Appeasement of a Monster God?

Thanks @TomL they all contain some element if biblical truth yet none of them alone are 100% the truth. If PSA removed wrath part it would be the closest but that's where it parts ways with the biblical view of the atonement from Jesus and the Apostles teachings.
 
civic said:
@Fitzpatrick if you haven't noticed I love talking about the atonement, the gospel and the Tri-Unity of our Blessed God. :)

So fire away and I always enjoy a friendly discussion. It never bores me. :)
Click to expand...
Friendly discussions are great. Even though I don't agree with you Have done your homework and know what you're talking about.
 
Fitzpatrick said:
Friendly discussions are great. Even though I don't agree with you Have done your homework and know what you're talking about.
Click to expand...
Thanks and I appreciate you are not dismissing the objections that I'm presenting against PSA. :)

I believed and taught PSA for the previous 4 decades.
 
civic said:
Thanks @TomL they all contain some element if biblical truth yet none of them alone are 100% the truth. If PSA removed wrath part it would be the closest but that's where it parts ways with the biblical view of the atonement from Jesus and the Apostles teachings.
Click to expand...
I'm definitely going to have to think about that one, very interesting.
 
TomL said:
No PSA was not taught by the church since it earliest days and is a development of the reformation

#1 The Moral Influence Theory​

One of the earliest theories for the atonement is the Moral Influence theory, which simply taught that Jesus Christ came and died in order to bring about a positive change to humanity. This moral change comes through the teachings of Jesus alongside His example and actions. The most notable name here is that of Augustine from the 4th century, whose influence has almost single-handedly had the greatest impact upon Western Christianity. He affirmed the Moral Influence theory as the main theory of the Atonement (alongside the Ransom theory as well).

Within this theory the death of Christ is understood as a catalyst to reform society, inspiring men and women to follow His example and live good moral lives of love. In this theory the Holy Spirit comes to help Christians produce this moral change. Logically, in this theory the Eschatological development too becomes about morality, where it is taught that after death the human race will be judged by their conduct in life. This in turn creates a strong emphasis on free will as the human response to follow Jesus’ example. Although Augustine himself differs here in that he did not teach free will, but instead that human beings are incapable of change themselves, and require God to radically alter their lives sovereignly through the Holy Spirit.

This theory focuses on not just the death of Jesus Christ, but on His entire life. This sees the saving work of Jesus not only in the event of the crucifixion, but also in all the words He has spoken, and the example He has set. In this theory the cross is merely a ramification of the moral life of Jesus. He is crucified as a martyr due to the radical nature of His moral example. In this way the Moral Influence theory emphasizes Jesus Christ as our teacher, our example, our founder and leader, and ultimately, as a result, our first martyr.

#2 The Ransom Theory​

The Ransom Theory of the Atonement is one of the first major theories for the Atonement. It is often held alongside the Moral Influence Theory, and usually deals more with the actual death of Jesus Christ, what it actually means and the effect it has upon humanity. This theory finds its roots in the Early Church, particularly in Origen from the 3rd century. This theory essentially teaches that Jesus Christ died as a ransom sacrifice, paid either to Satan (the most dominate view), or to God the Father. Jesus’ death then acts as a payment to satisfy the debt on the souls of the human race, the same debt we inherited from Adam’s original sin.

The Ransom view could be summarized like this:

“Essentially, this theory claimed that Adam and Eve sold humanity over to the Devil at the time of the Fall’ hence, justice required that God pay the Devil a ransom, for the Devil did not realize that Christ could not be held in the bonds of death. Once the Devil accepted Christ’s death as a ransom, this theory concluded, justice was satisfied and God was able to free us from Satan’s grip.” 1

Redemption in this theory means to buy back, and purchase the human race from the clutches of the Devil. The main controversy here with this theory is the act of paying off the Devil. Some have written that this is not a fair statement to say that all Ransom Theorists believe that the Devil is paid, but rather in this act of Ransom Christ frees humanity from the bondage of sin and death. In this way Ransom relates the Christus Victor theory. But it’s worth differentiating here because in one way these views are similar, but in another way they are drastically different.

#3 Christus Victor​

Classically, the Christus Victor theory of Atonement is widely considered to be the dominant theory for most of the historical Christian Church. In this theory, Jesus Christ dies in order to defeat the powers of evil (such as sin, death, and the devil) in order to free mankind from their bondage. This is related to the Ransom view with the difference being that there is no payment to the devil or to God. Within the Christus Victor framework, the cross did not pay off anyone, but defeated evil thereby setting the human race free.

Gustaf Aulen argued that this theory of the Atonement is the most consistently held theory for church history, especially in the early church up until the 12th century before Anslem’s satisfaction theory came along. He writes that “the work of Christ is first and foremost a victory over the powers which hold mankind in bondage: sin, death, and the devil.” 2 He calls this theory the “classic” theory of the Atonement. While some will say that Christus Victor is compatible with other theories of the Atonement, others argue that it is not. Though I have found that most theologians believe that Christus Victor is true, even if it is not for them the primary theory of Christ’s death.

#4 The Satisfaction Theory (Anselm)​

In the 12th century Anselm of of Canterbury proposed a satisfaction theory for the Atonement. In this theory Jesus Christ’s death is understood as a death to satisfy the justice of God. Satisfaction here means restitution, the mending of what was broken, and the paying back of a debt. In this theory, Anselm emphasizes the justice of God, and claims that sin is an injustice that must be balanced. Anselm’s satisfaction theory says essentially that Jesus Christ died in order to pay back the injustice of human sin, and to satisfy the justice of God.

This theory was developed in reaction to the historical dominance of the Ransom theory, that God paid the devil with Christ’s death. Anselm saw that this theory was logically flawed, because what does God owe satan? Therefore, in contrast with the Ransom theory, Anselm taught that it is humanity who owes a debt to God, not God to satan. Our debt, in this theory, is that of injustice. Our injustices have stolen from the justice of God and therefore must be paid back. Satisfaction theory then postulates that Jesus Christ pays pack God in His death on the cross to God. This is the first Atonement theory to bring up the notion that God is acted upon by the Atonement (i.e. that Jesus satisfies God).

#5 The Penal Substitutionary Theory​

Penal Substitutionary Atonement is a development of the Reformation. The Reformers, Specifically Calvin and Luther, took Anselm’s Satisfaction theory and modified it slightly. They added a more legal (or forensic) framework into this notion of the cross as satisfaction. The result is that within Penal Substitution, Jesus Christ dies to satisfy God’s wrath against human sin. Jesus is punished (penal) in the place of sinners (substitution) in order to satisfy the justice of God and the legal demand of God to punish sin. In the light of Jesus’ death God can now forgive the sinner because Jesus Christ has been punished in the place of sinner, in this way meeting the retributive requirements of God’s justice. This legal balancing of the ledgers is at the heart of this theory, which claims that Jesus died for legal satisfaction. It’s also worth mentioning that in this theory the notion of inputed righteousness is postulated.

This theory of the Atonement contrasts with Anselm’s Satisfaction Theory in that God is not satisfied with a debt of justice being paid by Jesus, but that God is satisfied with punishing Jesus in the place of mankind. The notion that the cross acts upon God, conditioning Him to forgiveness, originates from Anslems theory, but here in Penal Substitution the means are different. This theory of the Atonement is perhaps the most dominant today, especially among the Reformed, and the evangelical.

#6 The Governmental Theory​

The Governmental Theory of the Atonement is a slight variation upon the Penal Substitutionary theory, which is notably held in Methodism. The main difference here is the extent to which Christ suffered. In the Governmental Theory, Jesus Christ suffers the punishment of our sin and propitiates God’s wrath. In this way it is similar to Penal Substitution. However, in the Governmental Theory, Jesus Christ does not take the exact punishment we deserve, He takes a punishment. Jesus dies on the cross therefore to demonstrate the displeasure of God towards sin. He died to display God’s wrath against sin and the high price which must be paid, but not to specifically satisfy that particular wrath. The Governmental Theory also teaches that Jesus died only for the church, and if you by faith are part of the church, you can take part in God’s salvation. The church then acts as the sort of hiding place from God’s punishment. This view contrasts both the Penal and Satisfaction models, but retains the fundamental belief that God cannot forgive if Jesus does not die a propitiating death.

#7 The Scapegoat Theory​

The Scapegoat Theory is a modern Atonement theory rooted in the philosophical concept of the Scapegoat. Here the key figures Rene Girard and James Allison. Within this theory of the Atonement Jesus Christ dies as the Scapegoat of humanity. This theory moves away from the idea that Jesus died in order to act upon God (as in PSA, Satisfaction, or Governmental), or as payment to the devil (as in Ransom). Scapegoating therefore is considered to be a form of non-violent atonement, in that Jesus is not a sacrifice but a victim. There are many Philosophical concepts that come up within this model, but in a general sense we can say that Jesus Christ as the Scapegoat means the following. 1) Jesus is killed by a violent crowd. 2) The violent crowd kills Him believing that He is guilty. 3) Jesus is proven innocent, as the true Son of God. 4) The crowd is therefore deemed guilty.

James Allison summarizes the Scapegoating Theory like this, “Christianity is a priestly religion which understands that it is God’s overcoming of our violence by substituting himself for the victim of our typical sacrifices that opens up our being able to enjoy the fullness of creation as if death were not.”

Conclusions​

Each theory presented here is dense and complex, but I hope you can learn from the overall focus of each. I personally believe that we need to move beyond some of these theories and progress into a more robust theory of the atonement. But thankfully, at the end of the day we aren’t saved by theories. We’re saved by Jesus! How that happens may be fun to discuss and theorized about, but only in sight of the fact that it’s the who that matters far more!

What do you think of all these theories? Does a certain one appeal to you more than the rest? Let me know in a comment!
Click to expand...
I intend to read each one of them thoroughly and I'll definitely get back to you. My point in the post that you quoted is the Christ death on the cross plus the suffering he went through before the cross points toward PSA.

As you pointed out Tom each theory is dense and complex so it'll take me some time to draw any conclusion.
 
Fitzpatrick said:
I intend to read each one of them thoroughly and I'll definitely get back to you. My point in the post that you quoted is the Christ death on the cross plus the suffering he went through before the cross points toward PSA.

As you pointed out Tom each theory is dense and complex so it'll take me some time to draw any conclusion.
Click to expand...
OK but PSA involves more than the idea Christ suffered

It involves the idea Christ was imputed with sin and was therfore justly punished and forsaken by God
 
According to Scripture, all three persons of the Godhead are offended by sin. All three persons are committed to destroying sin and to liberating humanity and the world from the curse. Jesus is the eternal Son, and when he died on the cross, he was there because he’d chosen to lay down his life, a plan devised in eternity. Philippians 2:6–8 clearly shows the pre-incarnate Son of God deciding to take on flesh, become a servant, and go to his death for sinners. His prayer in Gethsemane, contemplating the cup of wrath, is that the Father’s will would be accomplished through his death (Matt. 26:42).

It’s no use pitting “vindictive God” against “innocent Jesus,” for the one nailed to the tree is himself the sin-hating, sinner-saving God. The Son’s complicity in his own condemnation as our substitute is one of the gospel’s most glorious truths. Being clear about this truth doesn’t just safeguard our faithfulness; it displays Christ’s beauty and love. TGC
 
TomL said:
OK but PSA involves more than the idea Christ suffered

It involves the idea Christ was imputed with sin and was therfore justly punished and forsaken by God
Click to expand...
By His wrath/ anger towards the Son with punishment . Some even say the Father killed the Son.
 
Affinity said:
According to Scripture, all three persons of the Godhead are offended by sin. All three persons are committed to destroying sin and to liberating humanity and the world from the curse. Jesus is the eternal Son, and when he died on the cross, he was there because he’d chosen to lay down his life, a plan devised in eternity. Philippians 2:6–8 clearly shows the pre-incarnate Son of God deciding to take on flesh, become a servant, and go to his death for sinners. His prayer in Gethsemane, contemplating the cup of wrath, is that the Father’s will would be accomplished through his death (Matt. 26:42).

It’s no use pitting “vindictive God” against “innocent Jesus,” for the one nailed to the tree is himself the sin-hating, sinner-saving God. The Son’s complicity in his own condemnation as our substitute is one of the gospel’s most glorious truths. Being clear about this truth doesn’t just safeguard our faithfulness; it displays Christ’s beauty and love. TGC
Click to expand...
The “ cup of wrath “ is another misnomer which is untrue.

Jesus bearing God's “cup of wrath” and being despised and forsaken by the Father and Him turning His back on the Son is not found in Scripture.

In Matthew 26:39, Jesus says, "If it be your will, let this cup pass from me." Jesus tells us precisely what the cup was. It was the cup of his suffering, which meant that He would die an agonizing death as a martyr. In the passage below, Jesus told His disciples that they would also drink of the same "cup":

Matthew 20:17-
Now Jesus was going up to Jerusalem. On the way, he took the Twelve aside and said to them, 18 “We are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be delivered over to the chief priests and the teachers of the law. They will condemn him to death 19 and will hand him over to the Gentiles to be mocked and flogged and crucified. On the third day he will be raised to life!”20 Then the mother of Zebedee’s sons came to Jesus with her sons and, kneeling down, asked a favor of him. 21 “What is it you want?” he asked. She said, "Grant that one of these two sons of mine may sit at your right and the other at your left in your kingdom."22 “You don’t know what you are asking,” Jesus said to them. “Can you drink the cup I am going to drink?” “We can,” they answered. 23 Jesus said to them, “You will indeed drink from my cup, but to sit at my right or left is not for me to grant. These places belong to those for whom they have been prepared by my Father.”

1Thessalonians 5:9-For God did not appoint us to suffer wrath but to receive salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ.

As we see above it was not the cup of wrath Jesus was speaking about but it was the suffering He was going to have to endure for our sins. God has not appointed us to wrath and the cup means the suffering of Jesus and that the disciples would also suffer death as martyrs. In fact, many scriptures testify that believers too will suffer persecution for being a follower of Jesus. Suffering persecution is a promise for a believer who follows Jesus, it is something we should expect to happen in our life.

2 Timothy 3:12- Yes, and everyone who wants to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution.

John 15:20
Remember the word that I spoke to you: 'No servant is greater than his master.' If they persecuted Me, they will persecute you as well; if they kept My word, they will keep yours as well.

Matthew 5:10 - Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

2 Corinthians 4:9- persecuted, but not forsaken; struck down, but not destroyed.

hope this helps !!!
 
civic said:
By His wrath/ anger towards the Son with punishment . Some even say the Father killed the Son.
Click to expand...
Nothing is more chilling than RC Sprouls statement

If there ever was an obscenity that violates contemporary community standards, it was Jesus on the cross. After he became the scapegoat and the Father had imputed to him every sin of every one of his people, the most intense, dense concentration of evil ever experienced on this planet was exhibited. Jesus was the ultimate obscenity.

So what happened? God is too holy to look at sin. He could not bear to look at that concentrated monumental condensation of evil, so he averted his eyes from his Son. The light of his countenance was turned off. All blessedness was removed from his Son, whom he loved, and in its place was the full measure of the divine curse. https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/forsaken-jesus-became-curse
 
TomL said:
OK but PSA involves more than the idea Christ suffered

It involves the idea Christ was imputed with sin and was therfore justly punished and forsaken by God
Click to expand...
I don't have any problem with Christ being imputed with sin and here's one verse that leads me to that conclusion.

For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. 2 Corinthians 5:21

I understand the arguments against 2 Corinthians. That it divides the trinity. And it can't mean that Jesus actually became sin itself. If that were the case Jesus would cease being God. To put forward such a theory denies all of Scripture, which clearly presents Jesus Christ as the One in whom there is no sin. But what does it actually mean?

I think it means that our sin debt was attributed to Jesus. He paid the price.

As for God unjustly punishing Jesus that's a little tougher to sort through. You can't deny that Jesus suffered a horrendous death on the cross plus all he endured before they nailed him to that cross. He suffered the Wrath that the trinity planned from the beginning. It was the just suffering for the unjust. The same as a sacrificial lamb. The lamb didn't do anything to be sacrificed for the same as Jesus didn't do anything. He went willingly to the cross which is highly unusual.

The old-covenant-era hearers would have understood what this meant, for guilt offerings were sacrificed to God as substitutes in place of those who had sinned against him, so that the sinners themselves would not bear God’s righteous anger. And the old covenant foreshadowed the new covenant. It was a Triune plan to save mankind. Jesus chose to suffer God's Wrath against sin to save us.

The great Servant, the great Propitiator, would offer himself as the final once-for-all substitutionary sacrifice in the place of sinners. Did it take away God's Wrath against sin? I'd say it did since we as Believers in Christ are Heaven bound where Jesus is Preparing a mansion for us. Those that Are not Christians ... well let's just say they may see some of God's Wrath as they spend eternity in Hell.
 
TomL said:
Nothing is more chilling than RC Sprouls statement

If there ever was an obscenity that violates contemporary community standards, it was Jesus on the cross. After he became the scapegoat and the Father had imputed to him every sin of every one of his people, the most intense, dense concentration of evil ever experienced on this planet was exhibited. Jesus was the ultimate obscenity.

So what happened? God is too holy to look at sin. He could not bear to look at that concentrated monumental condensation of evil, so he averted his eyes from his Son. The light of his countenance was turned off. All blessedness was removed from his Son, whom he loved, and in its place was the full measure of the divine curse. https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/forsaken-jesus-became-curse
Click to expand...
I agree that's pretty hardcore.
 
TomL said:
OK but PSA involves more than the idea Christ suffered

It involves the idea Christ was imputed with sin and was therfore justly punished and forsaken by God
Click to expand...

TomL said:
Nothing is more chilling than RC Sprouls statement

If there ever was an obscenity that violates contemporary community standards, it was Jesus on the cross. After he became the scapegoat and the Father had imputed to him every sin of every one of his people, the most intense, dense concentration of evil ever experienced on this planet was exhibited. Jesus was the ultimate obscenity.

So what happened? God is too holy to look at sin. He could not bear to look at that concentrated monumental condensation of evil, so he averted his eyes from his Son. The light of his countenance was turned off. All blessedness was removed from his Son, whom he loved, and in its place was the full measure of the divine curse. https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/forsaken-jesus-became-curse
Click to expand...
That's just plain bad, I can hardly believe RC would say that much less have it published. Shameful.😢
 
Fitzpatrick said:
PSA is the chief and controlling theory for the atonement that's taught in the Bible. And it fits the central biblical teaching of salvation.

The case for PSA has been taught by the Church since it's earliest days, My belief is it comes directly from a careful, thoughtful study of Scripture, which from beginning to end points toward the sacrificial death of Jesus.

It is defined by J. I. Packer as the conviction that the atonement involves “the innocent taking the place of the guilty, in the name and for the sake of the guilty, under the axe of God’s judicial retribution." It's the doctrine that God inflicted upon Christ the suffering which we deserved as the punishment for our sins, as a result of which we no longer deserve punishment.

The Bible speaks with a clear and united witness about PSA. Christ our Passover lamb has been sacrificed. The Servant was pierced for our transgressions. He died, as Caiaphas prophesied, in the place of the people. He was set forth as a propitiation for our sins. He became a curse for us, bearing our sins in his body on the tree, drinking for us the cup of God’s wrath, giving his life as a ransom for many.
Click to expand...

Hi Fitzpatrick have you read psalm 22 in view of Jesus, God didn't hide his face from him, when Jesus cried out God heard and reacted

Psalm 22:16 For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet.
17 I may tell all my bones: they look and stare upon me.
18 They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture.
19 But be not thou far from me, O Lord: O my strength, haste thee to help me.
20 Deliver my soul from the sword; my darling from the power of the dog.
21 Save me from the lion's mouth: for thou hast heard me from the horns of the unicorns.
22 I will declare thy name unto my brethren: in the midst of the congregation will I praise thee.
23 Ye that fear the Lord, praise him; all ye the seed of Jacob, glorify him; and fear him, all ye the seed of Israel.
24 For he hath not despised nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted; neither hath he hid his face from him; but when he cried unto him, he heard.
 
Candle said:
Hi Fitzpatrick have you read psalm 22 in view of Jesus, God didn't hide his face from him, when Jesus cried out God heard and reacted

Psalm 22:16 For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet.
17 I may tell all my bones: they look and stare upon me.
18 They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture.
19 But be not thou far from me, O Lord: O my strength, haste thee to help me.
20 Deliver my soul from the sword; my darling from the power of the dog.
21 Save me from the lion's mouth: for thou hast heard me from the horns of the unicorns.
22 I will declare thy name unto my brethren: in the midst of the congregation will I praise thee.
23 Ye that fear the Lord, praise him; all ye the seed of Jacob, glorify him; and fear him, all ye the seed of Israel.
24 For he hath not despised nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted; neither hath he hid his face from him; but when he cried unto him, he heard.
Click to expand...
Hi there Candle. Yes I studied it out thoroughly.

MY GOD, my God, why have You forsaken me? Why are You so far from helping me, and from the words of my groaning?
Ps 22:1

46 And about the ninth hour (three o’clock) Jesus cried with a loud voice, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?—that is, My God, My God, why have You abandoned Me [leaving Me helpless, forsaking and failing Me in My need]?
Mt 27:46.

One of the common arguments against the abandonment is that Jesus only felt like he was abandoned. Since Jesus didn't die immediately on the cross and he was suffering from all the abuse he took he no doubt felt like he was abandoned.

So if this is what did not happen on the cross, then what did take place? The Old Testament bears witness to “both the wrath of God and the sacrifices offered for sin” and that the New Testament “draws these connections” and presents Jesus as our sacrifice and substitute. He bore the wrath of God in our place.

The empty tomb shows that he was not abandoned.

I hardly know what God does in every situation even what he tells us in his word my interpretation is my opinion and I for sure don't know if I'm right. But as far as God turning away from Jesus on the cross the common theory is that God can't look upon sin... or maybe just maybe This May have happened.

As a father if I observed my son running into the street directly in front of an approaching car I'm pretty sure I would have to turn my head at least for a second to avoid seeing the impact. That would be just too much for me to bare. Maybe God did the same.

At any It makes for a good discussion.
 
TomL said:
It certainly is. if I recall correctly, however, there is a podcast which is even worse.
Click to expand...
Here is some more

21. R. C. Sproul: "It was as if there was a cry from heaven - excuse my language, but I can be no more accurate than to say - it was as if Jesus heard the words 'God Damn You.' Because that's what it meant to be cursed, to be damned, to be under the anathema of the Father. As I said, I don't understand that, but I know that it's true."

R. C. Sproul, "And God Cursed Him," April 19, 2019, https://www.ligonier.org/blog/god-cursed-him/, Accessed 03 December 2019.

22. R. C. Sproul: "God is too holy to even look at iniquity. God the Father turned His back on the Son, cursing Him to the pit of hell while He hung on the cross. Here was the Son’s “descent into hell.” Here the fury of God raged against Him. His scream was the scream of the damned. For us."

R. C. Sproul, "Treasuring Redemption’s Price," September 13, 2009, https://www.ligonier.org/blog/treasuring-redemptions-price/, Accessed 30 November 2019.

contains addition quotes from other writers

christisallinall.blogspot.com

Is It Biblical To Say Jesus Was Damned By God On The Cross?

1. The Holy Spirit, through the Apostle Paul: "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us - for it is ...
christisallinall.blogspot.com christisallinall.blogspot.com
 

Similar threads

T
17 foundational claims of PSA
Replies
2
Views
184
TomL
T
civic
Origin of PSA
Replies
17
Views
437
101G
101G
civic
PSA and Anselm's connection
Replies
1
Views
170
civic
civic
civic
PSA Historical perspective
Replies
5
Views
225
civic
civic
T
What Hebrew 1:3 (NWT) shows
Replies
17
Views
104
TomL
T
Back
Top Bottom