civic
Active Member
empty rhetoric
The Nature of God in the Atonement
- Thread starter civic
- Start date
Note I have not denied the need for blood in the making of atonement.
It is the idea that Christ was no longer pure, that God poured out his wrath upon him, and forsook him, thus causing a separation within the godhead where Christ became anathema which I find most troubling
but it is what PSA requires
civic
Active Member
Exactly
Indeed, he has come across somewhat belligerently
Johann
Active Member
First, your assertion that Penal Substitutionary Atonement (PSA) requires "double imputation" is partially correct but badly misunderstood.
in classic PSA, Christ’s righteousness is imputed to the believer, and the believer’s guilt is imputed to Christ (2 Corinthians 5:21 — “He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him”),
but this concept is not an invention of later theology - it is rooted in the logic of substitutionary sacrifices seen throughout the Torah (cf. Leviticus 16:21-22), where sins were transferred symbolically onto an animal, and the animal bore the consequences on behalf of the sinner.
Second, your claim that PSA requires that God must be "propitiated toward man" misunderstands biblical propitiation:
the New Testament clearly teaches propitiation (ἱλαστήριον, hilastērion) see Romans 3:25 (“whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith”)
but this is not about a wrathful God being "appeased" like pagan deities;
rather, it is about the righteous satisfaction of divine justice, ensuring that God remains both “just and the justifier” (Romans 3:26), perfectly balancing mercy and justice without compromising His character.
Third, your statement that God is "unable to forgive sin instead requiring payment" misrepresents both divine forgiveness and the atonement:
God’s forgiveness has always been costly, not because of any internal deficiency in God, but because sin creates a real moral debt that cannot be ignored if God’s holiness and justice are to remain true;
Hebrews 9:22 affirms, “without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness,” Costly, correct?
and even in the Old Testament sacrificial system (Leviticus 17:11), forgiveness was connected to atonement through blood, which pointed typologically toward Christ’s ultimate sacrifice.
Fourth, the idea that God needs "to inflict punishment" is framed in an overly humanized and crude way that the Bible itself does not use--
rather, Scripture teaches that divine punishment is not arbitrary violence but the necessary consequence of sin's moral gravity;
Isaiah 53:5 says explicitly, “He was pierced for our transgressions, crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace,” using strong causal language (the Hebrew וְהוּא מְחֹלָל, vehu meholal, "he was pierced") showing deliberate divine action tied to our sins, not random infliction.
Fifth, Your accusation that PSA demands "doling out wrath even if on an innocent party" misunderstands the voluntary nature of Christ’s work:
Christ is not a passive victim, but the willing participant ("No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of My own accord" — John 10:18);
He is the only truly qualified substitute, for being sinless He alone could bear the sins of the guilty in a way that upholds justice and accomplishes redemption, a truth prophesied already in Isaiah 53:11 — "by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant, make many to be accounted righteous, and he shall bear their iniquities."
Therefore, every component of your original statement either misrepresents or selectively distorts the biblical testimony regarding the nature and necessity of Christ’s atoning work according to PSA;
PSA does not caricature God as demanding arbitrary punishment but reveals God as both infinitely holy and infinitely merciful, upholding His justice while simultaneously extending saving grace through the willing, substitutionary suffering of the Messiah.
Shalom.
J.
Good brother-that's a start.
J.
This is merely your assumption
Still has a startling effect on the trinity
You think God becoming an anathema to God is consistent with a Christian belief in the unity of the trinity?
That right there is double imputation and BTW the animal was not seen as the guilty party
The scapegoat which had the sins laid upon it was not sacrificed and carried the sins away from the community
Romans 3:25 (LEB) — 25 whom God made publicly available as the mercy seat through faith in his blood, for a demonstration of his righteousness, because of the passing over of previously committed sins,
you do realize that the word hilastērion has been interpreted variously.
At Romans 3:25, Jesus is said to have been put forth as a propitiation—a hilastērion. This term can be translated as either "propitiation" or "expiation," meaning to extinguish guilt. It was also translated as the name of the cover of the Ark of the Covenant: the mercy seat (Heb 9:5), the place in the Holy of Holies that was sprinkled with the blood of ritual purification.
Thus, we understand that God had set forth Jesus to be a place of purification and restoration through faith in His blood—a symbol of life—to declare His righteousness for the remission of sins. The term "remission" comes from paresis, meaning "passing over," "letting pass," "neglecting," or "disregarding." Interestingly, "remission" is also the medical term we use today to describe a temporary or permanent decrease or disappearance of the signs and symptoms of a disease.
Here, Paul is saying that God declared His righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God. As the early church father Gregory of Nazianzus famously noted, "That which He has not assumed, He has not healed; but that which is united to His Godhead is also saved." The early church strongly emphasized the incarnation. For the early church, their Christology was their soteriology—their understanding of the doctrine of salvation was intrinsically tied to the incarnation, person, and work of Christ.
Ambrosiaster, another early church father, noted that we have been set free by Jesus' death so that God might reveal Him and condemn death through His passion. This was in order to make His promise clear, by which He set us free from sin as He had promised beforehand. When He fulfilled His promise, He showed Himself to be righteous. God understood the purpose of His loving-kindness, through which He determined to rescue sinners—both those living on earth and those who were held bound in hell (most likely the underworld or the place commonly referred to as Hades or Sheol).
Nevertheless, Ambrosiaster adds that God waited a very long time for both. He nullified the sentence by which it seemed just that everyone should be condemned, to demonstrate that, long ago, He had decided to liberate the human race, as He promised through Jeremiah the prophet, saying, "I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more." Clearly, there is a strong emphasis on the forgiveness of God and the nullification of the sentence (meaning condemnation to death), all motivated by God's great loving-kindness.
Also commenting on this passage in Romans 3, John Chrysostom noted that Paul calls the redemption an "expiation," to show that if the Old Testament type had such power, how much more did its New Testament counterpart. To show God's righteousness is akin to declaring His riches—not only for Him to be rich Himself, but also to make others rich.
Finally, the Paschal Troparion was sung at the end of the Easter Vigil in the late ancient Jerusalem Eastern liturgy, and it says, "Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death, and upon those in the tombs bestowing life." The early church saw the work of Christ as being motivated by love: destroying death by death, offering us life, and honoring His promise to deliver mankind.
40.12 ἱλασμός, οῦ m; ἱλαστήριονa, ου n: the means by which sins are forgiven—‘the means of forgiveness, expiation.’
ἱλασμός: αὐτὸς ἱλασμός ἐστιν περὶ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν ‘(Christ) himself is the means by which our sins are forgiven’ 1 Jn 2:2.
ἱλαστήριονa: ὃν προέθετο ὁ θεὸς ἱλαστήριον διὰ τῆς πίστεως ‘God offered him as a means by which sins are forgiven through faith (in him)’ Ro 3:25.
Though some traditional translations render ἱλαστήριον as ‘propitiation,’ this involves a wrong interpretation of the term in question. Propitiation is essentially a process by which one does a favor to a person in order to make him or her favorably disposed, but in the NT God is never the object of propitiation since he is already on the side of people. ἱλασμός and ἱλαστήριονa denote the means of forgiveness and not propitiation.1
1 Johannes P. Louw and Eugene Albert Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains (New York: United Bible Societies, 1996), 503.
Propitiation refers to the act of appeasing, pacifying, or rendering one favorable and well-disposed. The term traces its origins to the late 14th century, with the earliest recorded form in English being propitiatorum, translated as the "mercy seat" or "place of atonement." This term dates back to around 1200 AD and is associated with translating the Greek word hilististerion, meaning "that which propitiates or appeases." By the 1550s, the idea of a propitiatory gift or offering had emerged.
When examining various atonement theories or models for Christ's work, it is essential to reflect as Bereans on scripture. Does it portray God as needing to be placated, pacified, and rendered favorable? Or was God motivated by mercy and love to redeem and forgive humanity? Many Old Testament passages affirm that God was not in need of being appeased or made well-disposed—He was already gracious, compassionate, and merciful, driven by His love to restore and redeem His wayward people.
8.2. The Cross of Christ: The Propitiation of God, or the Redemption of Sinners?
8.2.1. The Penal Substitution View
Our first question is this: Does Paul frame the cross by God’s wrath and depict Jesus’ death as propitiation of God? As Nicole and Dever each tell the salvation story of the cross, the “main problem” to be dealt with at the cross is the wrath of God; and thus the primary purpose and effect of Jesus’ suffering and death is the propitiation of God’s wrath. Penal substitution thinking thus frames the cross of Christ by the question of the wrath of God, so that the divine-wrath-propitiating cross of Christ is the logical answer to this question: How can sinful humanity under divine wrath be saved?
8.2.2. What Paul Says in Romans
By contrast, Paul frames the cross, not by the problem of God’s wrath, but by the demonstration of God’s righteousness/justice through covenant faithfulness. And as Paul tells the story, at the heart of God’s saving purpose through the cross of Christ is the gracious redemption of sinners, not the propitiation of wrath. We have arranged and highlighted Rom 3:21–26 below (generally on the basis of the NRSV) to illustrate this point:
(A) But now, apart from law, the justice of God has been disclosed and is attested by the law and the prophets, the justice of God through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ for all who believe.
(B) For there is no distinction, since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God;
(A) they are now justified
(C) by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God presented a mercy seat through faithfulness in his blood.
(A) He did this to show his justice,
(B) because in his forbearance he had passed over the sins previously committed;
(A) it was to prove at the present time that he himself is just and that he justifies the one who has the faith of Jesus.
This concentric contour makes visible the following pattern of Paul’s story:
justice/sin/justice/grace-redemption/justice/sin/justice.
And this pattern shows us four things.
First, at the center of Paul’s story stands the cross of Christ (C), by which God graciously presents Jesus as “mercy seat” to fulfill God’s purpose of redeeming humanity from sin. Although Paul does not mention the cross itself, the references of “through faithfulness” and “in his blood” clearly allude to Jesus’ faithfulness-unto-death. Second, the main frame (A) of Paul’s story, which frames not only the gracious gift of God through the redeeming cross of Christ (C) but also the sins of humanity (B), is God’s faithful action in Christ to demonstrate covenant righteousness/justice. God demonstrates righteousness/justice in faithfulness to the covenant by graciously justifying all those having faith. Third, the main frame (God’s justice) and center (God’s grace and Christ’s cross) of Paul’s story are directly connected. The sinner-redeeming cross of Christ is none other than the faithful demonstration of God’s covenant righteousness/justice and gracious gift to humanity. The cross of Christ thus reveals that the justice of God is redemptive in purpose and gracious in means: God’s justice accomplishes redemption of sinners; and God accomplishes redemptive justice by grace. Again, note the contrast with penal substitution, according to which God’s justice accomplishes propitiation of God by satisfying retribution for sin on Jesus. And fourth, in Paul’s story, God’s faithful demonstration of covenant justice/righteousness (A) through the cross of Christ (C) frames, not the problem of God’s wrath, but the situation of human sin (B). The redemptive purpose of the cross of Christ is thus to redress and rectify the situation of human sin (justification), not to resolve the problem of divine wrath (propitiation).
Paul thus depicts the covenant justice of God as being demonstrated through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ, for the sake of redemption of humanity from sin, by means of God’s grace manifest in the cross of Christ. Insofar as we regard Rom 3:21–26 as the heart of Paul’s gospel of salvation, then the “heart of the heart” of the story of the cross, according to Paul, is God’s gracious redemption in Christ Jesus (v. 24). Paul, then, does not depict the cross of Christ as the propitiation of God, but as the fulfillment of God’s redemptive purpose by grace through the faithfulness of Jesus.1
1 Darrin W. Snyder Belousek, Atonement, Justice, and Peace: The Message of the Cross and the Mission of the Church (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2012), 129–131.
The second problem is the meaning of hilastērion, which creates two further problems: (a) is it a masc. sg. adj. (modifying the rel. pron. hon) or a neut. sg. noun (in apposition to the rel. pron. hon)? If it is understood as an adj., as in the LXX of Exod 25:17 (hilastērion epithema, “expiating cover”); Josephus, Ant. 16.7.1 §182 (hilastērion mnēma, “expiating monument”); or possibly 4 Macc 17:22 (if tou hilastēriou thanatou autōn, “their expiating death,” is the correct reading there), it would mean that God “(presented Christ) as expiatory.” But if it is taken as a noun, it would mean “as a means of expiating (sin)” or “as a place of expiating (sin).” In this regard, the difference in meaning is only slight; either explanation, adjective or noun, is possible and acceptable.
More crucial, however, is (b) the meaning of the word itself. Because hilastērion is related to the vb. hilaskesthai, “appease, propitiate,” often used of appeasing angry gods in classical and hellenistic Greek literature (see Introduction, section IX.B), many commentators think of hilastērion in this sense: God has set forth Christ as “appeasing” or as “a means of appeasing” his own anger or wrath. Thus for Cranfield (Romans, 201, 214–18), Paul identifies Christ as a “propitiatory sacrifice.” See also Morris, “The Meaning”; Lohse, Märtyrer, 149–54. But this interpretation of hilastērion finds no support in the Greek OT or in Pauline usage elsewhere. (Part of the problem is that Paul uses the word only here; cf. Heb 9:5, where it also is found. Here it is part of the adopted pre-Pauline formula.) Consequently, hilastērion is better understood against the background of the LXX usage of the Day of Atonement rite, so it would depict Christ as the new “mercy seat,” presented or displayed by the Father as a means of expiating or wiping away the sins of humanity, indeed, as the place of the presence of God, of his revelation, and of his expiating power.
It is, however, sometimes thought that this specific meaning of hilastērion as “mercy seat” would have escaped the comprehension of Paul’s readers. For if the vb. proetheto means “displayed publicly,” would not that meaning militate against the sense of Christ as hilastērion, hidden in the Holy of Holies of old? For that reason, some commentators would take the word only in a generic sense, as would be known, for instance, from a Cos inscription to Augustus: ho damos hyper [t]as tou Autokratoros Kaisaros, theou huiou, Sebastou, sōtērias theois hilastērion, “The people (offer this) as an oblation to the gods for the salvation of Imperator Caesar Augustus, son of God” (W. R. Paton and E. L. Hicks, The Inscriptions of Cos [Oxford: Clarendon, 1891; repr. Hildesheim and New York: Olms, 1990], §81; see also §347); cf. Dio Chrysostom, Orationes 11.121; TDNT 3.320. Schlier (Römerbrief, 110–11) prefers this generic sense; yet he still translates the word as “Sühne” or “Sühnemittel.”
The Christians of Rome, to whom Paul is writing, almost certainly would have read the OT in Greek, and the LXX use of hilastērion would not have been unknown to them. Again, we must not deprive Paul of the possibility of using “mercy seat” in a symbolic or figurative sense, which is precisely what he seems to be doing, even though he insists as well on the public display of Christ crucified.1
1 Joseph A. Fitzmyer S.J., Romans: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (vol. 33; Anchor Yale Bible; New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 2008), 349–350.
civic
Active Member
There is no such thing as divine justice in the atonement it’s a made up phrase used by PSA advocates. It’s 100% unbiblical . It’s the exact opposite of what happened at Calvary.
It was injustice as I have demonstrated by the murder of wicked men to the innocent, sinless Son of God
Next fallacy
hope this helps !!!
civic
Active Member
It is hard to see how a theory which demands payment can be stated to be teaching forgiveness
I posted a number of verses where we were told to be forgiving
Matthew 6:12–13 (KJV 1900) — 12 And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors. 13 And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.
Luke 11:4 (LEB) — 4 And forgive us our sins, for we ourselves also forgive everyone who is indebted to us. And do not lead us into temptation.”
Mark 11:25 (LEB) — 25 And whenever you stand praying, if you have anything against anyone, forgive him, so that your Father who is in heaven will also forgive you your sins.”
Are we justified in first asking for payment
was payment seen in this passage
Matthew 18:23–35 (LEB) — 23 “For this reason the kingdom of heaven may be compared to a man—a king—who wanted to settle accounts with his slaves. 24 And when he began to settle them, someone was brought to him who owed ten thousand talents. 25 And because he did not have enough to repay it, the master ordered him to be sold, and his wife and his children and everything that he had, and to be repaid. 26 Then the slave threw himself to the ground and began to do obeisance to him, saying, ‘Be patient with me, and I will pay back everything to you!’ 27 So the master of that slave, because he had compassion, released him and forgave him the loan. 28 But that slave went out and found one of his fellow slaves who owed him a hundred denarii, and taking hold of him, he began to choke him, saying, ‘Pay back everything that you owe!’ 29 Then his fellow slave threw himself to the ground and began to implore him, saying, ‘Be patient with me and I will repay you!’ 30 But he did not want to, but rather he went and threw him into prison until he would repay what was owed. 31 So when his fellow slaves saw what had happened, they were extremely distressed, and went and reported to their master everything that had happened. 32 Then his master summoned him and said to him, ‘Wicked slave! I forgave you all that debt because you implored me! 33 Should you not also have shown mercy to your fellow slave as I also showed mercy to you?’ 34 And because he was angry, his master handed him over to the merciless jailers until he would repay everything that was owed. 35 So also my heavenly Father will do to you, unless each of you forgives his brother from your hearts!”
I agree blood needed to be shedd but was that really a payment to God or God freely providing that which was needed
Leviticus 17:11 (KJV 1900) — 11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.
There is a lot in it.Amen
Amen !!!
civic
Active Member
Yes numerous times in the NT Jesus forgives without payment. The same with God many times in the OT.
The PSA doctrine is unbiblical and a failure. The errors are easily exposed and corrected.
That is a feature of PSA. God cannot forgive sin unless he inflicts punishment and exhausts his wrath upon Christ.
I do not deny the voluntary nature of Christ's work I affirm it.
PSA, however, has God requiring it being unable to forgive sin without payment and having a need to express wrath even if it is upon his innocent son.
civic
Active Member
yes a heretical and unbiblical view of the atonement.
Johann
Active Member
Your understanding of "double imputation" seems to be rooted in a Calvinistic framework, while my understanding is based on a scriptural perspective, as I will demonstrate.
First, your statement "that right there is double imputation" misunderstands the biblical doctrine:
Double imputation refers to two distinct actions: (1) the imputation (Hebrew: חָשַׁב ḥāshav, "to reckon, credit"; see Genesis 15:6) of human sin to Christ (2 Corinthians 5:21) and (2) the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to believers (Romans 4:5-6; Philippians 3:9). That's how I see "double imputation" as per Scripture.
The Levitical rituals- including the scapegoat - typify only one side: the bearing away of sins, not the positive reckoning of righteousness to the sinner.
Thus, while sin is symbolically transferred, double imputation (both removal of sin and the gift of righteousness) is fully revealed only in Christ.
Second, your objection "the animal was not seen as the guilty party" is partially true but misses the point of substitution.
In the Levitical system, the animal is not morally guilty (animals have no moral agency),
but it functions as a legal substitute, bearing the consequences of human sin.
The key verb for transfer in Leviticus 16:21 is וְנָתַן (wĕnātan, from נָתַן nātan, "to give, transfer"),
and the High Priest would "lay" (סָמַךְ sāmakh, "to lean, lay upon") his hands on the scapegoat, confessing (יָדָה yādah, "to acknowledge, confess") the sins of Israel,
thus symbolically transferring their guilt to the animal, who then bears it.
Third, regarding the scapegoat being "not sacrificed and carrying the sins away from the community," this is only partially correct.
Yes, the scapegoat was not slaughtered, but the Hebrew clearly says it "bears" (נָשָׂא nāśāʾ, "to lift, carry, bear") the people's iniquities into a solitary place (Leviticus 16:22).
The wilderness (מִדְבָּר midbar) represents death, curse, and separation - not life or restoration (compare Isaiah 34:13-15).
Thus, although not ritually slaughtered, the scapegoat undergoes a death-in-exile, bearing the people's sin into the realm of judgment and abandonment.
Fourth, the Day of Atonement ceremony is a two-goat system (Leviticus 16:7-10, 15-22):
one goat is slaughtered (שָׁחַט shāḥaṭ, "to kill, slaughter") for sin atonement (כִּפֶּר kippēr, "to atone, cover") and its blood used to cleanse the sanctuary,
the other goat bears (נָשָׂא nāśāʾ) the confessed sins far away, removing them from the camp.
Christ fulfills both aspects:
He is slain for atonement (cf. Isaiah 53:7, "like a lamb that is led to the slaughter"-טָבַח ṭābaḥ, "to slaughter")
and He bears our sins away (1 Peter 2:24, Greek verb ἀναφέρω anapherō, "to bear up, carry away").
Fifth, in New Testament theology, Christ fulfills both dimensions.
He dies to satisfy justice (propitiation, Romans 3:25, Greek ἱλαστήριον hilastērion, "propitiation, mercy seat")
He bears away to cleanse and remove sin (expiation, Hebrews 9:28, προσενεχθεὶς prosenechtheis, "offered up").
Thus, Christ is both the sin-bearing goat and the blood-atoning goat, the full fulfillment of the Levitical type.
The scapegoat typifies sin removal, but this alone does not contradict or refute penal substitution or double imputation, because full biblical atonement (כִּפֶּר kippēr, to cover/make atonement) includes both the satisfaction of divine justice and the removal of sin's pollution.
Both Hebrew terms סָמַךְ (lay hands, transfer guilt) and נָשָׂא (bear away sin) strongly support the substitutionary framework Isaiah 53 and the New Testament affirm.
here is a Quick References for Hebrew Verbs Cited-
נָתַן (nātan) "to give, transfer" Leviticus 16:21
סָמַךְ (sāmakh) "to lean, lay upon" Leviticus 16:21
יָדָה (yādah) "to confess, acknowledge" Leviticus 16:21
נָשָׂא (nāśāʾ) "to bear, carry" Leviticus 16:22
שָׁחַט (shāḥaṭ) "to slaughter, kill" Leviticus 16:15
כִּפֶּר (kippēr) "to atone, cover" Leviticus 16:16
טָבַח (ṭābaḥ) "to slaughter" Isaiah 53:7
Let us rightly divide the word of God with the "little epignosis" that we have.
J.
civic
Active Member
Its incredible to see just how blinding the doctrines created by men can be so blinding to their followers. They are unable to see the other side of the argument and turn a blind eye. Its exactly what unitarians do with the Deity of Christ. Its the exact same mentality, the same presuppositions, the same fallacy.
civic
Active Member
AI no thanks.
