's punishment for our sins instead of us.

NOT punishment, as God the father did not punish jesus for anything he ever did, but He placed upon him out due wrath and judgement, which he agreed to bear as our sin bearer

 

[JesusFan]

Correct. As a facet or an aspect of the atonement it is true. All believers of PSA also believe that Jesus defeated the powers of darkness, bound the strongman, led captivity captive and destroyed all and any claims Satan had over mankind. John Owen believed this and wrote quite a bit about it. It is only when some try to set Christus Victor as opposite PSA that you see what they are trying to do. It is a subtle way to attempt to be "authentic" and pretend to follow the early church fathers when the fact is that many of the early church fathers recognized that Christ was directly dealing with our sin and offense against God the Father on the cross and that this was in addition to Christ being victorious over the powers of darkness. Christus Victor cannot stand alone but it will work with PSA as a facet of the atonement. PSA is the core and center of the atonement and if you make it stand alone you do not have a full explanation but you do have the essential core. That is the difference.

we owed the Father payment for our sins, and christ is victorious still not deal with what happened to that stored up wrath and judgement, as God cannot just forget to save us

 

[DaveXR650]

we owed the Father payment for our sins, and christ is victorious still not deal with what happened to that stored up wrath and judgement, as God cannot just forget to save us

Well said. Any talk of the atonement that does not deal with our sin and the wrath and punishment due us is incomplete. God could at any time defeat Satan in pure conflict, and will complete this someday according to His own timetable. But Christ's substitutionary bearing our sin upon his own body was God's way of freeing us from an insurmountable problem for us and yet maintaining God's sense of justice as moral judge of the universe.

A central core principle of all modern arguments against penal substitutionary atonement is that God can simply forgive upon our repentance, thus eliminating any need for a vicarious atonement by Christ. Some go further and claim that even if God had done this through Christ it would be horrible and immoral because it would amount to a violation of the scriptures stating that God does not punish the innocent or free the guilty. I don't know what Jon believes regarding this because sometimes he seems to be saying that very thing and other times he says satisfaction of divine justice is central to the atonement. Read his posts and see for yourself. I find them unintelligible in this regard but as he said, I am an old dude.

 

[JonC]

@Armchair Apologist

I am going to start another thread to explain my belief. Too often when I try it gets hijacked into a PSA thread (members not wanting other views to be known as it opposes theirs).

I believe it is important. How can you evaluate my view if you are not aware of my view?

Most, if not all, of us understand PSA because most of us who reject that view came from that tradition and held it for a long time.

I will exclude those known to oppose other views being known, as well as those who have found other views too confusing. The reason is I do not want it to be a debate thread.

I hope you will let me know where you disagree and why, as well as ask for clarification if needed. I want a discussion - not a debate.

Also - my intention is never to change people's minds. I do believe there is a more accurate understanding than PSA, but that is up to each person as we are individually responsible for the doctrines we believe.

 

[JonC]

Thread closed at request of OP