Atonement Theories

civic said:
nothing here relevant to my post to about God is love. You are not addressing it at all.

And I can bet you have never studied the atonement in light of Gods nature and character. Most never have even considered it.

Please address my post below.


God is Love
This is all about the Trinity, and the penal substitutionary theory of the atonement (e.g., PSA), as it relates to the nature and character of God. The word Theology refers to the study of God, and God is Triune, a Trinity- Tri-Unity. All doctrine begins with God at its starting point. God’s innate attributes are Aseity (God is self-sufficient), Infinite (without limit), Eternal (God has no beginning or end, he is timeless), Immutable (God is unchanging), Love (God is love), Holy (God is set-apart), Perichoresis (the indwelling of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit). Divine Simplicity states God is Love because He is Love, not because He possesses that quality. God is the center of all the Divine Attributes. They point to His Being. God is not distinct from His nature.

God is Love. In love, the Father sent the Son on our behalf to be the perfect sacrifice for sin. We Love because He first loved us and sent His Son as 1 John 4:19 tells us.

We must understand how God's attributes all work in harmony together, not in opposition to each other. God's attributes and character flow from His love—for God is love.

God being love has nothing to do with His creation. That is secondary. God is love, and that love is perfect, lacking nothing within His Triune nature as God. Love, by definition, has to be expressed with another, which is why a unitarian god cannot be love. Love requires another to share and express that love, and it is what we see with the Triune God. God is love before anyone/anything existed.

Before creation, there was no sin. There was no judgment, wrath, mercy, grace, and justice. Why? Because those are God's secondary attributes concerning the creation and the fall. God's love is a primary attribute, like Holy is a primary one. Everything about God flows from His being Love which includes His secondary attributes, which were not in use until the creation and the fall.

Let’s examine how this works in conjunction with Gods sovereignty and His love. God is sovereign and also love. Both sovereignty and love as they intersect with God have been revealed plainly to us by God in His word. He has done this both through his word and his works. And God has sworn never to change for He is Immutable.

God's sovereignty is never exercised in violation of his love. His love is very everlasting, for God is love. The love of God has not the slightest shadow of variation, and it, not his sovereignty, is the basis upon which his moral standards rest. Any promotion of any doctrine that represents God as acting in a way that violates his love appealing to the fact that He is sovereign is found nowhere in the pages of scripture.

The fact that God can do something is not a justification for Him doing it. The fact that God can damn everyone without a reason is not an argument for justifying teaching that he does as in the Calvinist doctrine of double predestination. All that He can do is restricted by the standard that God values most which is His love. If it will violate love, God will not and cannot do it for that would be contrary to His nature and character as a loving God. And if it will violate love then it is not right. God cannot make it right by doing it just because He is sovereign. If God does it just because He is sovereign then He would not be God but something else.

What makes God, God is so intricately bound to his intent for doing things that if He were to do a thing just by virtue of the fact that He is sovereign and can do it rather than by virtue of the fact that it is loving? He would not be God as we know Him but something else. If sovereignty is what defines what makes up love in such a way that God doing anything is what defines love, then love has no meaning and can be anything and everything it is and opposes any time, which is ridiculous.

This below is from the Calvinist Theologian Abraham Kuyper on God is love:


“Before God created heaven and earth with all their inhabitants, the eternal Love of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit shone with unseen splendor in the divine Being. Love exists, not for the sake of the world, but for God's sake; and when the world came into existence, Love remained unchanged; and if every creature were to disappear, it would remain just as rich and glorious as ever. Love exists and works in the Eternal Being apart from the creature; and its radiation upon the, creature is but a feeble reflection of its being.

Love is not God, but God is Love; and He is sufficient to Himself to love absolutely and forever. He has no need of the creature, and the exercise of His Love did not begin with the creature whom He could love, but it flows and springs eternally in the Love-life of the Triune God. God is Love; its perfection, divine beauty, real dimensions, and holiness are not found in men, not even in the best of God's children, but scintillate only around the Throne of God.

The unity of Love with the Confession of the Trinity is the starting-point from which we proceed to base Love independently in God, absolutely independent of the creature or anything creaturely. This is not to make the divine Trinity a philosophic deduction from essential love. That is unlawful; if God had not revealed this mystery in His Word we should be totally ignorant of it. But since the Scripture puts the Triune Being before us as the Object of our adoration, and upon almost every page most highly exalts the mutual Love of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and delineates it as an Eternal Love, we know and plainly see that this holy Love may never be represented but as springing from the mutual love of the divine Persons.

Hence through the mystery of the Trinity, the Love which is in God and is God obtains its independent existence, apart from the creature, independent of the emotions of mind and heart; and it rises as a sun, with its own fire and rays, outside of man, in God, in whom it rests and from whom it radiates.

In this way we eradicate every comparison of the Love of God with our love. In this way the false mingling ceases. In principle we resist the reversing of positions whereby arrogant man had succeeded in copying from himself a so-called God of Love, and into silencing all adoration. In this way the soul returns to the blessed confession that God is Love, and the way of divine mercy and pity is opened whereby the brightness of that Sun can radiate in a human way, i.e., in a finite and imperfect manner to and in the human heart, to the praise of God. “From his book on the Work of the Holy Spirit Volume 3, Second Chapter Love- xviii Love in the Triune Being of God “

Now here is where the Calvinists like Kuyper above fail in their theology. Its an oxymoron to believe the above and at the same time hold to the doctrine of PSA for it violates God is love and assaults Gods nature and character. Kuyper becomes his very own hostile witness against PSA

God can do anything and everything is what sovereignty means by definition. God will only do what is loving and what is righteousness. Righteousness is the foundation of his throne. In other words, righteousness is the constraint of his sovereign rule. Love is how God rules His creation. Sovereignty, Righteousness, Justice, Mercy and all the other attributes of God fall under the umbrella of His love. God being love is foundational to Gods nature, character, the gospel and the entire purpose for Christs 1st Coming. John 3:16. God rules by His love. The question we need to be asking ourselves is this, how does our Sovereign God display His love in conjunction with His rule over mankind?

hope this helps !!!
Click to expand...
I am not Calvin, I do not get my theology from Calvin, I reject fatalistic thinking. a Calvinist rejects the notion and meaning of true love..

If your going to try to fight Calvinism, in an attempt to prove me wrong. you will fail. because nothing I believe is based on Calvin thinking. it is based on years of study and just plain reading the word of God.

Like I said. You appear to just want to attack calvin, and not actually look at what people think.. If this is your only goal. then maybe you should just back away and let others discuss it..
 
Eternally-Grateful said:
I am not Calvin, I do not get my theology from Calvin, I reject fatalistic thinking. a Calvinist rejects the notion and meaning of true love..

If your going to try to fight Calvinism, in an attempt to prove me wrong. you will fail. because nothing I believe is based on Calvin thinking. it is based on years of study and just plain reading the word of God.

Like I said. You appear to just want to attack calvin, and not actually look at what people think.. If this is your only goal. then maybe you should just back away and let others discuss it..
Click to expand...
PSA came from calvinists in the exact same way as tulip, they go together. I know as I was a calvinist for over 40 years and taught those doctrines.
 
civic said:
PSA came from calvinists in the exact same way as tulip, they go together. I know as I was a calvinist for over 40 years and taught those doctrines.
Click to expand...
lol.. No. it does not go together

It is obvious you did not read anything i said

again, Your hate for calvinism is showing.. Its sad.

Calvin believes in eternal security, it does not make eternal security wrong..

when the reformation happened (when the power of Rome was broke) many people came out with many ideas.. It does not mean they all are right or are wrong.. we had the truth of Gods word mostly silenced for 1500 Years.

Just because it was never shown to be taught before does not mean it was never believed..
 
Eternally-Grateful said:
lol.. No. it does not go together

It is obvious you did not read anything i said

again, Your hate for calvinism is showing.. Its sad.

Calvin believes in eternal security, it does not make eternal security wrong..

when the reformation happened (when the power of Rome was broke) many people came out with many ideas.. It does not mean they all are right or are wrong.. we had the truth of Gods word mostly silenced for 1500 Years.

Just because it was never shown to be taught before does not mean it was never believed..
Click to expand...
I’m sorry but you are 100% wrong as tulip and PSA go hand in hand together
 
Eternally-Grateful said:
lol.. No. it does not go together

It is obvious you did not read anything i said

again, Your hate for calvinism is showing.. Its sad.

Calvin believes in eternal security, it does not make eternal security wrong..

when the reformation happened (when the power of Rome was broke) many people came out with many ideas.. It does not mean they all are right or are wrong.. we had the truth of Gods word mostly silenced for 1500 Years.

Just because it was never shown to be taught before does not mean it was never believed..
Click to expand...
Since Gods wrath was necessary to be poured out on Christ and there is still Gods wrath to come that falls upon all of the nonelect reprobates , Christs atonement was only for the elect whom Christ endured Gods wrath for on the cross- the limited atonement for the elect.. All others who are the non elect will suffer Gods wrath in the future. This view of the atonement was necessary for reformed theology to fit into their TULIP doctrine and make the atonement work with those other doctrines that were invented by man. Those who support PSA must also support the U/L in tulip. They are 2 sides of the same coin. Justice with the atonement came with the PSA doctrine. It was not taught prior to PSA when the doctrine came into being as we know it now from Hodges in the 1800's with his systematic theology. Just like tulip did not exist until after Calvin died and the doctrine was developed in Dort. PSA is a recent modern day heresy. Those who reject Pre Tribulationalism because its the newest eschatological view must also reject PSA since its the most recent view of the Atonement. See the double standards ?

Isaiah 53 - actually opposes PSA- the calvinist twists this in parenthesis

Who has believed what he has heard from us?
And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?
2 For he grew up before him like a young plant,
and like a root out of dry ground;
he had no form or majesty that we ( GOD )should look at him,
and no beauty that we ( GOD )should desire him.
3 He was despised and rejected by men,(GOD)
a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief;
and as one from whom men(GOD) hide their (HIS ) faces
he was despised( BY GOD ), and we ( GOD ) esteemed him not.
4 Surely he has borne our griefs
and carried our sorrows;
yet we (GOD )esteemed him stricken,- (PSA teaches God)
smitten by God, and afflicted.
5 But he was pierced for our transgressions; ( by man )
he was crushed for our iniquities;
upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace,
and with his wounds we are healed.
6 All we like sheep have gone astray; ( not born a sinner- no TD )
we have turned—every one—to his own way;
and the Lord has laid on him
the iniquity of us all.
7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted,
yet he opened not his mouth;
like a lamb that is led to the slaughter, ( man led Him )
and like a sheep that before its shearers is silent,
so he opened not his mouth.
8 By oppression and judgment he was taken away; ( mans oppression, not God )
and as for his generation, who considered
that he was cut off out of the land of the living,
stricken for the transgression of my people?
9 And they made his grave with the wicked
and with a rich man in his death,
although he had done no violence,
and there was no deceit in his mouth.
10 Yet it was the will of the Lord to crush him; ( no wrath on Jesus )- the word can mean humble, contrite, oppress
he has put him to grief;
when his soul makes an offering for guilt,( reconciled to God, mans deliverance, redeemed, ransom, substitute, atonement)
he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days;
the will of the Lord shall prosper in his hand.
11 Out of the anguish of his soul he shall see and be satisfied;
by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant,
make many to be accounted righteous,
and he shall bear their iniquities. ( atonement- no wrath )
12 Therefore I will divide him a portion with the many,
and he shall divide the spoil with the strong,
because he poured out his soul to death
and was numbered with the transgressors;
yet he bore the sin of many,
and makes intercession for the transgressors

As Eric Hyde argues, "If one chooses to interpret hilasterion as propitiation (literally: "to make favorable," with the implication of placating or appeasing the deity), then the entire Western notion of substitutionary atonement fits well." But, if one uses the word expiation, which implies a cleansing and removing of sin, this fits less into the penal substitutionary atonement model. This turns the death and resurrection of Christ around - no longer is Christ trying to appease an angry God the Father who has wrath that must be satisfied; instead, Christ is lovingly redeeming and restoring humanity. Let's also consider that hilasterion is used in the Septuagint to mean the "mercy seat" or "thing that atones." It also appears again in Hebrews 9:5 as the mercy seat. Given that context to hilasterion, it makes more sense that Christ's self-sacrifice was an act to remove our sins instead of an act to appease or pacify an angry Father, so He can forgive.
 
Here is the clear picture that emerges from Scripture is that Jesus was not the unfortunate victim of the angry/wrathful Father. Rather, the Father and the Son were working in concert through the cross to pay for the sins of humanity and make atonement. There is no division of will between the Father and the Son. Jesus’ atonement was done in love which provided covering and forgiveness of sins as He declared was a ransom.

And this view harmonizes with God’s wrath that is still yet to come and was not poured out on Jesus on the cross. Our loving God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked (Ezekiel 33:11). Our loving Father took pleasure to bruise His Son to reconcile us to God as an offering for our sins. (Isaiah 53:10).

It is by faith in the Son through the message of the gospel that saves and unbelief which condemns. The gospel is for all mankind, all the world, for everyone. God desires all mento be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. (1 Timothy 2:4). God is the Savior of all men, especially of believers (1 Timothy. 4:10), For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to everyone (Titus 2:11) For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all (Romans 11:32). The Lord is not slow in keeping His promise as some understand slowness, but is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish but everyone to come to repentance (2 Peter 3:9).

God sent His Son into the world to take away the sin of the world (John 1:29) and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for sins of the whole world. (1 John 2:2). and He died for all, that those who live should live no longer for themselves, but for Him who died for them and rose again (2 Corinthians 5:15). But we do see Jesus, who was made lower than the angels for a little while, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone. (Hebrews 2:9)

hope this helps !!!
 
The famous Calvinist Theologian J.I. Packer here affirms my claims about calvinism where PSA must of necessity be a limited atonement for Gods elect. The logic and reasoning of the calvinist systematic demand it must be so otherwise as Packer knows he is stuck with universalism. This is the only view of the atonement that can work in determinism but its easy to see and refute its many flaws biblically. You see when everything is preordained by God including your faith then one is left with a limited atonement and PSA is a limited atonement since Gods wrath was taken by Christ only for His elect. This is why there is a wrath to come for all the non elect that God does not grant/gift faith to save them. They face a future penal/judicial wrath because their sins were never atoned for in the first place. They were not the choice meats of God. They were not in the special class of the elect, the chosen whos sins were propitiated for by Christ. But we know this fails because of John 3:16, 1 John 2:2 and other passages where we see Christ died for all, everyone, all sin, all sinners, all the world etc........

theologynetwork.uk

The Logic of Penal Substitution​

The notion of penal substitution goes to the very heart of the gospel, but it is often articulated in a way that is less-than-desireable and easy to be misunderstood and caricatured by its critics. J …
theologynetwork.uk
theologynetwork.uk
 
civic said:
I’m sorry but you are 100% wrong as tulip and PSA go hand in hand together
Click to expand...
I am sorry,

But maybe the calvinistic view of PSA and tulip may go hand in hand

But My view of PSA and tulip are not even closely related.

once again You appear to be coming from an anti calvin bias.

You have shared with me your thing on Gods love according to whatever, and I have given you a different opinion altogether.

Please read what I said as I did yours. and try to respond to that..
 
Eternally-Grateful said:
I do not see it as God pouring out his wrath.

I see it as God turning his back. and Jesus dyeing the death Adam died the moment he sinned, and the death we are all born into. so we can be born again.

Imagine an eternal god. who had an eternal relationship all of a sudden losing that presence..

It is what Caused Christ to scream
Click to expand...
That would be a separation of the godhead
 
civic said:
Here is the clear picture that emerges from Scripture is that Jesus was not the unfortunate victim of the angry/wrathful Father.
Click to expand...
Good God man, who said Gods acts like an angry wrathful father? (Is this the Calvin view you keep talking about)

Did God take his wrath out on Jesus. No

Jesus took the death we owe in our place.

Did God show his wrath on adam and eve?

No. He sacrificed an animal ( could have been a lamb) and covered the sin of adam..

Jesus is called the lamb of God for a reason
 
Eternally-Grateful said:
My God My God why have you forsaken (departed from) me.

Forsake - to abandon, to desert -
Click to expand...
So the trinity became disbanded?

Of feeling or being forsaken by God (Test. Jos. 2:4) Mt 27:46; Mk 15:34

William Arndt et al., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature : A Translation and Adaption of the Fourth Revised and Augmented Edition of Walter Bauer’s Griechisch-Deutsches Worterbuch Zu Den Schrift En Des Neuen Testaments Und Der Ubrigen Urchristlichen Literatur (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979), 215.
 
TomL said:
So the trinity became disbanded?

Of feeling or being forsaken by God (Test. Jos. 2:4) Mt 27:46; Mk 15:34

William Arndt et al., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature : A Translation and Adaption of the Fourth Revised and Augmented Edition of Walter Bauer’s Griechisch-Deutsches Worterbuch Zu Den Schrift En Des Neuen Testaments Und Der Ubrigen Urchristlichen Literatur (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979), 215.
Click to expand...
Can God relate with sin? Does sin not cause a separation between God and Mankind?
 
Eternally-Grateful said:
Can God relate with sin? Does sin not cause a separation between God and Mankind?
Click to expand...
Christ is more than mankind.

He is the second person of the trinity

and they are in each other

John 17:21–23 (LEB) — 21 that they all may be one, just as you, Father, are in me and I am in you, that they also may be in us, in order that the world may believe that you sent me. 22 And the glory that you have given to me, I have given to them, in order that they may be one, just as we are one—23 I in them, and you in me, in order that they may be completed in one, so that the world may know that you sent me, and you have loved them just as you have loved me.

John 14:9–11 (LEB) — 9 Jesus said to him, “Am I with you so long a time and you have not known me, Philip? The one who has seen me has seen the Father! How can you say, ‘Show us the Father?’ 10 Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak from myself, but the Father residing in me does his works. 11 Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; but if not, believe because of the works themselves.
 

Similar threads

3
The impossible
Replies
2
Views
114
360watt
3
civic
7 Theories of the Atonement
Replies
12
Views
753
Obadiah
Obadiah
jeremiah1five
Atonement
2
Replies
24
Views
392
TomL
T
Dizerner
My full defense of PSA
10 11 12
Replies
238
Views
3K
civic
civic
Fitzpatrick
Appeasement of a Monster God?
10 11 12
Replies
221
Views
4K
Joe
Joe
Back
Top Bottom