It is not a question of either/or. God is a loving, merciful, just, wrathful, vengeful God.
Stranger
The Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement
- Thread starter John Caldwell
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
It is not a question of either/or. God is a loving, merciful, just, wrathful, vengeful God.
Stranger
Why do you believe that Jesus experienced the "second death" (what Scripture calls death and Hades being cast into the Lake of Fire or the "outter darkness" prepared for Satan)?
God told Adam that if he disobeyed he would surely die (on that day "dying you shall die"). Physical death is a consequence of sin. But the "second death" is a judgment under Christ.
Are there any passages that say Jesus died a second death or is this something theorized? If the former, what are they? If the latter, is this not sandy ground upon which to build?
Jesus took onto Himself the iniquity of us all. In other words Jesus exposed our iniquity by how we treated Him that knew no sin and loved us into existence.
So the idea can be very easily reversed to sound like Jesus was used by God to bear our sins.
No, He bore our sins because that is how we treated Him. He bore with us to show us our iniquity. So we should humble ourselves, realizing the iniquity that is in us...in order to depart from that which crucified Jesus. By His stripes we should be healed from our sinful and prideful attitudes.
But then enter religion...
S, there's more than one atonement theory.
I'm saying I don't care for the Penal Substitution Theory...
There's not much to debate...
If that's the one you like most...so be it.
It does make God sound like those primitive people that would sacrifice persons
and which the Hebrews did not.
I think more of God.
I like to believe we're satisfying His JUSTICE instead...
which would be the Satisfaction Theory.
Are we in bondage to God? Or the devil? The devil wants his due...and as long as we live for ourselves, we are his. God cannot depart from His holiness to accommodate sinners. So we need to be rescued. We are the ones who are bondage to our own instincts, sins and nature. What is to be satisfied is that we can be disconnected from the devil by dying in Christ. We can be separated (divorced) from our old "husband" by dying. Therefore we are no longer debtors to the flesh to fulfill it's lusts.
The presence of Jesus in the world is a scandal. How can God take on flesh? How can we treat Him so badly?
So we who believe forsake our lives of bondage and turn to the saviour of all mankind. In Him is newness of life. In Him is redemption and liberation.
Actually I have never head of any such theory. My understanding of the 'atonement' comes Bible studies and commentary helps.
This is why I said it is not either/or, irregardless of what theory one may hold to. If any makes it either/or, then I believe they are mistaken.
Stranger
Are you aware that you're describing the Ransom Theory?
This is a theory that states we are held in bondage and a ransom must be paid.
Some theologians believe it is God that must be paid and some believe it is satan that must be paid.
I don't care for the idea that God owes satan anything...so I'd go with the ransom being paid to God.
This is one of the earliest theories. Most believe that it's the devil that is being paid off since Adam sold us into bondage to satan. Jesus paid off this debt by dying and returning to life...thus freeing us from the fear of death and showing satan that we will live even after death and will not be bound by him.
OK.
But this is why I say that ONLY the bible does not lead us everywhere.
There are at least 7 theories of the atonement.
They are all biblical.
They all have some part of the atonement in them.
I can't think of one that has everything all together because they are all
a little different from each other.
There is no right or wrong atonement due to this reason.
It's just a matter of which one you agree with most.
This is a good link to start a study on them:
7 Theories of the Atonement Summarized - Stephen D Morrison
I appreciate the link but I am quite comfortable in my understanding of the atonement at this time, which I believe to be Biblical.
Stranger
Hi Justbyfaith,
We do not have to hold systems of beliefs to be influenced by belief systems. Probably the strongest advocate of Penal Substitution Theory was John Wesley.
The issue is not the word “propitiation” which does indeed means the appeasement or turning of wrath. I am not going to get into the debate over whether the word should be translated “propitiation” or “expiation” because I believe propitiation fits. Scripture tells us that by Christ’s work we escape the wrath to come – which points to a propitiation.
This does not mean that Penal Substitution Theory is correct as all theories believe that the wrath directed towards us is propitiated.
God demonstrated his righteousness at that present time that God would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. But the question is why do you believe that the passages before this to say that God punished Christ to satisfy the demands of divine justice when the actual text of Scripture does not?
We can almost make any verse substantiate any idea. It becomes much more difficult, however, when we try to divorce our presuppositions from our interpretations and we start with Scripture.
Are you aware that Scripture refers to Christ as God’s “Righteous”? Are you also aware that Scripture explains that God will not condemn the righteous? These are not passages we need to reconcile with our theology but passages that should form the substance of what we believe.
The faithfulness God showed to Christ on the cross is the faithfulness God shows to us who are “in Christ”. God will deliver us through death unto an everlasting life.
Last edited:
Hi John,
This is how I think also. I think of Jesus as our Ark. God judges humanity, but In Christ, we survive that judgment, just like Noah survived the flood.
But I fail to see the difference. God judges sin. If we are not In Christ, we will receive the condemnation for our sins. If we are In Christ, then Jesus' death is mine also, and being in Him, I can survive it.
And why must I die? God said . . . the soul that sins shall die. I've sinned, therefore I must die. But my death would destroy me, I cannot survive death. But in Christ, I've been crucified with Christ, yet I live, yet not I, but Christ lives in me.
I still see this as substitutionary. He died in my place, so I can die in Him, and survive my death.
Clear as mud?
Much love!
Isaiah 53
10 Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand.
11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.
And therefore the need for an intercessor. For there is no forgiveness of sin without the shedding of blood. His shed blood was Required for us to be forgiven.
That's why it pleased the Lord to bruise Him, for when is soul is made an offering for sin, he will see his seed.
Jesus had to die as only by the shedding of His blood could mankind be forgiven. So God wanted that. He loved the world, so He sent His Son to take our place in death, that His blood, not mine, could be what brings me forgiveness.
Nonsense. Who says that but you? Grace to sin? Of course not.
Much love!
He says that this is what others say, but the only one I see using those words is him, in his empty accusations.
Much love!
You can call it *retributive* justice but I would prefer to call it divine justice. And there is no avoiding this without perverting the truth. Human beings cannot possibly understand what a great offence it is to God (who is absolutely holy and righteous) when sins are committed.
But Noah's Flood makes it perfectly clear that divine justice required the total destruction of all living creatures because sin and wickedness on the earth had exceeded any allowance by God. And in the future the Tribulation and Great Tribulation will be periods of God's wrath being poured out upon the unbelieving, the ungodly, the wicked, and the enemies of Christ.
I'm sure he will.
In the meantime you should reread his post and get ready for his reply.
Thought I was doing you a favor...
Guess not.
Here we are at the discussed post...
There are MANY on these forums that state that GRACE allows one to live as they want and STILL be saved.
Apparently you haven't run across them yet.
But you will.
Similar threads
