Atonement:Penal Subsitution...

[seer]

I think the Penal Subsitution view of atonement is clearly taught in scripture:

Isa.53:5-6

"But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that made us whole, 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 has laid on him the iniquity of us all."

2 Cor. 5:21

"For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God."

Gal. 3:13

"Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us -- for it is written, 'Cursed be every one who hangs on a tree.'"

2 Pet. 2:24

"He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed."


1 Pet. 3:18

"For Christ also died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit."

Heb. 9:28

"so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him."

We could also get into the O.T. symbols - how sin was transfered to animals, the scape goat, etc... So I do not see how those who hold a different view of atonement get around these biblical references.

[Kevin Wayne]

I think the Penal Subsitution view of atonement is clearly taught in scripture:

Isa.53:5-6

"But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that made us whole, 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 has laid on him the iniquity of us all."

2 Cor. 5:21

"For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God."

Gal. 3:13

"Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us -- for it is written, 'Cursed be every one who hangs on a tree.'"

2 Pet. 2:24

"He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed."


1 Pet. 3:18

"For Christ also died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit."

Heb. 9:28

"so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him."

We could also get into the O.T. symbols - how sin was transfered to animals, the scape goat, etc... So I do not see how those who hold a different view of atonement get around these biblical references.




You do realize that those verses you cited don't really have anything to do with a legal motif, don't you?

[seer]

You do realize that those verses you cited don't really have anything to do with a legal motif, don't you?


Legal or no - it is clear that Christ bore our punishment. That is transference at least.

[8320john]

You do realize that those verses you cited don't really have anything to do with a legal motif, don't you?

And how is it that it has nothing to do with a "legal" motif?

[Tercel]

Sure Seer, there are verses that have this sort of motif. But why, out the whole variety of verses dealing with Christ, do you feel justified in picking out this one type of verse and saying "THIS is the Literal Truth about what Christ did"? The sacrificial imagery and suffering-to-help-others imagery are simply two types of imagery amonst the many that talk of Christ's deeds.

The imagery used is quite sufficiently explained if you keep in mind the following ideas...
God's covenants with man are where God enters into a relationship with man as defined by a contractual agreement. The making of covenants is accompanied by a blood sacrifice which seals the agreement. If man sins and breaks the law of the covenant, then the covenant has been broken. For his sin to be undone and things put back to how they were, the covenant needs to be renewed. Thus making a new sacrifice to repledge the covenant undoes the sins effects. So covenent sacrifices are often talked about in connection with "remission of sins". Most of the NT sacrifice/blood language with regard to Jesus' death is talking about covenant sacrifices. Typical is Matthew 26:28, "for this [the drink at the last supper] is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins." Major covenants made between two parties before God such as peace treaties were also sealed with a covenant sacrifice, hence the NT references to God making "peace" in the body of Christ.

Sacrifices also, in Hebrew thought, were considered to purify things. The ancients considered blood to contain the life-force of the animal (a natural assumption, as when you kill something it bleeds, so you assume that is the life-force seeping out of it - cf Lev 17:10-14). The pure life-force of the unblemished animal sacrifice was thus supposed to flow into and purify whatever was nearby, eg Temples, the person doing the sacrifice etc. Interesting in the Hebrew sacrificial cult, the sacrifices work always by ritually purifying the person rather than acting on God. ie rather than directly appeasing an angry God like sacrifices do in Greek culture, they cleanse the person making the sacrifice. Thus in the NT there is a large number of verses which talk of us being "purify", "cleanse" etc in relation to the sacrifice of Christ.

But you've got to consider the question of just how literally you want to take this metaphorical language. Let's assume for a moment that God's goal in sending Christ was to lead people to virtue, to establish for himself a people zealous in doing good deeds, and he was prepared to go to any lengths necessary to do this even if it should cost him his life at the hands of those who wanted to kill him because of his message. He came to help us cease from our sins, and was put to death by sinful men who didn't want his help or his message - he came because our sins and died because of our sins. If that is the case, how much of the language used by the NT writers can we understand? All of it, it seems. All their various references to sacrifices, purification, covenants, righteousness, ransom, redemption etc can all be understood as using different ideas and imageries to reflect on that one basic theme. And so I ask again: The NT uses lots of different imagery about what Christ was doing, why should we arbitrarily pick out the bits that sound like Penal Substitution choose to take them literally and decide that they, above all other verses, reflect the Literal Truth of the matter?

As for the "scapegoat", that isn't actually referenced much in the NT... I can't think of a single reference offhand. Usually the NT talks about Christ as the Paschal Lamb (or just the "Lamb" for short)- which is really interesting in the sense that the Paschal lamb wasn't sacrificed in the normal sense (it was merely killed) and it had nothing whatsoever to do with atonement for sin. In the original passover it's blood had been used to mark the doors where the Israelites lived. So the reference in such instances is to Christ's blood marking out Christians as God's True People rather than to any atonement sacrifice - the Christians are the New Israel as Christ marks them as his.

So, in a sense, I can only say "So What?" to your verse list. What such verses might be said to prove or to say is purely up to your interpretation of how they fit in with what the rest of the NT message is.

[seer]

Sure Seer, there are verses that have this sort of motif. But why, out the whole variety of verses dealing with Christ, do you feel justified in picking out this one type of verse and saying "THIS is the Literal Truth about what Christ did"? The sacrificial imagery and suffering-to-help-others imagery are simply two types of imagery amonst the many that talk of Christ's deeds.

The imagery used is quite sufficiently explained if you keep in mind the following ideas...
God's covenants with man are where God enters into a relationship with man as defined by a contractual agreement. The making of covenants is accompanied by a blood sacrifice which seals the agreement. If man sins and breaks the law of the covenant, then the covenant has been broken. For his sin to be undone and things put back to how they were, the covenant needs to be renewed. Thus making a new sacrifice to repledge the covenant undoes the sins effects. So covenent sacrifices are often talked about in connection with "remission of sins". Most of the NT sacrifice/blood language with regard to Jesus' death is talking about covenant sacrifices. Typical is Matthew 26:28, "for this [the drink at the last supper] is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins." Major covenants made between two parties before God such as peace treaties were also sealed with a covenant sacrifice, hence the NT references to God making "peace" in the body of Christ.

Sacrifices also, in Hebrew thought, were considered to purify things. The ancients considered blood to contain the life-force of the animal (a natural assumption, as when you kill something it bleeds, so you assume that is the life-force seeping out of it - cf Lev 17:10-14). The pure life-force of the unblemished animal sacrifice was thus supposed to flow into and purify whatever was nearby, eg Temples, the person doing the sacrifice etc. Interesting in the Hebrew sacrificial cult, the sacrifices work always by ritually purifying the person rather than acting on God. ie rather than directly appeasing an angry God like sacrifices do in Greek culture, they cleanse the person making the sacrifice. Thus in the NT there is a large number of verses which talk of us being "purify", "cleanse" etc in relation to the sacrifice of Christ.

But you've got to consider the question of just how literally you want to take this metaphorical language. Let's assume for a moment that God's goal in sending Christ was to lead people to virtue, to establish for himself a people zealous in doing good deeds, and he was prepared to go to any lengths necessary to do this even if it should cost him his life at the hands of those who wanted to kill him because of his message. He came to help us cease from our sins, and was put to death by sinful men who didn't want his help or his message - he came because our sins and died because of our sins. If that is the case, how much of the language used by the NT writers can we understand? All of it, it seems. All their various references to sacrifices, purification, covenants, righteousness, ransom, redemption etc can all be understood as using different ideas and imageries to reflect on that one basic theme. And so I ask again: The NT uses lots of different imagery about what Christ was doing, why should we arbitrarily pick out the bits that sound like Penal Substitution choose to take them literally and decide that they, above all other verses, reflect the Literal Truth of the matter?

As for the "scapegoat", that isn't actually referenced much in the NT... I can't think of a single reference offhand. Usually the NT talks about Christ as the Paschal Lamb (or just the "Lamb" for short)- which is really interesting in the sense that the Paschal lamb wasn't sacrificed in the normal sense (it was merely killed) and it had nothing whatsoever to do with atonement for sin. In the original passover it's blood had been used to mark the doors where the Israelites lived. So the reference in such instances is to Christ's blood marking out Christians as God's True People rather than to any atonement sacrifice - the Christians are the New Israel as Christ marks them as his.

So, in a sense, I can only say "So What?" to your verse list. What such verses might be said to prove or to say is purely up to your interpretation of how they fit in with what the rest of the NT message is.

I agree with much of what you said. Yes, all those things may be true. Atonement my include all of that. But it could also, literally include transference. Transference was what the O.T. system taught - thus the scape goat. But also the sacrifices themselves - the Priest would lay his hands on the animal to put on the animal the sins of the person or group. Transference or substitution was the order of the day. And of course Hebrews brings this connection to Christ's sacrifice out quite clearly. It is not either or, it's both and. I see no reason not to take the language of substitution literally..

[themuzicman]

The problem is that the NT is repleat with references to 'propitiation' and 'justification', but very sparse with the use of the OT language of atonement.

Thus, while the Old Covenant pointed toward Christ, His sacrifice isn't of the same nature as the sacrifice of animals.

The difference is that our justification comes from the propitiation offered by Christ, that satisfies God's wrath against all whom identify themselves with Christ's death, burial and resurrection.

You see, if atonement was the mode of salvation, then there would be no need for us to identify ourselves with His death in baptism, as Paul speaks of in Romans 6. And, in fact, we see that offering the sacrifice is sufficient for purification in regards to the Old Covenant.

However, if we have propitiation, then Christ's sacrifice can be a propitiation which brings justification TO all men, and our justification can come through faith in Him, even as we identify ourselves with Him in His death, burial and resurrection.

Thus, if we embrace baptism as a sacrament of the Christian faith, we need to embrace propitiation as the mode of our justification from which comes our salvation.

Michael

[seer]

The problem is that the NT is repleat with references to 'propitiation' and 'justification', but very sparse with the use of the OT language of atonement.

Thus, while the Old Covenant pointed toward Christ, His sacrifice isn't of the same nature as the sacrifice of animals.

The difference is that our justification comes from the propitiation offered by Christ, that satisfies God's wrath against all whom identify themselves with Christ's death, burial and resurrection.

You see, if atonement was the mode of salvation, then there would be no need for us to identify ourselves with His death in baptism, as Paul speaks of in Romans 6. And, in fact, we see that offering the sacrifice is sufficient for purification in regards to the Old Covenant.

However, if we have propitiation, then Christ's sacrifice can be a propitiation which brings justification TO all men, and our justification can come through faith in Him, even as we identify ourselves with Him in His death, burial and resurrection.

Thus, if we embrace baptism as a sacrament of the Christian faith, we need to embrace propitiation as the mode of our justification from which comes our salvation.

Michael

I'am not sure where you are at - do you agree with transference/substitution?

[infide]

The problem is that the NT is repleat with references to 'propitiation' and 'justification', but very sparse with the use of the OT language of atonement.

Thus, while the Old Covenant pointed toward Christ, His sacrifice isn't of the same nature as the sacrifice of animals.

The difference is that our justification comes from the propitiation offered by Christ, that satisfies God's wrath against all whom identify themselves with Christ's death, burial and resurrection.

You see, if atonement was the mode of salvation, then there would be no need for us to identify ourselves with His death in baptism, as Paul speaks of in Romans 6. And, in fact, we see that offering the sacrifice is sufficient for purification in regards to the Old Covenant.

However, if we have propitiation, then Christ's sacrifice can be a propitiation which brings justification TO all men, and our justification can come through faith in Him, even as we identify ourselves with Him in His death, burial and resurrection.

Thus, if we embrace baptism as a sacrament of the Christian faith, we need to embrace propitiation as the mode of our justification from which comes our salvation.

Michael

absolutely, but i am still curious what the exact difference between an atonement and a propitiation is.

for example, it is very possible that an atonement (payment for a sin) and a propitiation (something to render God's mercy consistant with His justice) could be synonyms on a particular system. That is, the payment for a sin thus makes God propitious toward the sinner.

could you explain once more (i believe i asked this before in another thread) what the effective difference is that you see between the terms?

peace,
jd

[Kevin Wayne]

Legal or no - it is clear that Christ bore our punishment. That is transference at least.


But transference doesn't have to necessarily mean "legal", or "penal" it can also mean "covenantal."

[Kevin Wayne]

And how is it that it has nothing to do with a "legal" motif?


Look at the verses cited. For example:



Gal. 3:13

"Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us -- for it is written, 'Cursed be every one who hangs on a tree.'"




That one could easily fit into a "Ransom" motif...

[seer]

Look at the verses cited. For example:



Gal. 3:13

"Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us -- for it is written, 'Cursed be every one who hangs on a tree.'"




That one could easily fit into a "Ransom" motif...

Or it could be both. What do you guys have against transference/substitution anyway?

[8320john]

Look at the verses cited. For example:



Gal. 3:13

"Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us -- for it is written, 'Cursed be every one who hangs on a tree.'"




That one could easily fit into a "Ransom" motif...

And to whom would Christ pay the ransom by His Once offering of Himself?

In the verse cited I see a penal satisfaction rather than a ransom sacrifice as posited JW theology. Are you a member of the Kingdom Hall gathering?

[Tercel]

Transference was what the O.T. system taught - thus the scape goat.Scholars aren't convinced:
“we do not know or understand what the Old Testament and ‘Judaism’ really believed and taught about the mystery of expiating sacrifice.” – Barth (1961, Was Christ’s Death a Sacrifice?, pg 13)
“It is doubtful if there was any rationale of sacrifice in the first century” – Davies (1981, Paul and Rabbinic Judaism, pg 235)
“there is no clear rationale in scripture or in Second Temple Judaism concerning sacrifice. Just how the sacrifice effected atonement remains an unsolved riddle." -Dunn (1998, The Theology of Paul the Apostle, pg 214)

But also the sacrifices themselves - the Priest would lay his hands on the animal to put on the animal the sins of the person or group. Transference or substitution was the order of the day.That seems an unlikely interpretation of what was thought to be going on. It seems more probable that the pure life-force of the animal was supposed to flow into the person, rather than the sin into the animal. The scapegoat appears to be the only example of transferance of sin, and yet the NT seems strangely reluctant to ever call Jesus a "goat" and far prefers the "lamb" terminology. If that was what was thought to be going on there, why is the NT not full of goat references??

And of course Hebrews brings this connection to Christ's sacrifice out quite clearly.Hebrews goes on a long-winded discussion about covenant sacrifices and how this time the covenant sacrifice doesn't need to be repeated every year because this covenant can't be broken and is hence superior to the Old Covenant.

The problem is that the NT is repleat with references to 'propitiation' and 'justification', but very sparse with the use of the OT language of atonement.Yes and no.
The NT contains a very small amount of the typical Jewish atonement language, very rarely does it speak of "atonement" or "repentance-forgiveness". So the typical Jewish paradigms of atonement are not really in view. However, there is a lot of sacrificial imagery used (about 32 passages + a large portion of Hebrews).

Furthermore the word that's occasionally badly translated "propitiation" refers to the "Mercy Seat", the place of the Ark of the Covenant where sacrifices were made (check out the LXX word usage!). Thus better translations are: "Mercy Seat", "Place of Atonement", "Atonement Sacrifice", "Covenant Sacrifice".

[Kevin Wayne]

And to whom would Christ pay the ransom by His Once offering of Himself?

In the verse cited I see a penal satisfaction rather than a ransom sacrifice as posited JW theology. Are you a member of the Kingdom Hall gathering?


Excuse me???


A Covenantal View of Atonement (http://www.thepaulpage.com/Atonement.htm)


Theologians have attempted for centuries to weave these concepts into a comprehensive explanation of the atonement. The verses from Colossians were used to define the earliest theory of atonement. This “classic” doctrine, taught for the first 1000 years of Christian history described Christ’s work as a victory over Satan and a liberation of all human kind. Specifically, so the theory goes, Christ was paid as a ransom to the devil to free people’s souls. This was a clever ruse on God’s part, however, for unknown to the Devil, Jesus was actually God in person. Unable to constrain Jesus’ divine soul, the devil was defeated and Christ emerged victorious. This view was taught consistently by nearly all of the Church fathers including Augustine.



The so-called "Ransom" model was taught loooong before JW's existed!


And anyway, I never stated that was my specific model. Seer posted a bunch of scriptures he insisted were proof positive of Penal Satisfaction and I was pointing out that there wasn't anything in their language that necessitated that conclusion.

[Tercel]

Or it could be both. What do you guys have against transference/substitution anyway?Apart from the fact that I think substitution has severe logical difficulties, and that I find the idea that the NT authors believe that somewhat historically implausible:

There are significant biblical problems with adopting a substitutionary model. As I said in the Vicarious Atonement thread, there is also strongly present participationist motifs, eg "dying with Christ". Participatory language is more frequent than substitutionary language, and when they occur together the participationary language always trumps the other and never vice versa. Furthermore there are a wide variety of other motifs used. Hence to assume that the substitutionary motif is the Truth is purely arbitrary, not supported by the evidence, and unecessary.

[Amazing Rando]

I'm partial to the "Christus Victor" model. It's what Irenaeus and all those good ol' boys were hinting at back in AD 200 or so, and it's much more comprehensive than the "penal substitution" model. That model boils Jesus' actions on the cross to nothing more than being God's whipping-boy. When he rose from the dead, he accomplished a lot more than just taking our sins away.

[Kevin Wayne]

I'm partial to the "Christus Victor" model. It's what Irenaeus and all those good ol' boys were hinting at back in AD 200 or so, and it's much more comprehensive than the "penal substitution" model. That model boils Jesus' actions on the cross to nothing more than being God's whipping-boy. When he rose from the dead, he accomplished a lot more than just taking our sins away.



AR you should check out the link I posted ^^^ on Covenantal Atonement. It's written from an Anabaptist perspective.

[seer]

Scholars aren't convinced:
“we do not know or understand what the Old Testament and ‘Judaism’ really believed and taught about the mystery of expiating sacrifice.” – Barth (1961, Was Christ’s Death a Sacrifice?, pg 13)
“It is doubtful if there was any rationale of sacrifice in the first century” – Davies (1981, Paul and Rabbinic Judaism, pg 235)
“there is no clear rationale in scripture or in Second Temple Judaism concerning sacrifice. Just how the sacrifice effected atonement remains an unsolved riddle." -Dunn (1998, The Theology of Paul the Apostle, pg 214)

Who are these scholars to me? Transference/substitution is clear in Leviticus And Isaiah. And in the N.T. God even provided a substitute for Abraham's son...

That seems an unlikely interpretation of what was thought to be going on. It seems more probable that the pure life-force of the animal was supposed to flow into the person, rather than the sin into the animal. The scapegoat appears to be the only example of transferance of sin, and yet the NT seems strangely reluctant to ever call Jesus a "goat" and far prefers the "lamb" terminology. If that was what was thought to be going on there, why is the NT not full of goat references??

The point about the goat was that transferance was an O.T. concept. Something practiced every year. And I do not know where in scripture that you get the idea that the animal's life force flowed into the human. The text does not suggest that at all... And the book of Hebrews (9-10) makes it clear what the O.T. sacrifices accomplished.


Hebrews goes on a long-winded discussion about covenant sacrifices and how this time the covenant sacrifice doesn't need to be repeated every year because this covenant can't be broken and is hence superior to the Old Covenant.


I'am sorry Tercel, it says a lot more than that. Like without the shedding of blood there is NO forgivness of sin. And that's not all. If you want to get into it we can... Let me ask you - can God forgive with out blood sacrifice?

What I don't understand is why so many here seem to have a bias response to the transference/substitution view of atonement.

[seer]

I'm partial to the "Christus Victor" model. It's what Irenaeus and all those good ol' boys were hinting at back in AD 200 or so, and it's much more comprehensive than the "penal substitution" model. That model boils Jesus' actions on the cross to nothing more than being God's whipping-boy. When he rose from the dead, he accomplished a lot more than just taking our sins away.

I think it is clearly both.

[seer]

And anyway, I never stated that was my specific model. Seer posted a bunch of scriptures he insisted were proof positive of Penal Satisfaction and I was pointing out that there wasn't anything in their language that necessitated that conclusion.

"But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that made us whole, 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 has laid on him the iniquity of us all."

Could it be any more clear? Why do you guys have a bias against this theory?

[Kevin Wayne]

And anyway, I never stated that was my specific model. Seer posted a bunch of scriptures he insisted were proof positive of Penal Satisfaction and I was pointing out that there wasn't anything in their language that necessitated that conclusion.

"But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that made us whole, 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 has laid on him the iniquity of us all."

Could it be any more clear? Why do you guys have a bias against this theory?



Since you are the one prooftexting here, why don't we start with an articulation from yourself as to why you think those verses support the PS view, rather than just throwing up verses and going "Can it be any more clear"?

[Kevin Wayne]

I've been looking through the WWW to try and find stuff critical of the PS view, and I'll post them as per appropriate.

Responding to the citation of Isaiah:

The Meaning of the Atonement (http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/openhse/atonement.html#Critique)


A couple of remaining verses deserve comment. One is 1 Peter 2:24, which states that Christ "himself bore [or "carried up"] our sins in his body on the tree" (NIV). This verse appears in a passage which quotes from Isaiah 53, virtually the only Scriptural passage which may clearly support Substitution. Yet Matthew did not interpret Isaiah in that way.

According to Matthew, "He took up our infirmities and carried our diseases" (Isa. 53:4, NIV) meant not that infirmities were vicariously imputed to Christ at his crucifixion, but rather that Christ healed the sick, thus "carrying" or "bearing" their diseases away from them (Matt. 8:16,17).

Similarly, it is possible that Jesus "bore" or "carried away" our sins from us not by becoming our substitute, but by becoming our sin offering.

[seer]

I've been looking through the WWW to try and find stuff critical of the PS view, and I'll post them as per appropriate.

Responding to the citation of Isaiah:

The Meaning of the Atonement (http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/openhse/atonement.html#Critique)


A couple of remaining verses deserve comment. One is 1 Peter 2:24, which states that Christ "himself bore [or "carried up"] our sins in his body on the tree" (NIV). This verse appears in a passage which quotes from Isaiah 53, virtually the only Scriptural passage which may clearly support Substitution. Yet Matthew did not interpret Isaiah in that way.

According to Matthew, "He took up our infirmities and carried our diseases" (Isa. 53:4, NIV) meant not that infirmities were vicariously imputed to Christ at his crucifixion, but rather that Christ healed the sick, thus "carrying" or "bearing" their diseases away from them (Matt. 8:16,17).

Similarly, it is possible that Jesus "bore" or "carried away" our sins from us not by becoming our substitute, but by becoming our sin offering.


Well why did He become our sin offering? If not to take our punishment for us?

[Kevin Wayne]

Well why did He become our sin offering? If not to take our punishment for us?


Look up "sin offering":



Baker's Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Dictionaries/BakersEvangelicalDictionary/bed.cgi?number=T521)



The sin offering was the primary blood atonement offering in the sanctuary system of offerings through which worshipers could receive forgiveness for their sin and deal with the degree to which they might have contaminated the tabernacle. Very detailed rules of blood manipulation were the focal point of this ritual procedure.



From everything I can tell, the "sin offering" was more like paying recompense to God for an offense, rather than a "taking the punishment for our sins" issue.

[GoBahnsen]

Another tough assignment. It seems that...

[themuzicman]

I'am not sure where you are at - do you agree with transference/substitution?

Substitutionary atonement means that Christ dies our death.

Propitiation means that Christ's death will satisfy God's wrath which is poised against us, when we choose to identify with His death.

Michael

[seer]

Propitiation means that Christ's death will satisfy God's wrath which is poised against us, when we choose to identify with His death.

Still, doesn't that mean that Christ takes the wrath that we should have received?

[themuzicman]

Propitiation means that Christ's death will satisfy God's wrath which is poised against us, when we choose to identify with His death.

Still, doesn't that mean that Christ takes the wrath that we should have received?
No. The wrath we would have received was eternal torment (or annihilation, if that's your bent), and Christ did not receive those things. If He were enduring our penalty, that would have to be the penalty.

Thus, Christ's death is a propitiation which satisfies God's wrath against us, because He is the eternal and perfect sacrifice.

Michael

[seer]

No. The wrath we would have received was eternal torment (or annihilation, if that's your bent), and Christ did not receive those things. If He were enduring our penalty, that would have to be the penalty.

Thus, Christ's death is a propitiation which satisfies God's wrath against us, because He is the eternal and perfect sacrifice.

Ok, but it still seems that Christ is getting nailed (no pun intended) because of something we did. That His death satisfies God's wrath so we do not have to experience said wrath...

[themuzicman]

No. The wrath we would have received was eternal torment (or annihilation, if that's your bent), and Christ did not receive those things. If He were enduring our penalty, that would have to be the penalty.

Thus, Christ's death is a propitiation which satisfies God's wrath against us, because He is the eternal and perfect sacrifice.

Ok, but it still seems that Christ is getting nailed (no pun intended) because of something we did. That His death satisfies God's wrath so we do not have to experience said wrath...

But it's not substitutionary, otherwise He would have to experience our penalty, which He did not.

Propitiation is different than subsitution in that it satisfies the wrath against us in another way.

Michael

[seer]

But it's not substitutionary, otherwise He would have to experience our penalty, which He did not.

Propitiation is different than subsitution in that it satisfies the wrath against us in another way.

Well that is one reason why I hold to annihilation. Which is simply unconcious death. Which Christ might have experienced in our stead. But again Mike, it still seems to me that Christ satisfies the wrath that was meant for us. Stood in our place if you will - because if He didn't we would get the full blow...

[8320john]

I think the Penal Subsitution view of atonement is clearly taught in scripture:Isa.53:5-6

"But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that made us whole, 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 has laid on him the iniquity of us all."

2 Cor. 5:21

"For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God."

Gal. 3:13

"Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us -- for it is written, 'Cursed be every one who hangs on a tree.'"

2 Pet. 2:24

"He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed."


1 Pet. 3:18

"For Christ also died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit."

Heb. 9:28

"so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him."

We could also get into the O.T. symbols - how sin was transfered to animals, the scape goat, etc... So I do not see how those who hold a different view of atonement get around these biblical references.

I think you are 100% correct. The OT rituals clearly indicate a method of Divine Jurisprudence by the transference motif which is in fact, "penal" without a scintilla of conflict with the Christus Victor model. Both are true without contradiction.

The "ransom" theory (to the devil) is deeply defective and not to be received. Yeshua had no need to "buy off" the devil but was victorious over him. The "once for all" Offering of Himself for the penal satisfaction for His own answers the necesary question of at-one-ment as far as I can see...or wish to entertain.

Substitionary, penal and an offering received without conflict with the Christus Victor asseration.

[8320john]

May I ask how many that have contributed to this thread are actually ministers (active, called by any recognized Body of believers) who are at present pastoring, teaching, evangelizing or holding together any sort or number of Christian professing persons? I ask that free lance "now and then" Sunday School teachers be excluded. I ask only for full time ministers to respond and if they will cite their affiliation.

I am not a full time minister nor do I teach any sort of class nor hold together any sort or mumber of persons professing the Lord Yeshua. I am a Christian layman.

[infide]

May I ask how many that have contributed to this thread are actually ministers (active, called by any recognized Body of believers) who are at present pastoring, teaching, evangelizing or holding together any sort or number of Christian professing persons? I ask that free lance "now and then" Sunday School teachers be excluded. I ask only for full time ministers to respond and if they will cite their affiliation.

I am not a full time minister nor do I teach any sort of class nor hold together any sort or mumber of persons professing the Lord Yeshua. I am a Christian layman.

relevance? One need not be called into the pastorate to understand theology (any basic theology at that).

peace,
jd

[themuzicman]

But it's not substitutionary, otherwise He would have to experience our penalty, which He did not.

Propitiation is different than subsitution in that it satisfies the wrath against us in another way.

Well that is one reason why I hold to annihilation. Which is simply unconcious death. Which Christ might have experienced in our stead. But again Mike, it still seems to me that Christ satisfies the wrath that was meant for us. Stood in our place if you will - because if He didn't we would get the full blow...

1) Our punishment isn't to be beaten and flogged, forced to carry a cross and be crucified.

2) Christ wasn't annihilated.

So, the problem exists both ways.

(Honestly to say that the 2nd person of the trinity was obliterated from existance is a silly thiing to say in the first place.)

If Christ took the punishment we were supposed to get, then you'd have to either show that the unsaved will be crucified on a cross, or that Christ is enduring eternal punishment, both of which aren't true.

Michael

[8320john]

relevance? One need not be called into the pastorate to understand theology (any basic theology at that).

peace,
jd

Relevance?

Just a question to see how many were active ministers that contributed to this thread...no disrespect intended.

[infide]

Relevance?

Just a question to see how many were active ministers that contributed to this thread...no disrespect intended.

ohh sorry, i misunderstood what you were getting at with that question. I would venture to say that many/most are not ordained ministers. I get the feeling that many here are students, seminarians, or just studied laymen.

peace,
jd

[seer]

1) Our punishment isn't to be beaten and flogged, forced to carry a cross and be crucified.

2) Christ wasn't annihilated.

So, the problem exists both ways.

(Honestly to say that the 2nd person of the trinity was obliterated from existance is a silly thiing to say in the first place.)

If Christ took the punishment we were supposed to get, then you'd have to either show that the unsaved will be crucified on a cross, or that Christ is enduring eternal punishment, both of which aren't true.

Michael

Really Mike, I'am not seeing how propitiation is much different than substitution. What exactly does propitiation accomplish?

Also, do you believe that substitution happens during justification? Or are we justified by our own righteousness?

[themuzicman]

Really Mike, I'am not seeing how propitiation is much different than substitution. What exactly does propitiation accomplish?

Substitution means that Christ takes the punishment that we would have had to endure in our place. Propitiation means that Christ suffers in another way that is sufficient to appease God's wrath.

Clearly Christ does not endure eternal torment (or annihilation) in our place, so His suffering is a different kind than the punishment we deserve, but is sufficient for justification.

Also, do you believe that substitution happens during justification? Or are we justified by our own righteousness?

Neither. We are justified by faith, upon which Christ's righteousness is creditted to us.

Michael

[Amazing Rando]

The biggest problem I've got with penal substitution theory is that it's too small, it doesn't encapsulate the fullness of what Jesus did in redeeming not just fallen humanity, but the whole of creation tainted by our sin.

Also- an exclusively penal substitutionary view of the atonement hinges entirely upon the crucifixion- the Rez doesn't even figure into it. The Resurrection is just a nice afterthought in an exclusively substitutionary view of the atonement.

[Kevin Wayne]

Seer, did you take the time out to read my Atonement models thread? And the accompanying article by Larry Shelton? That really goes into the objections to PS better than I could.


I find it amazing here all the Arminians who are pleading that we see the ECF position doesn't support Calvinism, and yet don't realize their view of Atonement is even less historically grounded. Anselm didn't come on the scene until about 1100 AD.