Should we call it fantasy rather than nonsense? Adam and Eve made deliberate choices in violation of God's commandment. They kidnapped themselves. Satan just helped them along.
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!
Were Adam and Eve without sin?
Did something happen to cause them to sin?
Did God determine from the beginning that there would be a solution to this problem?
What was the problem?
What was the solution?
Are there different facets to that solution?
Are we slaves to satan before being born again?
Do we become free of his bondage once we are saved?
Does all of the above sound like nonsense or fantasy to you?
I think that the Christus Victor theory is the closest to the focus of Scripture. Someone once described the Atonement as a faceted diamond with many aspects to explore. But for the most part Scripture (from Genesis to Revelation) seems to focus on Christ and His victory over the powers of sin and death that has held mankind in bondage.
I agree.
I also like the Moral Influence theory...although it's a bit "mild" for what happened to Jesus...but it's still good for humanity's sake.
Amen. He came to model the victorious walk in these mortal bodies...so that when we enter into Him we put on His perfected humanity in the form of grace. So we are to walk IN Him. (this is not spoken of in our time though.)
That is incorrect. There could have been no victory unless the penalty for sins had been paid in full. And the reason for that penalty was the absolute righteousness of God, and His just demand that the penalty be paid in full. Only then could there be any offer of redemption.
HEBREWS 10
4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.
5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:
6 In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure.
7 Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.
8 Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law;
9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.
10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
The Law of Moses made it crystal clear that (1) the wages of sin is death and (2) without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins. But the blood of bulls and goats could not take away sins. They covered sins for a season. Indeed the Law of Moses made capital punishment (the death of the perpetrator) the penalty for many sins. And this was true for Israel for about 1500 years.
The above is not to deny that Christ did indeed conquer sin, death, Hades, Hell, and Satan at the Cross. But before that He cried in anguish "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" And suffered as no man has suffered, while He made His soul (actually body, soul, and spirit) an offering for sin.
We don't need rival *theories of atonement*. Christians simply need the full picture, and God has revealed it to us in Scripture.
Last edited:
As long as you understand that the forgiveness of sins comes through the blood of Christ; and appropriate that to yourself, I think that you will be ok.
But it seems to make sense to me that, since forgiveness is through the blood of Christ, that His blood might have been shed instead of ours, in that He took the penalty for our sins. That His blood is the payment of our fine that we owed to the Lord over our wrongdoing; or that His death satisfied the death penalty that we owed to God for sinning (for that the wages of sin is death).
I don't think that we can reject this train of thought without denying the gospel itself.
We were without a doubt purchased with the precious blood of Christ.
I think we have to be careful in wording (something in which you may detect a certain amount of deficiency when you read my posts). I agree that Christ suffered the fate we deserve and that Christ took the penalty for our sins.
I think we have to be careful when we start looking at Christ's death as a payment to Satan or God. Strictly speaking, Christ's death is not a payment received but a ransom paid; a purchase accomplished; an obedience. The difference is Scripture focuses on the Sacrifice for us while Penal Substitution Theory focuses on a payment received by the Father for our sin debt.
In a way, the Theory is a "back door" to God as it seeks to define redemption from the standpoint of the Father rather than directly through Christ. I do not think that Scripture approaches from that angle.
It is interesting to look at these differences.
There is definitely an aspect in which redemption is seen from the perspective of the Father.
I do believe that Romans 3:25-26 show that justice is satisfied in the Cross; and that God is able to show mercy, and also be perfectly just, because of the Cross.
I do believe that Romans 3:25-26 show that justice is satisfied in the Cross; and that God is able to show mercy, and also be perfectly just, because of the Cross.
Last edited:
to be correct they didn't kill him .he gave up the ghost the payment was made once and once only
Similar threads
