The Nature of God in the Atonement

[civic]

This is just begging the question in four different ways.

First it denies Sola Scriptura and moves inspiration to the ECFs instead. If the Bible says it, that's enough, period. Even if no early Christian, shoot, even if no Christian in the history of the world said it, if the Bible says it, that settles it, period. The whole idea that we need priests and clergy to tell us what the Bible means, and we can't just read it for ourself, is what kept so many people in bondage in the Roman Catholic Church.

Second, just because people repeat there was no PSA prior to Anselm over and over until they brainwash you, doesn't mean it's actually true. It's actually NOT true, and people repeat it over and over and over until they are so emotionally invested that even if they see the evidence right in front of their eyes, they think "Well, it can't mean that, because I was told it doesn't mean that." They don't even allow the POSSIBILITY.

Third, the real church, the real sacrificial Christians, have never been in the limelight. There are vast areas of history that we will never really and fully know until heaven, because the real Christians are often persecuted and unknown and don't seek the limelight and to make themselves famous. The "visible" church is not, and never has been, the real church and often as in the case of the RCC actually kills and persecutes the real believers.

Fourth, well known and assumed truths are so absorbed and believed subconsciously, they are not always systematically outlined. Your same argument against PSA would work exactly for the divinity of Christ when we think how simple and easy it would have been for any Bible verse to remove all ambigiuty, and be as forthright as literally possible. "We believe Jesus is literally God, make no mistake about it, not just in term."

~ ~ ~

Now let us look at the evidence of two giants of the early church, these are not little guys. They are both before Augustine (who was still pretty early relative to recorded histories). These quotes are as direct and as clear as they could imagined to be, they are as good as I myself could describe PSA in casual not super technical terms without fierce detractors nitpicking every word you say. They layout the basics completely:

Athanasius wrote in 330 AD:

"And Psalm 22, speaking in the Saviour's own person, describes the manner of His death. Thou has brought me into the dust of death, for many dogs have compassed me, the assembly of the wicked have laid siege to me. They pierced my hands and my feet, they numbered all my bones, they gazed and stared at me, they parted my garments among them and cast lots for my vesture. They pierced my hands and my feet- what else can that mean except the cross? and Psalms 22 and 69, again speaking in the Lord's own person, tell us further that He suffered these things, not for His own sake but for ours. Thou has made Thy wrath to rest upon me, says the one; and the other adds, I paid them things I never took. For He did not die as being Himself liable to death: He suffered for us, and bore in Himself the wrath that was the penalty of our transgression, even as Isaiah says, Himself bore our weaknesses. [Mt 8:17] So in Psalm 138 we say, The Lord will make requital for me; and in the 72nd the Spirit says, He shall save the children of the poor and bring the slanderer low, for from the hand of the mighty He has set the poor man free, the needy man whom there was none to help." (On the Incarnation)


St. John Chrysostom wrote around 390 AD:

Just as when two people turn their backs on each other and do not wish to be reconciled, someone else must come to intervene and break down the enmity between them, so this is what Christ did. God was angry with us, we had turned away from God, the Master who loves mankind, and by putting Himself in between, Christ reconciled both natures. And how did he come between them? He took on Himself the punishment that we deserved from the Father and endured the disgrace and insults that we inflicted on God. Do you desire to learn how he assumed both that punishment from on high and these insults here below? It is said, Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us (Gal 3:13). See then how He received the punishment inflicted from above? Consider how He also endured the insults inflicted here below. The insults of those who insult you, He says, have fallen on me (Ps 68:10). See how he dissolved the enmity, how He did not cease to do, suffer, and painstakingly perform all things until He had brought the adversary and enemy back to God Himself and made him a friend? (Homily on the Ascension of the Lord)




PSA is the Gospel. It is clear in Scripture, and someone would have to be supernaturally blinded not to see it. It is the way by which our sins are atoned for before God, and there is not some other way that bypasses the suffering of Christ for our sins, there is no other way of salvation.

However, God is extremely merciful, and even when people try to saw off the branch that holds them in their prideful, hardened, blinded heart of rebellion, even when they deny God's holiness and the evilness of their sin to the extent it simply must be judged, God is very merciful.

If someone will accept the bare idea that Jesus did "something" to save them, and that they need that something for forgiveness...

Well, they'll have plenty of time to repent in heaven. But this is an EXTREMELY spiritually dangerous place to be, and one step away from apostasy.

I’ll deal with your errors when I get some time . You don’t know what the gospel is unfortunately.

I believe your heart may be in the right place but your theology is in the wrong place. You are promoting another gospel as per Galatians 1:6-10.

hope this helps !!!

 

[civic]

Nowhere does God say His Son was guilty of anything on the cross or that justice was served or demanded by the Father towards the Son. The same goes with wrath. Its not found in Scripture but in the teachings of men.

Gods justice is served via the faithfulness of Christ ( Romans 1:16-17, Romans 3:21-22. ) Romans 5:1- Because we have been justified out of the faith/faithfulness, we have peace with God.

God has made us right/just by the faithfulness of Christ, by which we have peace with God through Jesus Christ. God has done this apart from the law. Romans 3:21. Gods "justice " is served by the faithfulness of Christ. Jesus is the righteous servant, the one who brings forth justice to the nations. Isaiah 42:1-4. He is the covenant, the new covenant Romans 10:4, Hebrews 8-9, the one whom the law is fulfilled and the one who reveals Gods righteousness/the just one for the nations both Jew and Gentile.

The gospel is the power of God unto salvation. For it reveals the justice of God from faith to faith- Romans 1:16-17. Gods love, grace, mercy and redemption are at the center of the cross.

The cross if anything was injustice. The murder of the innocent is injustice in any court of law. He was tried on false charges by false witnessses, convicted without evidence and murdered without due process of the law. They killed Him, not God. His life was taken unlawfully and injustice was served. The very ones He came to save murdered Him. Those who commit murder as the law of God states must die, but Jesus murderers lived. Thats injustice. The entire penal aspect of the atonement is a farce.

If the killing of Jesus was a "righteous" act that pleased God then why would those who murdered Him need forgiveness ? The fact is a crime was committed by those who killed Jesus and were guilty for His death. There was no justice but injustice in His death. I will be adding more of this to my paper on the Nature of God in the Atonement exposing more false teachings of PSA.

This is exactly what it say in Isaiah 53- we considered Him smitten, not God. Its the people who put Him on trial and killed Him. His cross was a crime uf unjust punishment. There is no law of retribution in the atonement that is what PSA advocates would have us believe. The cross is about REDEMPTION not retribution.

James 2:13- For judgment is without mercy to one who has shown no mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgment.

Romans 3:25- God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement( mercy seat, expiation) through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished

Gods justice leads to mercy which results in forgiveness. Jesus atonement for our sins is an act of God showing His grace, mercy, love, forgiveness and redemption via His Son. The Just ( Jesus ) for the unjust ( us sinners ).

The purpose of the Incarnation is that the Eternal Son identifies with us in our humanity, becomes sin for us, bears our sins, destroys sin and the devil and his works, and restores/reconciles us with God as our substitute. The atonement has nothing to do with wrath and retribution, but forgiveness and restoration. The Son diverts wrath, it is passed over since He is the Passover. Gods wrath falls upon the sinner, the unbeliever, the unfaithful, the reprobate, wicked- never on the innocent, the faithful, believers, saints, etc.....

hope this helps !!!

 

[civic]

When we study Jesus teachings about the Kingdom of God we discover its not about justice, retribution, retaliation etc........

Matthew 5:38-48
38“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.
40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well.
41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles.
42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’
44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,
45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.
46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that?
47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that?
48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

The Parable of the Lost son- the son did not get what he deserved from the Father but welcomed him back into the family. There was no justice served to the wayward son that returned.

The Parable of the laborers in the vineyard- the ones who came late received the same wages as the ones who worked all day. They received more than they deserved- what is just Matthew 20:4. In both of these we see the Father who is merciful, forgiving not punishing and dishing out justice- what they deserved under the law. By the standards of their day it was an injustice for those who worked a couple of hours being paid the same wages as the ones who worked all day.

Jesus even on the cross suffering more than can be humanly imagined reveals the very heart of God which is not justice, retribution, vengeance, wrath, anger but its LOVE- Father forgive them for they know not what they do. And today He said to the criminal you will be with Me in paradise. We see Gods love, mercy and forgiveness demonstrated not His justice on the cross which coincides with Jesus teachings on the Kingdom.

Jesus on the cross reveals the very heart of God, the heart of Gods Kingdom.

I like Paul can say- the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing. 1 Corinthians 1:18-19
For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written: “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.”

The calvinists have the cross all wrong and have turned it upside down. PSA is an assault on our Gods nature and character.

hope this helps !!!

 

[civic]

I will be adding more to the last 2 posts and will incorporate them into the thesis paper on page 1. And I will also be adding more scripture and references to the points in the original outline.

 

[civic]

I found this post of mine from back in 2021 on an old forum in a similar thread that I’m posting below.

On the question of wrath in the NT, several things are worth bearing in mind. First, in the NT, whilst there is plenty of discussion about God’s wrath (or sometimes just ‘the wrath’) God is never described as being ‘angry’. Wrath is always a noun, and never a verb. Stephen Travis in Christ and the Judgement of God talks of it as an effectus not an affectus, an attitude rather than a feeling. I remember his former colleague Michael Green describing God’s wrath as ‘his settled opposition to all that is evil.’

Secondly, it is described as something both present (for example in Romans 1) and future (in Romans 5.9). In fact, Romans 5.9 is the only verse in the NT which links Jesus’ death with deliverance from wrath explicitly, and here Paul clearly has the final judgement in mind, not some transaction which takes place on the cross at the time of Jesus’ death.

Thirdly (for the sake of good Anglicans) it is important to note that the Book of Common Prayer does make use of the idea of satisfaction:

All glory be to thee, Almighty God, our heavenly Father, for that thou, of thy tender mercy, didst give thine only Son Jesus Christ to suffer death upon the Cross for our redemption; who made there (by his one oblation of himself once offered) a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction, for the sins of the whole world…
But it is worth noting that the ‘satisfaction’ of honour is a mediaeval idea, originating with Anselm of Canterbury in the eleventh century, not one that is found in the NT in relation to Jesus’ death. In any case, the BCP does not talk of ‘satisfying God’s wrath’, and the emphasis here comes from its root in the Middle English satisfien, from Anglo-French satisfier, modification of Latin satisfacere, from satis ‘enough’ and facere ‘to do or make’ and thus means paid or discharged in full. Hence I am very happy to use the words of the BCP, but still not to sing the phrase in the Townend hymn.

The real danger in talking of Jesus satisfying God’s wrath is that we separate the actions of the Trinity in the cross. It appears to portray loving Jesus saving us from an angry God who metes out his punishment upon the innocent. Instead, we should see in the open arms of Jesus a welcome by a loving Father, who no longer counts our sin against us—it is from our sin and its consequences that Jesus saves us, rather than from a hateful God.

This moves us into the question of doctrine of the atonement. This is not the place to tackle this massive subject in full (!), but I noted in the FB discussion that the NT uses a whole range of metaphors for what happened on the cross—apart from the language of taking our place and bearing our sins (1 Peter), the cross and resurrection of Jesus dethroned the powers (Ephesians), ended our shame (Hebrews), brought us into friendship with God (2 Cor), recapitulated the story of Israel (Matthew and Acts), began the redemption of the whole creation (Romans 8), and started the recreation of humanity (Romans and 1 Cor). Tom Smail explores a whole range of images and ideas in his excellent Windows on the Cross which is a great resource for preaching. If we are going to engage our culture with the meaning of Jesus, we would do well to draw on the whole range of ways that Scripture uses.

However, in the FB discussion, one contributor commented:

I believe that the traditional language of the satisfaction of God’s wrath expresses the model at the very heart of the atonement and the Gospel…Further, if you don’t like the doctrine that the cross satisfied God’s wrath, don’t sing it, don’t call yourself a classical evangelical, and leave the COE. Since the BCP is part of the doctrine of the COE, to reject the BCP’s language about satisfaction is to reject the COE’s doctrine, and, for clergy, break their ordination vows. Further, Penal substitution has historically been a key belief for evangelicalism.
I began to see why so many comments were generated—if you don’t believe this phrase (even though it does not occur in the NT, is not found in the creeds, and does not in this form occur in the BCP) you are not really a proper Anglican, let alone an evangelical (though again the phrase is absent from both UCCF and CEEC bases of faith), so I suppose there is a question about whether you could call yourself a Christian at all! At one point, it sounded as though this correspondent was putting the doctrine of ‘penal substitution’ (that Jesus died in our place, being punished by God for our sins, and so satisfying God’s wrath) on the same level as belief in the Trinity, though in fact he pulled back from that in a later comment. https://www.psephizo.com/biblical-studies/did-jesus-die-to-satisfy-gods-wrath/

 

[civic]

Continued:

When Stephen Travis revised Christ and the Judgement of God, he included an additional chapter specifically responding to those proposing penal substitution as the main way to understand Jesus’ death. The chapter is a tour de force, a masterly exploration of the issue, fully engaging with alternative views, and is worth reading in full. He comments:

Most interpreters of Paul would agree with Howard Marshall, that ‘Paul’s vocabulary expresses the results of Christ’s death rather than its character, and this fits in with New Testament thought in general, which is more concerned with the nature of salvation than with the precise way in which it has been achieved.’ (p 181)

There is no place [in the OT] for the popular idea that in the sacrificial ritual God is somehow punishing the animal…or for the inference that something parallel to that is happening in the sacrificial death of Christ. (p 197)

Paul’s understanding of the death of Christ includes, but does not place at the centre, the idea that he bore the retributive punishment for our sins…To understand the atonement exclusively in those terms involves a misunderstanding of what Paul means by ‘the wrath of God.’ (p 199)

The meaning of the cross is not that God punished his Son in order to avoid punishing humanity, but that in Christ God himself took responsibility for the world’s evil and absorbed its consequences into itself. (p 200)

 

[Dizerner]

I’ll deal with your errors when I get some time . You don’t know what the gospel is unfortunately. I believe your heart may be in the right place but your theology is in the wrong place. You are promoting another gospel as per Galatians 1:6-10.

I'm not sure how you ever got off the path, but I'm glad my hands will be clear on that day.

To imagine rejecting Christ's atonement is beyond comprehension for me, and the last thing I would ever give up in life.

 

[civic]

I'm not sure how you ever got off the path, but I'm glad my hands will be clear on that day.

To imagine rejecting Christ's atonement is beyond comprehension for me, and the last thing I would ever give up in life.

I don’t reject Christs atonement for my sins as per Jesus own teaching it was for the forgiveness of sins, a substitution, a ransom , the Passover.

I reject the unbiblical and heretical view of PSA which divides/ separates the Tri- Unity of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit with anger, retribution, retaliation, anger, wrath, vengeance with the Father towards the Son.

I’m a biblicist , a real Trinitarian who upholds the integrity and goodness of God not pitting the Godhead against each other with PSA and its dysfunctional ideas about the Godhead. It’s a theology of man which is foolishness, a wisdom of the world having men’s ears tickled.

 

[Johann]

I'm not sure how you ever got off the path, but I'm glad my hands will be clear on that day.

To imagine rejecting Christ's atonement is beyond comprehension for me, and the last thing I would ever give up in life.

Leave him be @Dizerner-- he is not practicing what he is preaching.

J.

 

[civic]

Leave him be @Dizerner-- he is not practicing what he is preaching.

J.

This is the same opposition I received from the Calvinists on the old forum in 2021 and at that time when the thread started I was still a Calvinist but rejected PSA which in turn led me out of Calvinism. You are no different than they are in their theology about God. Like them you are afraid to discuss the Tri-Unity which cannot be broken but which PSA breaks and divides the Father/ Son relationship

 

[civic]

Leave him be @Dizerner-- he is not practicing what he is preaching.

J.

Im not please elaborate ?

 

[Johann]

This is the sane opposition I received from the Calvinists on the old forum in 2021 and at that time when the thread started I was still a Calvinist but rejected PSA which in turn led me out of Calvinism. You are no different than they are in their theology about God. Like them you are afraid to discuss the Tri-Unity which cannot be broken but which PSA breaks and divides the Father/ Son relationship

It seems you are intent on making this very personal.

I have observed the ongoing dispute between you and @Dizerner for some time now.

You appeal to the "golden rule," yet you do not seem to follow your own advice.

If you are struggling with anger, it might be wise to step back for a while and practice what you preach.


J.

 

[civic]

It seems you are intent on making this very personal.

I have observed the ongoing dispute between you and @Dizerner for some time now.

You appeal to the "golden rule," yet you do not seem to follow your own advice.

If you are struggling with anger, it might be wise to step back for a while and practice what you preach.


J.

No that’s not the issue as he and I agree on way more things in theology than we disagree. PSA is one of those things like he and Calvinists have in common where they make it an essential doctrine and equate it with the gospel. That’s the issue not what you are saying.

 

[civic]

It seems you are intent on making this very personal.

I have observed the ongoing dispute between you and @Dizerner for some time now.

You appeal to the "golden rule," yet you do not seem to follow your own advice.

If you are struggling with anger, it might be wise to step back for a while and practice what you preach.


J.

This topic was the biggest thread the old forum most of us here were on where I started this topic. Since then most posters have left that forum and 2 of us started our own forums. Here is that thread and since then I have much more research and study time on the topic that is on the OP here on BAM. @TomL @TibiasDad @praise_yeshua @Administrator @Predestined @Presby02 @Bob Carabbio @Rockson @JoshebB @Joe @PeanutGallery @sethproton and many others will remember.

Did Jesus bear Gods wrath and was He forsaken ?

Psalm 22 My God, my God, why have You forsaken me? Far from my deliverance are the words of my [c]groaning. 2 O my God, I cry by day, but You do not answer; And by night, but I have no rest. 3 Yet You are holy, O You who are enthroned upon the praises of Israel. 4 In You our fathers trusted...

forums.carm.org

 

[Administrator]

This topic was the biggest Thread the old forum most of us here were on where I started this topic. Since then most posters have left that forum and 2 of us started our own forums. Here is that thread and since then I have much more research and study time on the topic that is on the OP here on BAM. @TomL @TibiasDad @praise_yeshua @Administrator @Predestined @Presby02 @Bob Carabbio @Rockson @JoshebB @Joe @PeanutGallery @sethproton and many others will remember.

Did Jesus bear Gods wrath and was He forsaken ?

Psalm 22 My God, my God, why have You forsaken me? Far from my deliverance are the words of my [c]groaning. 2 O my God, I cry by day, but You do not answer; And by night, but I have no rest. 3 Yet You are holy, O You who are enthroned upon the praises of Israel. 4 In You our fathers trusted...

forums.carm.org

The ole Monumental thread, love it.

 

[Johann]

The ole Monumental thread, love it.

The reality, @Administrator, is that I have conducted my own careful research and have studied Isaiah 53 along with other relevant Scriptures.
Based on that study, I have come to the firm conclusion that Penal Substitutionary Atonement (PSA) is indeed biblical.

And yet, here we are - at a stalemate.

If I so much as mention PSA, I am immediately labeled either a Calvinist or accused of promoting a different gospel.

It is quite strange, and frankly troubling, that I should be placed under scrutiny simply for standing by what I sincerely believe Scripture teaches.

Shalom.

J.

 

[Administrator]

The reality, @Administrator, is that I have conducted my own careful research and have studied Isaiah 53 along with other relevant Scriptures.
Based on that study, I have come to the firm conclusion that Penal Substitutionary Atonement (PSA) is indeed biblical.

And yet, here we are - at a stalemate.

If I so much as mention PSA, I am immediately labeled either a Calvinist or accused of promoting a different gospel.

It is quite strange, and frankly troubling, that I should be placed under scrutiny simply for standing by what I sincerely believe Scripture teaches.

Shalom.

J.

Sorry to hear that. Don't feel bad about posting what you believe.

 

[civic]

The reality, @Administrator, is that I have conducted my own careful research and have studied Isaiah 53 along with other relevant Scriptures.
Based on that study, I have come to the firm conclusion that Penal Substitutionary Atonement (PSA) is indeed biblical.

And yet, here we are - at a stalemate.

If I so much as mention PSA, I am immediately labeled either a Calvinist or accused of promoting a different gospel.

It is quite strange, and frankly troubling, that I should be placed under scrutiny simply for standing by what I sincerely believe Scripture teaches.

Shalom.

J.

Here is the problem since PSA is the most recent “ theory “ of the atonement that was not firmed until after the reformation. Since most Calvinists and some non Calvinists like @Dizerner equate PSA with the gospel , making it equal to the gospel then they are in fact saying there was not gospel until the reformation and making it essential to salvation. That’s another gospel as per Paul in Galatians 1:6-10. PSA has nothing to do with the gospel since Jesus and the Apostles never taught PSA. There is no wrath, anger, vengeance, retribution, retaliation from the Father to the Son as taught by Jesus and the Apostles. No separation of the Father/ Son eternal relationship based upon love and equality. The Tr-Unity was never broken for even a millisecond. PSA pits the Father against the Son which is unbiblical.

 

[Johann]

Here is the problem since PSA is the most recent “ theory “ of the atonement that was not firmed until after the reformation. Since most Calvinists and some non Calvinists like @Dizerner equate PSA with the gospel , making it equal to the gospel then they are in fact saying there was not gospel until the reformation and making it essential to salvation. That’s another gospel as per Paul in Galatians 1:6-10. PSA has nothing to do with the gospel since Jesus and the Apostles never taught PSA. There is no wrath, anger, vengeance, retribution, retaliation from the Father to the Son as taught by Jesus and the Apostles. No separation of the Father/ Son eternal relationship based upon love and equality. The Tr-Unity was never broken for even a millisecond. PSA pits the Father against the Son which is unbiblical.

Are you trying to convince yourself, or are you attempting to impose upon me what I must believe as truth?


J.

 

[Administrator]

Take it here and debate PSA.

Thread 'My full defense of PSA'

Jan 2, 2025

I posted much of this before but it's all over in different places and hard to find, so here is my summary of defense for PSA.


ALL other theories of atonement, and I do mean ALL, can only have meaning if derived from the ideas of sin and its punishment. WHY are we even in this mess? Why does God have to FIX anything at all? What is it God is even fixing? Without a thorough understanding of what sin and its punishment entails. you are lost in the water, you are floundering. The ONLY reason that makes any sense for God to become a man and die, to save the world, forgive sins, defeat death...

• Dizerner
• Replies: 110
• Forum: Penal Substitutionary Atonement

•