Here I summarize seven atonement theories.
- Thread starter Johann
- Start date
Dizerner
Well-known member
Two main methods.
1. Complete union with an entity consolidates the two's resources together, both their debt and their wealth. Like getting married means you inherit your spouses wealth/debts, the union of Christ with humanity gives him the legal and ontological right to take on their debts and share his own wealth with them. Scripture clearly tells us that we are joined with Christ by faith, and we were crucified/resurrected with him.
2. Under a legal system, only the author makes the rules. With a supreme Judge who establishes morality, anything he deems or says is moral is automatically just. God is not submitting to an external morality, as that would be idolatry and make a competing entity to God. Thus, if Christ bearing our sins is valued by God as upholding his own holiness and worth, it is automatically moral, virtuous, and just.
I refuse to go around saying that Jesus is liable for my sins. I am liable for my sins. Pure and simple.
As for Jesus's expiation of our sins, that's a whole different story.
civic
Well-known member
Bingo
Dizerner
Well-known member
civic
Well-known member
No Jesus covers and forgives my sins. He is the Passover, the Expiation , the substitute, the ransom , the victor . All biblical from Jesus teaching Himself.
hope this helps !!!
Last edited:
civic
Well-known member
Correct its unbiblical.
Fool4Christ
Active member
Thanks for the heads up, I'll pass on the video.
Johann
Well-known member
So you adopt the Christos Victor view-the "bloodless" atonement.
And a "wrathless" YHVH.
Penal Substitution
Penal substitution (except in quotations, I will use the abbreviation PS in this section) is perhaps so
well known that it does not need an explanation. I will give one anyway:
Penal substitutionary atonement assumes the logic of the law court. Sin is understood as lawbreaking, and so necessarily attracts a penalty, which is inevitably death. In dying on the cross,
Jesus pays the penalty of death for all those who are saved, and so they are freed from the
deserved punishment. God’s justice is satisfied by Jesus’s death. (Holmes 2017: 295)
Although traces of this view can be found from early on, it received its full and systematic formulation
during the Reformation. It became the dominant explanation among Protestants and evangelicals.
However, it has come under pressure: “In recent times no doctrine of the atonement has been so
maligned as penal substitution” (Crisp 2020: 96). For this reason, rather than give further explanation,
I will focus on criticism and questions surrounding the concept. Is the idea really that bad? I will cover
14 objections, starting with some of the weaker ones.
1. PS is divine child abuse and promotes violence. God is angry because of our sin and punishes his
son instead of us. Thus, the cross is divine violence. As such, it validates human violence. It is right to
punish! In addition, if the Son’s submission to suffering and punishment is laudable, then so is human
submission, not least of all that of children and women to their male abusers:
If the best person who ever lived gave his life thus, then, to be of value we should likewise
sacrifice ourselves … Divine child abuse is paraded as salvific and the child who suffers “without
even raising a voice” is lauded as the hope of the world. (Brown and Parker 1989: 104)
15
Presumably because it is provocative and graphic, the charge of divine child abuse is repeated ad
nauseam in literature on the atonement (e.g. Eddy and Beilby 2006: 9f; Weaver 2011: 5; Horton 2018:
II, 201; Crisp 2020: 7). There is a triple irony here:
1. As pointed out by Williams (2007: 83f), this is not an argument against PS only, but against every
view endorsing that Christ suffered according to the purpose of the Father. Christus Victor views
fare no better by this standard.
2. God perpetrates none of the violence. God is not the judge who pronounces the verdict. He is not
the one who orders the execution. The nails are hammered in by a soldier acting on the command
of another ruler.
3. Greg Boyd’s version of Christus Victor (2006), which is supportive of the criticism, puts such a
strong emphasis on God’s warfare against evil that it looks more prone to support violence than a
model based on punishment. Don’t get me wrong. No such tendency shows in Boyd. But then,
neither did J. I. Packer and Leon Morris, two of the most able defenders of PS, beat their wives and
oppress their children, as far as I know. The issue isthe potential for violence of a model or theory.
“God at War” (Boyd 1997) sounds potentially a lot more violent than “the punishment that brought
us peace was upon him”.
Still, it is possible to abuse the cross as a tool of subjugation that tells victims they need to follow
Christ’s example and quietly submit to their suffering. PS can be used to justify unjust use of force or
authoritarian structures, whether in the family or in society. The remedy for this is not to discard a
cross-based atonement but to counter the abuse: woe to those who turn the cross into an instrument
of oppression!
2. PS divides and disunites the Trinity. Is there a tension in God, between the Son and the Father, or
between his wrath and his mercy? If the Son is trying to overcome the Father’s anger, however just,
are they therefore working in opposite directions?
By no means. They planned this together, in full agreement. Neither the Son nor the Father is a
reluctant partner. According to John 3:16, “God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son”. That
Christ “gave himself for our sins” was “according to the will of our God and Father” (Gal. 1:4). If there
is a tension, it is between his mercy and his justice, but not between Father and Son.
Bernard [of Clairvaux] saw the cross as reconciling the tension between God’s
mercy and his truth and justice. Truthfulness requires that we die, mercy that we
rise again … When Christ took our punishment upon himself, justice and peace
kissed one another … The classic text here is Psalm 85:10 (which speaks of mercy
and truth meeting, justice and peace kissing), which is much cited by Bernard (Lane
2008: 259)
3. The God of PS is an angry God. This criticism deserves to be taken seriously, not because it is true,
but because it is a widespread perception. It has something to do with our communication as
Christians. PS claims like “God is personally angry at sin” (Schreiner 2006: 77) may serve to confirm the
caricature.
An angry God punishing people – it may be a distortion, but because it is widespread, proponents of
PS need to work hard and find better ways to communicate the atonement.
What won’t work is to remove wrath as a category that applies to God. That way, we end up with the
God of moralistic therapeutic deism (the phrase coined by Smith and Denton 2005 to describe the faith
of American teenagers) – a feel-good religion in which the cross is little more than a piece of comforting
jewellery we wear around our necks.
16
It is important to make this point. Opponents of PS often complain about how it leads to a distorted
picture of an angry and violent God. But there is an opposite picture of a wrathless God that is no less
distorted. The study of Smith and Denton proves that it is spreading.
4. How can God be angry if he is love? Well, how can he not be? What kind of love can remain
impassive in the face of destructive evil? Precisely because God is love, he cannot be indifferent.
But of course, we need to tread carefully here. Human anger is a very imperfect parallel to divine
wrath. Human anger is usually out of control and often unreasonable. God’s wrath, on the other hand,
is “the reaction of holy love to that which spoils … how holiness expresses itself when meeting sin”
(Cole 2017: 490). Notice how Paul sees no problem in God’s love saving us from his own wrath,
meaning that in God, love and wrath are not in tension with each other:
But God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Since,
therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from
the wrath of God. (Rom. 5:8f ESV)
Last edited:
civic
Well-known member
I never mentioned any bloodless atonement, of course I believe in His blood that was shed for the forgiveness of my sins as He taught with the in the bread and the wine in the upper room. I believe what Jesus taught below.
How did He view His own death- the atonement ?
We see God the Son described His own death, the Atonement in 4 ways. Theology begins with God. He said His death was a Substitution, a Ransom, a Passover, a Sacrifice and for forgiveness of sins- Expiation
1- Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. John 15:13 Substitution, Ransom
2-No man takes my life I lay it down and I will take it up again- John 10:18 Substitution, Ransom
3- I lay My life down for the sheep- John 10:15 Substitution, Ransom
4- Jesus viewed His death as the Passover John 6:51
5-just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a Ransom for many- Matthew 20:28
6-I Am the Good Shepherd who lays down His life for the sheep- Substitution, John 10:11
7-Jesus said in John 11:50- nor do you take into account that it is expedient for you that one man die for the people, and that the whole nation not perish- Substitution
8 -This is my blood of the Covenant which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins- Matthew 26:28- Expiation
The N.T. writers' emphasis on the atonement is on the side of expiation rather than propitiation, which is only used twice in the epistle of 1 John. Gods’ wrath is still future and will judge those who reject His Sons atonement for sin. Gods’ wrath was not poured out on the Son for sin otherwise there would be no future wrath from God because of sin.
If we were to read propitiation ( appease an angry god as the meaning ) in 1 John 4:10 look at how absurd if reads.
This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son to appease our angry god , to appease His anger, to appease his angry self etc.......for our sins.
That makes no sense at all theologically , grammatically or contextually. It’s a contradiction, an oxymoron.
hope this helps !!!
Johann
Well-known member
Why did God sent His Son? As a Asham sacrifice-did He not?
civic
Well-known member
I've explained many times He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins meaning expiation and not propitiation.
Johann
Well-known member
Propitiation AND expiation is indissolubly one in the multi-faceted doctrine of atonement-you have a strong aversion against the Divine justice-God's PRESENT wrath-we are not talking about pagan deities that needed to be "appeased" but the Wrath of God that IS appeased at the death of Christ as per Isaiah 53.
We have no right to come to this doctrine as it stands written in Scriptures-and appeal to Internet sources-dead set against PSA-and believe "we have it right"
Typological Meaning
There is no explicit mention of the Trespass Offering in the New Testament, but it is found implicitly in the death of the Messiah. Isaiah 53:10 states that the Messiah was to be a Trespass Offering, and this chapter is quoted in the New Testament:
Isaiah 53:1 is quoted in John 12:38 and Romans 10:16,
Isaiah 53:4 is quoted in Matthew 8:17,
Isaiah 53:5,6 is quoted in 1 Peter 2:24,25,
Isaiah 53:9 is quoted in 1 Peter 2:23, and
Isaiah 53:12 is quoted in Luke 22:37.
In the famous messianic prophecy of Isaiah 53:10, speaking about the death of Jesus the Messiah, it states that God will make Him an offering for sin. The word for offering for guilt is asham, which has to do with the Trespass Offering, meaning that Jesus removed the harmful effects of our Trespass sins.
Yet it was the will of the Lord to crush him; he has put him to grief; when his soul makes an offering for guilt, he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days; the will of the Lord shall prosper in his hand. (Isaiah 53:10 ESV)
In addition, this offering presents Jesus the Messiah, who died for our trespasses on the cross, restoring what He did not take away (Psalms 69:4).
Those who hate me without cause are more numerous than the hairs of my head. Those who want to destroy me, my enemies for no reason, outnumber me. They make me repay what I did not steal! (Psalm 69:4 NET)
Jesus answered to God for our trespasses and paid our debt by His shed blood. Furthermore, He has added more than what was taken away by man’s rebellion! Infinitely more than twenty percent since the value of Jesus is infinite, and the new man is a joint heir with Jesus! Consequently, Jesus brought more glory to God and more blessings to mankind than before sin entered the world. Hallelujah!
Consequently, the Trespass Offering typifies Jesus the Messiah’s overpayment for the penalty of our trespasses against our Holy God. Atonement was made by the blood of the offering, and the trespasser (mankind) was forgiven, thus restoring fellowship between the offender (mankind) and the offended (God).
Again, the Trespass Offering covered the sins of which the offerer was unaware. Jesus, as our Trespass Offering on the cross, made forgiveness for those that unintentionally crucified Him available when He said, “Father, forgive them, for they don’t know what they are doing.” On the following Pentecost, Peter, by the Holy Spirit, preached to those in Jerusalem concerning this unintentional sin with the result that 3000 repented (1) and were saved that day! (Acts 2:14-41 NET)
But Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they don’t know what they are doing.” Then they threw dice to divide his clothes. (Luke 23:34 NET)
Therefore let all the house of Israel know beyond a doubt that God has made this Jesus whom you crucified both Lord and Christ.” Now when they heard this, they were acutely distressed and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “What should we do, brothers?” Peter said to them, “Repent, and each one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and your children, and for all who are far away, as many as the Lord our God will call to himself.” With many other words he testified and exhorted them saying, “Save yourselves from this perverse generation!” So those who accepted his message were baptized, and that day about three thousand people were added. (Acts 2:36–41 NET)
Sacrifices and Offerings of the Old Covenant Series:
The Fire Sacrifices and Offerings of Israel – Introduction
The Fire Sacrifices and Offerings of Israel – The Burnt Offering
The Fire Sacrifices and Offerings of Israel – The Meal Offering
The Fire Sacrifices and Offerings of Israel – The Peace Offering
The Fire Sacrifices and Offerings of Israel – The Sin Offering
The Fire Sacrifices and Offerings of Israel – The Trespass Offering
The Fire Sacrifices and Offerings of Israel – The Red Heifer Offering
Biblical Typologies, Metaphors, & Similes Series:
The Old Leaven of the Kingdom of Darkness
The New Leaven of the Kingdom of Heaven
Wine
Finely Sifted (Wheat) Flour
Frankincense
Olive Oil
Honey
Salt
Waving and Heaving
Barley
Gold
Silver
Bronze
Stone
Wood
Linen
Iron
Shofar and Trumpet
Offering
(6) From atonement for sin in the OT came such terms as expiation and forgiveness. From the idea of atonement for the wrath or judgment of God came propitiation and reconciliation. Hence in modern English translations various terms attempt to express the concept of atonement provided by God… In the Bible both expiation and propitiation are part of God’s atoning work.
Christ’s sacrifice both propitiates (turns away) the wrath of God and expiates… [removes] human sin. God’s redemptive work is both personal, or relational, and objective. When a biblical context concentrates on God’s wrath, propitiation is involved; when human sin is the focus, redemption provides expiation… That expiation means “removal of sin” underscores a fundamental dimension of redemption: “as far as the east is from the west, so far does he remove our transgressions from us” (Psalms 103:12).
Lyon, R. W., & Toon, P. (1988). Atonement. In Baker encyclopedia of the Bible (Vol. 1, p. 232, 746). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House.
Shalom
J.
civic
Well-known member
Here this it typical in Judaism on how they view Isaiah 53.
jewsforjudaism.org
jewsforjudaism.org
Isaiah 53 and the “Suffering Servant.”
Missionaries misleadingly assert that the entire chapter 53 of the book of Isaiah refers to Jesus as the “Suffering Servant” of God who dies for the sins of the world. Someone could easily be fooled to believe this argument if Isaiah is read out of context and without a proper translation.
jewsforjudaism.org
Isaiah 53 - A Jewish Perspective
Wasn't the Prophet referring to Jesus in Isaiah 53? Explore the Jewish perspective of a chapter which has become a cornerstone of Christian evangelism to Jews.
jewsforjudaism.org
civic
Well-known member
And here which should be enough to suffice for now for a Traditional Jewish perspective on Isaiah 53 and the identity of the suffering servant.
outreachjudaism.org
Who is God’s Suffering Servant? The Rabbinic Interpretation of Isaiah 53 - Outreach Judaism
Despite strong objections from conservative Christian apologists, the prevailing rabbinic interpretation of Isaiah 53 ascribes the “servant” to the nation of Israel [...]
outreachjudaism.org
Johann
Well-known member
This is weak-coming from you brother-which side are you on? Judaism or what stands written?
There's nothing new here that I am not aware of-I said- Are you taking their INTERPRETATION that Is 53 is Israel?And here which should be enough to suffice for now for a Traditional Jewish perspective on Isaiah 53 and the identity of the suffering servant.
Who is God’s Suffering Servant? The Rabbinic Interpretation of Isaiah 53 - Outreach Judaism
Despite strong objections from conservative Christian apologists, the prevailing rabbinic interpretation of Isaiah 53 ascribes the “servant” to the nation of Israel [...]
civic
Well-known member
I'm just pointing out what the Jews believe about the OT. I never said I believed what they taught. I bring it up because it was controversial and the Jews do not believe its about the messiah but Israel and they have suport for that view from many texts from earlier chapters identifying the suffering servant as Israel.
And not one single NT writer refers to any Isaiah 53 passage with wrath or penal aspects taken from Isaiah 53- they leave those out of the N.T.
I proved that here.
Johann
Well-known member
For starters-his is an online ministry-the way I see it-and by posting stuff like this- https://outreachjudaism.org/-is BOUND to overthrow the fragile faith of "gullible Christians" and reading Isaiah 53 is INCLUSIVE of PSA.
Propitiation AND expiation MUST be considered as per Isaiah 53-and the book of Leviticus.
By making an appeal to Outreach Judaism and rabbi Tovia Singer-of all people-that Isa. 53 is Israel-I can equally prove, from ancient rabbinical writings-that Mashiach was the Servant on the Cross-read Ps 22.
In the famous messianic prophecy of Isaiah 53:10, speaking about the death of Jesus the Messiah, it states that God will make Him an offering for sin. The word for offering for guilt is asham, which has to do with the Trespass Offering, meaning that Jesus removed the harmful effects of our Trespass sins.
Yet it was the will of the Lord to crush him; he has put him to grief; when his soul makes an offering for guilt, he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days; the will of the Lord shall prosper in his hand. (Isaiah 53:10 ESV)
In addition, this offering presents Jesus the Messiah, who died for our trespasses on the cross, restoring what He did not take away (Psalms 69:4).
Those who hate me without cause are more numerous than the hairs of my head. Those who want to destroy me, my enemies for no reason, outnumber me. They make me repay what I did not steal! (Psalm 69:4 NET)
Jesus answered to God for our trespasses and paid our debt by His shed blood. Furthermore, He has added more than what was taken away by man’s rebellion! Infinitely more than twenty percent since the value of Jesus is infinite, and the new man is a joint heir with Jesus! Consequently, Jesus brought more glory to God and more blessings to mankind than before sin entered the world. Hallelujah!
Consequently, the Trespass Offering typifies Jesus the Messiah’s overpayment for the penalty of our trespasses against our Holy God. Atonement was made by the blood of the offering, and the trespasser (mankind) was forgiven, thus restoring fellowship between the offender (mankind) and the offended (God).
Again, the Trespass Offering covered the sins of which the offerer was unaware. Jesus, as our Trespass Offering on the cross, made forgiveness for those that unintentionally crucified Him available when He said, “Father, forgive them, for they don’t know what they are doing.” On the following Pentecost, Peter, by the Holy Spirit, preached to those in Jerusalem concerning this unintentional sin with the result that 3000 repented (1) and were saved that day! (Acts 2:14-41 NET)
But Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they don’t know what they are doing.” Then they threw dice to divide his clothes. (Luke 23:34 NET)
Therefore let all the house of Israel know beyond a doubt that God has made this Jesus whom you crucified both Lord and Christ.” Now when they heard this, they were acutely distressed and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “What should we do, brothers?” Peter said to them, “Repent, and each one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and your children, and for all who are far away, as many as the Lord our God will call to himself.” With many other words he testified and exhorted them saying, “Save yourselves from this perverse generation!” So those who accepted his message were baptized, and that day about three thousand people were added. (Acts 2:36–41 NET)
Sacrifices and Offerings of the Old Covenant Series:
The Fire Sacrifices and Offerings of Israel – Introduction
The Fire Sacrifices and Offerings of Israel – The Burnt Offering
The Fire Sacrifices and Offerings of Israel – The Meal Offering
The Fire Sacrifices and Offerings of Israel – The Peace Offering
The Fire Sacrifices and Offerings of Israel – The Sin Offering
The Fire Sacrifices and Offerings of Israel – The Trespass Offering
The Fire Sacrifices and Offerings of Israel – The Red Heifer Offering
We dare not be selective and take a dogmatic stance when it comes to the doctrine of Kippur-or Yom Kippur.
Three times I have asked you if you hold to Christus Victor or Moral Government-seems that is flying over your head-and @synergy don't know what vicarious liability is or mean.
William Craig "must be wrong" yes?
Shalom brother.
J.
Last edited:
civic
Well-known member
Well I believe PSA is unbiblical and an assault on the nature and character of God in just the same way I think tulip is unbiblical and an assault on Gods nature and character. So when someone affirms it I will oppose it just like I do when someone denies the humanity or deity of Christ, the Trinity or the gospel.
propiation of an angry god comes from the greeks and paganism, not scripture so I reject the legal/penal aspects of the atonement.
Last edited:
