What I believe about the Atonement

[John Caldwell]

It isn't, but we press on.

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.

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, .
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.

I believe that Christ is the Propitiation for the sins of the whole world. This points to Christ (Christ's identity). He is this Propitiation. Here I agree with Justin Martyr's use of the "human family". I view our sins being laid upon Christ as speaking of the sins of mankind (as @charity pointed out, Sin as the root). But I do not believe that we are forgiven of our sins and then "born again". This new birth is how we are forgiven (dead to sin, alive in Christ).

So also it is written, “The first man, Adam, became a living soul.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.

It seems that we approach God's righteousness from two different angles and come up with two very different conclusions.

 

[reformed1689]

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.

Christ did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it.

 

[John Caldwell]

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

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

It just adds to the reasoning. Since the word means does not mean punishment 96% of the times it is used, I think it is reasonable to consider it may not mean punishment here while allowing for that definition as a possibility.

The reason I choose this definition is that I believe it connected to Hebrews 2. The passage that I was speaking of was Hebrews 2:9-18.

Hebrews 2:9-18 But we do see Him who was made for a little while lower than the angels, namely, Jesus, because of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, so that by the grace of God He might taste death for everyone. For it was fitting for Him, for whom are all things, and through whom are all things, in bringing many sons to glory, to perfect the author of their salvation through sufferings. For both He who sanctifies and those who are sanctified are all from one Father; for which reason He is not ashamed to call them brethren, saying, "I WILL PROCLAIM YOUR NAME TO MY BRETHREN, IN THE MIDST OF THE CONGREGATION I WILL SING YOUR PRAISE." And again, "I WILL PUT MY TRUST IN HIM." And again, "BEHOLD, I AND THE CHILDREN WHOM GOD HAS GIVEN ME." Therefore, since the children share in flesh and blood, He Himself likewise also partook of the same, that through death He might render powerless him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, and might free those who through fear of death were subject to slavery all their lives. For assuredly He does not give help to angels, but He gives help to the descendant of Abraham. Therefore, He had to be made like His brethren in all things, so that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. For since He Himself was tempted in that which He has suffered, He is able to come to the aid of those who are tempted.

Christ did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it.

I agree.

 

[reformed1689]

The reason I choose this definition is that I believe it connected to Hebrews 2. The passage that I was speaking of was Hebrews 2:9-18.

Hebrews 2:9-18 But we do see Him who was made for a little while lower than the angels, namely, Jesus, because of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, so that by the grace of God He might taste death for everyone. For it was fitting for Him, for whom are all things, and through whom are all things, in bringing many sons to glory, to perfect the author of their salvation through sufferings. For both He who sanctifies and those who are sanctified are all from one Father; for which reason He is not ashamed to call them brethren, saying, "I WILL PROCLAIM YOUR NAME TO MY BRETHREN, IN THE MIDST OF THE CONGREGATION I WILL SING YOUR PRAISE." And again, "I WILL PUT MY TRUST IN HIM." And again, "BEHOLD, I AND THE CHILDREN WHOM GOD HAS GIVEN ME." Therefore, since the children share in flesh and blood, He Himself likewise also partook of the same, that through death He might render powerless him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, and might free those who through fear of death were subject to slavery all their lives. For assuredly He does not give help to angels, but He gives help to the descendant of Abraham. Therefore, He had to be made like His brethren in all things, so that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. For since He Himself was tempted in that which He has suffered, He is able to come to the aid of those who are tempted.

Ok, but even in this passage, it talks about propitiation. That word has the sense of wiping out something that is impeding a relationship. In this case, it is the debt of sin owed by man. This doesn't change the chastisement in Isaiah to learning obedience.

 

[John Caldwell]

Ok, but even in this passage, it talks about propitiation. That word has the sense of wiping out something that is impeding a relationship. In this case, it is the debt of sin owed by man. This doesn't change the chastisement in Isaiah to learning obedience.

Propitiation is "the act of gaining or regaining the favor or goodwill of someone or something".

In Christ there is no condemnation. He is the Propitiation for the sins of the whole world.

 

[Steve Owen]

'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

Hello Chris,
First of all, welcome to the discussion. It;s no problem coming in late.
I don't have any problem with your reasoning except that it does not seem to explain why Christ had to become a curse, why He had to become sin for us, how His becoming sin makes us the righteousness of God in Him and how God can be just without punishing the guilty, because if He can, there is no reason for Christ to have died. The answer to these questions is found in the natural reading of 1 Peter 2:24. 'He Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree.' He has taken our sins upon Himself and paid the penalty for them in full, so that:
'Payment God will not twice demand:
Once at my bleeding Surety's hand,
And then again from me.' [Augustus Toplady]

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

Amen! Our Lord Jesus, the sinless One, has received the wages of sin on our behalf, so that God can justly give us His gift of eternal life.

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.

No problem, though I have done this once previously on this board; but maybe you hadn't arrived then.
I live in the UK. I was saved from agnosticism at the age of 38 in a Plymouth Brethren assembly. I moved from there to my current church which is an independent Free Church www.scottdrivechurch.org,uk affiliated to the Fellowship of Independent Evangelical Churches www.fiec.org.uk
But the doctrine of Penal Substitution is not a denominational issue. It is held by evangelical Anglicans, Presbyterians, Baptists and others. It was strongly upheld by John Wesley, founder of the Methodists and by Martin Luther, though there are almost no Lutheran churches in the UK so I don't know whether they hold it today.

 

[Steve Owen]

Propitiation is "the act of gaining or regaining the favor or goodwill of someone or something".

No. A propitiation is a sacrifice that turns away wrath. If someone reading this has ever done something to upset his wife, he may have bought her a bunch of flowers to propitiate her righteous anger against him The flowers are a propitiation. Now of course it is possible that she will not be propitiated by a bunch of flowers and a slap-up meal at a posh restaurant will be necessary, but we know that the propitiation wrought by Christ is sufficient because it was the triune God who set Him forth (Romans 3:25). The Greek word hilasterion has reference to the 'mercy seat' in the holiest place in the Tabernacle. There the high priest entered once a year, to offer a sacrifice and sprinkle the blood (Hebrews 9:7-15; Exodus 30:10).

In Christ there is no condemnation. He is the Propitiation for the sins of the whole world.

Amen! He has offered the one perfect acceptable sacrifice for sins (Hebrews 9:11-12), not just for Israelites but for God's people the world over.

 

[Steve Owen]

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.

You are correct that the Hebrew word is usually translated 'teach' or something similar. However, I have shown that 'punish' is within its semantic range. The reason that the translators of the NIV and CSB have rendered Isaiah 53:5 as 'punishment' is that the context demands it. It is in the middle of a passage that includes the words 'stricken,' 'afflicted,' 'wounded,' 'bruised/crushed.' oppressed,' 'slaughter,' 'cut off,' 'put to grief' and 'bear...iniquities.' I don't personally have a problem with 'chastisement' so long as one understands that that word too has to do with 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.

You have not, I think, explained how the Christ who was obedient in childhood and all the way through His ministry, needed to 'learn obedience,' or how the sinless Son of God needed to be 'made perfect.' If you did explain it, I must have missed it. Will you do so again, please?

 

[jshiii]

Hello Chris,
First of off, welcome to the discussion. It;s no problem coming in late.
I don't have any problem with your reasoning except that it does not seem to explain why Christ had to become a curse, why He had to become sin for us, how His becoming sin makes us the righteousness of God in Him and how God can be just without punishing the guilty, because if He can, there is no reason for Christ to have died. The answer to these questions is found in the natural reading of 1 Peter 2:24. 'He Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree.' He has taken our sins upon Himself and paid the penalty for them in full, so that:
'Payment God will not twice demand:
Once at my bleeding Surety's hand,
And then again from me.' [Augustus Toplady]

Amen! Our Lord Jesus, the sinless One, has received the wages of sin on our behalf, so that God can justly give us His gift of eternal life.



No problem, though I have done this once previously on this board; but maybe you hadn't arrived then.
I live in the UK. I was saved from agnosticism at the age of 38 in a Plymouth Brethren assembly. I moved from there to my current church which is an independent Free Church www.scottdrivechurch.org,uk affiliated to the Fellowship of Independent Evangelical Churches www.fiec.org.uk
But the doctrine of Penal Substitution is not a denominational issue. It is held by evangelical Anglicans, Presbyterians, Baptists and others. It was strongly upheld by John Wesley, founder of the Methodists and by Martin Luther, though there are almost no Lutheran church in the UK so I don't know whether they hold it today.

Thank you Steve. I believe Penal Substitution is the most logically and biblically sound view.


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

 

[Enoch111]

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.

I am simply a Bible-believing Christian not associated with any denomination, and not committed to any man-made doctrines or philosophies. You will note that I generally provide relevant Scriptures for my positions.

What we have been seeing from John Caldwell all along is his own theories and ideas while rejecting the plain meaning of Gospel truth. We are told to walk away from people who turn to false doctrines. When someone tries to attack the core of the Gospel, that is a very serious matter.

A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject. (Titus 3:10)

2 TIMOTHY 3
5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.
6 For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts,
7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
8 Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith.

 

[charity]

Hello Chris,
First of off, welcome to the discussion. It's no problem coming in late.
I don't have any problem with your reasoning except that it does not seem to explain why Christ had to become a curse,
why He had to become sin for us, how His becoming sin makes us the righteousness of God in Him
and how God can be just without punishing the guilty, because if He can, there is no reason for Christ to have died.
The answer to these questions is found in the natural reading of 1 Peter 2:24. 'He Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree.'
He has taken our sins upon Himself and paid the penalty for them in full, so that:
'Payment God will not twice demand:
Once at my bleeding Surety's hand,
And then again from me.'
[Augustus Toplady]

Amen! Our Lord Jesus, the sinless One, has received the wages of sin on our behalf, so that God can justly give us His gift of eternal life.'

But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident:
for, The just shall live by faith.
And the law is not of faith:
but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.
Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law,
being made a curse for us:
for it is written, "Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree":
That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ;
that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.'
(Galatians 3:11-14)

Hello @Steve Owen,

Thank you.

* In breaking the covenant of the law the Jew came under it's curse, which was the terrible penalty imposed in the Old Testament upon law-breakers. Therefore it was necessary that their Messiah bear that curse so that they could be for ever freed from it. The Apostle here quotes Deuteronomy 21:23, for a hanged man is cursed by God. This does not mean that he was cursed because he hung from a tree, but that this was the outward sign that he had broken the covenant of the law and brought the curse and punishment upon himself.

* This death of degradation and shame was the experience the Lord Jesus willingly entered so that those under the curse might be freed from it for ever. He Himself became the accursed one to free those under the curse!

'For He hath made Him to be sin for us, who knew no sin;
that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him.'
(2 Corinthians 5:21)

Praise His Holy Name!

In Christ Jesus
Chris

 

[John Caldwell]

No. A propitiation is a sacrifice that turns away wrath. If someone reading this has ever done something to upset his wife, he may have bought her a bunch of flowers to propitiate her righteous anger against him The flowers are a propitiation. Now of course it is possible that she will not be propitiated by a bunch of flowers and a slap-up meal at a posh restaurant will be necessary, but we know that the propitiation wrought by Christ is sufficient because it was the triune God who set Him forth (Romans 3:25). The Greek word hilasterion has reference to the 'mercy seat' in the holiest place in the Tabernacle. There the high priest entered once a year, to offer a sacrifice and sprinkle the blood (Hebrews 9:7-15; Exodus 30:10).

Amen! He has offered the one perfect acceptable sacrifice for sins (Hebrews 9:11-12), not just for Israelites but for God's people the world over.

I agree that a propitiation is a sacrifice that turns away wrath. I also believe the definition provided by the English dictionary is correct.

1 Thessalonians 1:9-10
For people everywhere report how you welcomed us and how you turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, Jesus our deliverer from the coming wrath.

 

[John Caldwell]

You are correct that the Hebrew word is usually translated 'teach' or something similar. However, I have shown that 'punish' is within its semantic range. The reason that the translators of the NIV and CSB have rendered Isaiah 53:5 as 'punishment' is that the context demands it. It is in the middle of a passage that includes the words 'stricken,' 'afflicted,' 'wounded,' 'bruised/crushed.' oppressed,' 'slaughter,' 'cut off,' 'put to grief' and 'bear...iniquities.' I don't personally have a problem with 'chastisement' so long as one understands that that word too has to do with punishment.

You have not, I think, explained how the Christ who was obedient in childhood and all the way through His ministry, needed to 'learn obedience,' or how the sinless Son of God needed to be 'made perfect.' If you did explain it, I must have missed it. Will you do so again, please?

"punish" is in the range of possibilities as it refers to a type of punishment twice. But 96% of the time it points to something else (normally instruction/ discipline).

So you are right that we both need to explain our choice of meanings.

The verse does not speak of Christ learning obedience through childhood. It speaks of learning through suffering (and being perfected the same way). The context is in Hebrews 10 and concerns Christ's qualifications and identity as High Priest to intercede for us. Scholars typically explain this as Christ's office (High Priest, Messiah) being perfected (Christ was never not perfect). Likewise the "learning obedience" falls into this context (Christ was never disobedient). It signifies Christ being like us in all ways but without sin.

I hope that helps understand my position.

 

[John Caldwell]

I need to make a clarification @Steve Owen and @David Taylor.

I had said musar can mean punishment but mean that as concession.

The reason is in those cases it is not in the context of divine punishment but an earthly king punishing Israel by defeating them. I am not sure this constitutes punishment as it is nonjudicial.

I believe Mounce correct but as compromise grant it possible to avoid useless disagreement.

 

[Steve Owen]

I need to make a clarification @Steve Owen and @David Taylor.

I had said musar can mean punishment but mean that as concession.

The reason is in those cases it is not in the context of divine punishment but an earthly king punishing Israel by defeating them. I am not sure this constitutes punishment as it is nonjudicial.

I believe Mounce correct but as compromise grant it possible to avoid useless disagreement.

The three instances of musar that I have previously mentioned are Deuteronomy 12:2-7; Isaiah 53:5-6; Jeremiah 30:12-15, where is word used by the KJV is 'chastisement.' I leave it to the reader to decide whether these examples refer to divine punishment or not. There is no doubt in my mind.
Since presenting those, I have come across Proverbs 7:22; 22:15, where the KJV translates musar as 'correction.' Again, let the reader decide if these refer to punishment or not. Of course, punishment is often corrective.

IMO, Mounce is wrong.

 

[reformed1689]

The three instances of musar that I have previously mentioned are Deuteronomy 12:2-7; Isaiah 53:53:5-6; Jeremiah 30:12-15, where is word used by the KJV is 'chastisement.' I leave it to the reader to decide whether these examples refer to divine punishment or not. There is no doubt in my mind.
Since presenting those, I have come across Proverbs 7:22; 22:15, where the KJV translates musar as 'correction.' Again, let the reader decide if these refer to punishment or not. Of course, punishment is often corrective.

IMO, Mounce is wrong.

My question is what makes Mounce the definitive Hebrew expert when there are DOZENS who say he is wrong?

 

[John Caldwell]

The three instances of musar that I have previously mentioned are Deuteronomy 12:2-7; Isaiah 53:53:5-6; Jeremiah 30:12-15, where is word used by the KJV is 'chastisement.' I leave it to the reader to decide whether these examples refer to divine punishment or not. There is no doubt in my mind.
Since presenting those, I have come across Proverbs 7:22; 22:15, where the KJV translates musar as 'correction.' Again, let the reader decide if these refer to punishment or not. Of course, punishment is often corrective.

IMO, Mounce is wrong.

Like I said, I disagree but will compromise as either way the choice needs to be explained as it is not the "normal" use of the word. If it means "punishment" 3 times out of 50 then it does not mean punishment 94% of the times it is used. Even here my argument is not that I am correct because it refers to my definition most of the time. I also have to explain my position (which I have).

 

[reformed1689]

Like I said, I disagree but will compromise as either way the choice needs to be explained as it is not the "normal" use of the word. If it means "punishment" 3 times out of 50 then it does not mean punishment 94% of the times it is used. Even here my argument is not that I am correct because it refers to my definition most of the time. I also have to explain my position (which I have).

But we have explained it is due to the context of where it is found that gives you the definition of punishment.

 

[John Caldwell]

My question is what makes Mounce the definitive Hebrew expert when there are DOZENS who say he is wrong?

There are not dozens saying he is wrong. And I am not saying he is the definitive expert (or that he is not). Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy.

I am saying that the claim I must explain why I reject "punishment" when some have interpreted the word to mean punishment 6% of its usage in Scripture is not a good claim.

I lean towards the way the word is used 96% (at least) of the time and still believe I need to explain my choice (which I did). I think it more than reasonable that others explain why this should be the 3rd time the word is taken to mean punishment.

As I said, I grant as compromise it could mean punishment.

 

[John Caldwell]

But we have explained it is due to the context of where it is found that gives you the definition of punishment.

And I have explained that due to context it does not mean punishment. We disagree about the context, David. I still do not see your reasoning (by context), but I believe you do. And that is fine. I am not arguing against your view here but telling you what I believe because that is what @Steve Owen asked of me.