What I believe about the Atonement

[John Caldwell]

What's odd is I don't understand what you see differently other than the idea of punishment, yet you do see the penalty. That makes no sense to me since the words are synonyms and actually contain each other in their respective definitions. I believe we are at an impasse.

When I was saved it was in a free-will theology Baptist church. At the time the idea God could have chosen the elect was heresy in my eyes. It did not make sense to me how God could choose a man and that man still have free choice.

I later held a Calvinistic view. What I saw as error in free-will theology I still see as error. I cannot "unsee" what I have "seen". At the same time my friends who remain free-will oriented simply cannot make sense of my view that everything is preordained. To them it has to mean we are robotic and without true choice.

Nothing I can say or explain will change their view or help them see what I see. Before they can they would have to reexamine their own view. I am at an impasse with them.

Likewise I agree we are at an impasse. We have to know each of us affirms Scripture but we have different interpretations of the same passages. We can share our words but not our understanding.

I will say you may want to consider the differences between "punishment" and "penalty" as they are not synonyms. That may help you to understand how others have viewed the issue.

 

[reformed1689]

I will say you may want to consider the differences between "punishment" and "penalty" as they are not synonyms. That may help you to understand how others have viewed the issue.

Webster's thesaurus disagrees with you lol

 

[John Caldwell]

Webster's thesaurus disagrees with you lol

But Webster's dictionary does not.

Regardless, when dealing with other people we have to learn how they define the words. I define "punishment" as imposing a penalty in retribution for an offensive and "penalty" as disadvantage, loss, or hardship due to some action (Webster's dictionary). The reason is I believe this the same thing being referred to as "wages".

 

[reformed1689]

But Webster's dictionary does not.

Well, actually it does...

But here is what oxford concise says:



penalty

■ noun (plural penalties)
1 a punishment imposed for breaking a law, rule, or contract.


Catherine Soanes and Angus Stevenson, eds., Concise Oxford English Dictionary (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004).

 

[John Caldwell]

Well, actually it does...

But here is what oxford concise says:



penalty

■ noun (plural penalties)
1 a punishment imposed for breaking a law, rule, or contract.


Catherine Soanes and Angus Stevenson, eds., Concise Oxford English Dictionary (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004).

A penalty can be the result of a punishment (Webster's affirms that as well). But it does not necessitate that definition (neither does the Oxford Dictionary). The definition I provided was verbatim (as was yours).

I think when we choose meanings of words we need to explain why (not just that it is a possibility). Most interpretations are linguistically possible.

The reason I do not define "penalty" as being imposed via punishment is because I associate (in this case) the penalty of sin with the "wages" of sin (death). "Consequences" fits with "penalty" and "wages", so I could understand the use of "consequences". But "punishment" seems to imply what may not be there.

 

[historyb]

I told @Steve Owen that I would explain my view of the Atonement. I did not have a chance until now. Below is outlined my view. I know @Steve Owen , @Enoch111 , and certainly @David Taylor (probably a few more) take issue with my position but at least you can see where I do stand (we've been caught up in what I do not believe that I have not articulated what I do believe).

I believe that Christ suffered and died by the will and predetermined plan of God by the hands of wicked men for our sins in order to redeem (or purchase) us and deliver us from the bondage of the powers of sin and death that had enslaved us and that it is through Christ we escape the wrath to come.

I believe that God offered His Son (His Righteous One) as a sin offering for us and that it pleased God to "crush" Him, that He (Christ), who knew no sin was made sin for us. I believe that Christ humbled Himself to obedience even to death on the cross and that He lay down His own life. I believe that Christ is the Propitiation for the sins of the whole world and that it is in Him we escape the wrath to come. He became a curse for us and it is by His stripes (His suffering and death) that we are healed. Christ destroyed the certificate expressed in decrees against us. He has taken it away by nailing it to the cross.

Christ suffered once for sins - the Just for the unjust (this "great exchange") to bring us to God by being put to death in the flesh and by being made alive in the spirit. God Himself took on the burden of our iniquities and gave His own Son as a ransom for us – the Holy One for transgressors; the blameless One for the wicked, the Righteous One for the unrighteous.

I believe that because of the love that God had for us Jesus Christ gave his body for us by the will of God (His body for our bodies and His soul for our souls), that Jesus suffered and died for our sakes, that we might be saved.

I believe that Jesus endured to deliver up His own flesh to corruption that we might be sanctified through the remission of sins which is effected by His blood. He was wounded for our transgressions and bruised for our iniquities: by His stripes we are healed. Christ took a body like our own, one liable to the corruption of death. He surrendered His body to death in place of all, representing mankind as the “second Adam”, and offered it to the Father so that in His death all might die and the law of death be abolished having fulfilled in His body that for which it was appointed. This Christ did that He might turn again to incorruption men who had turned back to corruption and make them alive through death by the appropriation of His body, that is by dying to sin in Him) and by the grace of His resurrection.

I believe that the Father of all wished His Christ for the whole human family to take upon Himself the curses of us all, knowing that after He had suffered and died He would raise Him up. He became a curse on our behalf, was chastised on our behalf, and suffered a penalty He Himself did not owe, but which we owed because of our sins. He became the cause of the forgiveness of our sins because He received death for us and transferred to Himself the beatings, the insults, and the death which were due to us. He drew down upon Himself the appointed curse, being made a curse for us. He made our sins His own and freed us form the bondage of sin and death that has held mankind in slavery by defeating the powers of evil.

Christ not only suffered and died, but by divine love sin was laid upon Him. He has and bears all the sins of man in His body (not that Jesus was a sinner but in the sense that He took these sins upon Himself in order to make satisfaction for them with His own blood). He is the “Second Adam” and the faithful “High Priest” and Redeemer of mankind. I believe that God is just and the justifier of sinners, that this is the righteousness of God manifested not through but apart from the law. I believe that the Father judges no one but has given all judgment to the Son.

This was laid out quite well. My view of the Atonement is called the Recapitulation theory of atonement https://www.theopedia.com/recapitulation-theory-of-atonement.

 

[reformed1689]

A penalty can be the result of a punishment (Webster's affirms that as well). But it does not necessitate that definition (neither does the Oxford Dictionary). The definition I provided was verbatim (as was yours).

I think when we choose meanings of words we need to explain why (not just that it is a possibility). Most interpretations are linguistically possible.

The reason I do not define "penalty" as being imposed via punishment is because I associate (in this case) the penalty of sin with the "wages" of sin (death). "Consequences" fits with "penalty" and "wages", so I could understand the use of "consequences". But "punishment" seems to imply what may not be there.

In this sense, I see punishment and consequences as synonyms as well based on the multiple passages in question. But the kicker is chastisement which is, in fact, a synonym of the punishment as I mentioned previously.

 

[John Caldwell]

This was laid out quite well. My view of the Atonement is called the Recapitulation theory of atonement https://www.theopedia.com/recapitulation-theory-of-atonement.

I appreciate Recapitulation theory as well. This is a very old theory (associated with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus) and has merit. It has a lot in common with my view.

 

[Steve Owen]

Ephesians 2:8-10
For by grace you are saved through faith, and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God; it is not from works, so that no one can boast. For we are his workmanship, having been created in Christ Jesus for good works that God prepared beforehand so we may do them.

OK. This is like pushing treacle uphill, but we'll persevere. How do you square these verses with, say, Exodus 23:7, 'I will not justify the wicked.' How can God 'be just and the justifier of the one who believes in Jesus'? How can He be 'faithful and just to forgive us our sins' if He will not justify the wicked? And how was it that Christ 'died for the ungodly'? What happened at the cross that enabled God to justify the wicked? Your post #6 spoke of the salvation of righteous people who do lots of good deeds; your post #15 spoke of salvation by grace alone through faith alone.

 

[John Caldwell]

In this sense, I see punishment and consequences as synonyms as well based on the multiple passages in question. But the kicker is chastisement which is, in fact, a synonym of the punishment as I mentioned previously.

We have to be very careful when we start relying on English dictionaries and specific translations.

We still get the same disagreement (one of choosing a meaning). The word in the NASB is chastening (which I believe is a good choice for the Hebrew word), and that can but does not necessarily mean punishment. Do we still have to explain our word choices.

The reason I do not believe "chasten" should be translated as "punishment" is the Hebrew word only refers to a punishment twice out of 49 times it is used (excluding this verse...it is used 50 times). So the more common meaning in Scripture is not punishment. While it can mean "punishment" it does not by default.

I also associate it with the Greek passages speaking of Christ "learning obedience" and being "made perfect" by His suffering. When I read the passage I do not see it as indicating a punishment but rather stating what is taught in those other passages associated with Christ's suffering.

 

[John Caldwell]

OK. This is like pushing treacle uphill, but we'll persevere. How do you square these verses with, say, Exodus 23:7, 'I will not justify the wicked.' How can God 'be just and the justifier of the one who believes in Jesus'? How can He be 'faithful and just to forgive us our sins' if He will not justify the wicked? And how was it that Christ 'died for the ungodly'? What happened at the cross that enabled God to justify the wicked? Your post #6 spoke of the salvation of righteous people who do lots of good deeds; your post #15 spoke of salvation by grace alone through faith alone.

Good question, Steve. This is essentially what Nicodemus asked in John 3.

I believe that it is equally an abomination to God to acquit the guilty and to condemn the righteous.

I believe man must die to sin, be crucified with Christ (share in His death and resurrection). In other words, I believe that the men God justifies in Christ are not the same men who stood condemned apart from Him. I believe in the act of being "born again", given a "new heart" and a "new Spirit* and that God puts His Spirit in us. I believe we are made new creations in Christ.

God is both just and the justified of sinners and salvation is the righteousness of God manifested apart from the law as man must be born again.

 

[charity]

OK. This is like pushing treacle uphill, but we'll persevere. How do you square these verses with, say, Exodus 23:7, 'I will not justify the wicked.' How can God 'be just and the justifier of the one who believes in Jesus'? How can He be 'faithful and just to forgive us our sins' if He will not justify the wicked? And how was it that Christ 'died for the ungodly'? What happened at the cross that enabled God to justify the wicked? Your post #6 spoke of the salvation of righteous people who do lots of good deeds; your post #15 spoke of salvation by grace alone through faith alone.

'The wages of sin is death;
but the gift of God is eternal life,
through Jesus Christ our Lord.'
(Rom 6:23)

Hello there,

I have been reading through your conversation, which is largely three-way, but I hope you will not mind my intervention.

Thinking of 'punishment' and 'penalty' my mind went to the verse above (Romans 6:23): which is in the context of man being either the servant of SIN, or of RIGHTEOUSNESS; yes? It is SIN itself (the root) that man in Adam serves: which brings forth fruit unto sin; leading to death. For death is SIN's penalty: unregenerate man simply bears it's fruit (sins) as it's servant; and death therefore has the power to retain him in the grave, his end corruption, i.e., no hope of resurrection life.

In Christ, SIN (the root) no longer has dominion over the believer, because He has died to it, in Christ: therefore neither does it's penalty, death - it cannot hold the believer, it cannot prevent his resurrection to life, in Christ. So the believer has the hope of resurrection out from among the dead, in Christ Jesus his risen Lord.

The penalty was incurred by SIN, and unregenerate man, as SIN's servant, brings forth fruit unto death. However, praise God! God has placed us, 'in Christ,' Who is our righteousness: and our fruit is now the product of His righteousness; which leads to life everlasting. At the resurrection of the believer death will be swallowed up of life: through his righteous Saviour's victory over death.

This is rather convoluted reasoning, I hope it is understandable.
In Christ Jesus
Chris

 

[John Caldwell]

'The wages of sin is death;
but the gift of God is eternal life,
through Jesus Christ our Lord.'
(Rom 6:23)

Hello there,

I have been reading through your conversation, which is largely three-way, but I hope you will not mind my intervention.

Thinking of 'punishment' and 'penalty' my mind went to the verse above (Romans 6:23), which is in the context of man being either the servant of SIN, or of RIGHTEOUSNESS, yes? It is SIN itself (the root) that man in Adam serves: which brings forth fruit unto sin, leading to death; for death is SIN's penalty; unregenerate man simply bears it's fruit as it's servant, and death therefore has the power to retain him in the grave, his end corruption, i.e., no hope of resurrection life.

In Christ, SIN (the root) no longer has dominion over the believer, because He has died to it, in Christ: therefore neither does it's penalty, death - it cannot hold the believer, it cannot prevent his resurrection to life, in Christ. So the believer has the hope of resurrection out from among the dead, in Christ Jesus his risen Lord.

The penalty was incurred by SIN, and unregenerate man, as SIN's servant, brings forth fruit unto death. However, praise God! God has placed us, 'in Christ,' Who is our righteousness; and our fruit is now the product of His righteousness, which leads to life everlasting: at the resurrection of the believer death will be swallowed up of life, through his righteous Saviour's victory over death.

This is rather convoluted reasoning, I hope it is understandable.
In Christ Jesus
Chris

This is an excellent explanation (much more articulate than I could manage).

 

[jshiii]

'The wages of sin is death;
but the gift of God is eternal life,
through Jesus Christ our Lord.'
(Rom 6:23)

Hello there,

I have been reading through your conversation, which is largely three-way, but I hope you will not mind my intervention.

Thinking of 'punishment' and 'penalty' my mind went to the verse above (Romans 6:23): which is in the context of man being either the servant of SIN, or of RIGHTEOUSNESS; yes? It is SIN itself (the root) that man in Adam serves: which brings forth fruit unto sin; leading to death. For death is SIN's penalty; unregenerate man simply bears it's fruit as it's servant, and death therefore has the power to retain him in the grave, his end corruption, i.e., no hope of resurrection life.

In Christ, SIN (the root) no longer has dominion over the believer, because He has died to it, in Christ: therefore neither does it's penalty, death - it cannot hold the believer, it cannot prevent his resurrection to life, in Christ. So the believer has the hope of resurrection out from among the dead, in Christ Jesus his risen Lord.

The penalty was incurred by SIN, and unregenerate man, as SIN's servant, brings forth fruit unto death. However, praise God! God has placed us, 'in Christ,' Who is our righteousness: and our fruit is now the product of His righteousness; which leads to life everlasting. At the resurrection of the believer death will be swallowed up of life: through his righteous Saviour's victory over death.

This is rather convoluted reasoning, I hope it is understandable.
In Christ Jesus
Chris

Charity, "largely three-way conversation" and if you add "largely three-way, different denominations (Catholic,Baptist, etc) conversation", this would make even better since of why sometimes these debates on atonement, and other debates on the Christianity Boards, can cause much confusion to those like myself. I'm not a pastor lol. I get no edification either!

In my opinion, it would give more credibility to the poster and the responders if they stated, if not known in their profile, their denominational background! Then maybe their argument could be better understood. As for me I can tell you I'm not a Catholic. However, I was brought up in a Church Of Christ Church, but have since broke ways with the Church Of Christ because of the one doctrine they teach...baptism saves you. I totally disagree with that doctrine and it is not primary doctrine, but secondary doctrine IMHO. I now consider myself non-denominational.

Charity, I like your perspective, no alarms are going off in my spirit as of yet lol.

The Lord Jesus Christ ONLY, is Worthy of all our Praise and Worship!

 

[John Caldwell]

Charity, "largely three-way conversation" and if you add "largely three-way, different denominations (Catholic,Baptist, etc) conversation", this would make even better since of why sometimes these debates on atonement, and other debates on the Christianity Boards, can cause much confusion to those like myself. I'm not a pastor lol.

In my opinion, it would give more credibility to the poster if they stated, if not known in their profile, their denominational background! Then maybe their argument could be better understood. As for me I can tell you I'm not a Catholic. However, I was brought up in a Church Of Christ Church, but have since broke ways with the Church Of Christ because of the one doctrine they teach...baptism saves you. I totally disagree with that doctrine and it is not primary doctrine IMHO. I know consider myself non-denominational.

Charity, I like your perspective, no alarms are going off in my spirit as of yet lol.

I am a Baptist (Southern Baptist by denomination). I've never been a member of another denomination.

 

[jshiii]

I am a Baptist (Southern Baptist by denomination). I've never been a member of another denomination.

And Mr Caldwell, those who respond should do likewise Thanks

 

[charity]

Charity, "largely three-way conversation" and if you add "largely three-way, different denominations (Catholic,Baptist, etc) conversation", this would make even better since of why sometimes these debates on atonement, and other debates on the Christianity Boards, can cause much confusion to those like myself. I'm not a pastor lol. I get no edification either!

In my opinion, it would give more credibility to the poster if they stated, if not known in their profile, their denominational background! Then maybe their argument could be better understood. As for me I can tell you I'm not a Catholic. However, I was brought up in a Church Of Christ Church, but have since broke ways with the Church Of Christ because of the one doctrine they teach...baptism saves you. I totally disagree with that doctrine and it is not primary doctrine, bur secondary doctrine IMHO. I know consider myself non-denominational.

Charity, I like your perspective, no alarms are going off in my spirit as of yet lol.

Hello @jshiii,

I am glad you were able to understand my reasoning, and hope you have been able to measure it against the 'plumbline' of God's Word. For I am only human.

I was brought up a non-denominational evangelical, and have subsequently been influenced by dispensational teaching, but my plumbline never changes, it is always the Word of God. I am now not affiliated to any denomination of man's making. I consider myself to be a member of the church which is the Body of Christ, of which Christ is the Head (Ephesians 1:22-23).

In Christ Jesus
Chris

 

[jshiii]

Classic is for Coke. But not the one to get high on.
View attachment 8029

Coke changed their product, but when there was an outcry against it they started talking about *Coke Classic*. The same thing with false doctrines. Now we have "classic" doctrines versus the truth.

I believe you told me once that you were not Catholic? I like some of your post, but it sure would help my understanding of your post and responses to know your Christian background? I don't think I have access to your profile. Thanks.

The Lord Jesus Christ ONLY, is Worthy of all our Praise and Worship!

 

[Steve Owen]

Good question, Steve. This is essentially what Nicodemus asked in John 3.

It isn't, but we press on.

I believe that it is equally an abomination to God to acquit the guilty and to condemn the righteous.

So do I (Proverbs 17:15). That is one of the two reasons that God Himself, in the Person of Jesus Christ, came to earth to shoulder the burden of our sin and to pay the penalty of it. The other reason, of course, is found in Ecclesiastes 7:22. But none of that abates the force of verses like Nahum 1:3.

I believe man must die to sin, be crucified with Christ (share in His death and resurrection). In other words, I believe that the men God justifies in Christ are not the same men who stood condemned apart from Him. I believe in the act of being "born again", given a "new heart" and a "new Spirit* and that God puts His Spirit in us. I believe we are made new creations in Christ.

But Christ died for the ungodly, when we were still 'without strength' (Romans 5:6). The new birth comes after and as a result of, Christ's propitiation. Christ did not come to save the righteous, but sinners, .

God is both just and the justified [sic] of sinners and salvation is the righteousness of God manifested apart from the law as man must be born again.

In that case there is no need for Christ to suffer and die, if people are justified 'apart from the law,' and it would be an abomination to God if it happened. That is a misunderstanding of Romans 3:21, as Romans 3:31 explains. Details on request. Got to run.

 

[reformed1689]

The reason I do not believe "chasten" should be translated as "punishment" is the Hebrew word only refers to a punishment twice out of 49 times it is used (excluding this verse...it is used 50 times). So the more common meaning in Scripture is not punishment. While it can mean "punishment" it does not by default.

That's actually not a good reason John because two other times it DOES mean punishment.

I also associate it with the Greek passages speaking of Christ "learning obedience" and being "made perfect" by His suffering. When I read the passage I do not see it as indicating a punishment but rather stating what is taught in those other passages associated with Christ's suffering.

Ok, give me those passages one more time so I can take a look.