https://www.sdmorrison.org/7-theories-of-the-atonement-summarized/

dermdoc said:

---

https://www.sdmorrison.org/7-theories-of-the-atonement-summarized/

---

Thanks for sharing. Interesting read.

#5 for the W

lobopride said:

---

#5 for the W

---

#3 for me!

88Warrior said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

https://www.sdmorrison.org/7-theories-of-the-atonement-summarized/

---

Thanks for sharing. Interesting read.

---

You are welcome. It is interesting.

lobopride said:

---

#5 for the W

---

Honest confession

How many of y'all who voted for #5 knew there were other atonement theories?

And that penal substitution was unknown in the early church?

dermdoc said:

---

lobopride said:

---

#5 for the W

---

#3 for me!

---

Same. It makes me think of the prayer before the icon of Christ:

Quote:

---

We venerate thine immaculate icon, O good One, and ask forgiveness of our transgressions, O Christ our God; for of thine own good will thou wast pleased to ascend the cross in the flesh, that thou mightest deliver those whom thou hast fashioned from bondage to the enemy. Wherefore, we cry aloud unto thee with thanksgiving: Thou hast filled all things with joy, O our Saviour, for thou didst come to save the world.

---

dermdoc said:

---

lobopride said:

---

#5 for the W

---

Honest confession

How many of y'all who voted for #5 knew there were other atonement theories?

And that penal substitution was unknown in the early church?

---

Yes, I was familiar with the various theories. I subscribe to both CV and PSA. I disagree that PSA was unknown in the early church. Obviously, it wasn't called that, but the early church fathers wrote about Jesus dying in our place, bearing our sins on the cross, etc.

Paul wrote about it, Peter wrote about it, the author of Hebrews wrote about it, Jesus talked about it. Before them, Isaiah clearly prophesied about it, and long before Isaiah, the sacrificial system foreshadowed it.

1 John 4:10 could not be more clear. God sent His son to be the propitiation for our sins.

Mostly Peaceful said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

lobopride said:

---

#5 for the W

---

Honest confession

How many of y'all who voted for #5 knew there were other atonement theories?

And that penal substitution was unknown in the early church?

---

Yes, I was familiar with the various theories. I subscribe to both CV and PSA. I disagree that PSA was unknown in the early church. Obviously, it wasn't called that, but the early church fathers wrote about Jesus dying in our place, bearing our sins on the cross, etc.

Paul wrote about it, Peter wrote about it, the author of Hebrews wrote about it, Jesus talked about it. Before them, Isaiah clearly prophesied about it, and long before Isaiah, the sacrificial system foreshadowed it.

1 John 4:10 could not be more clear. God sent His son to be the propitiation for our sins.

---

Agree. I disagree that God did the killing due to His wrath. Not compatible with God's character in my opinion. And not confirmed by Scripture. There is no Scripture that says God killed Jesus.
And the early church certainly did not teach that. It was unknown until the Reformation.
Satan and evil men killed Jesus in my opinion. Not God.

dermdoc said:

---

Mostly Peaceful said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

lobopride said:

---

#5 for the W

---

Honest confession

How many of y'all who voted for #5 knew there were other atonement theories?

And that penal substitution was unknown in the early church?

---

Yes, I was familiar with the various theories. I subscribe to both CV and PSA. I disagree that PSA was unknown in the early church. Obviously, it wasn't called that, but the early church fathers wrote about Jesus dying in our place, bearing our sins on the cross, etc.

Paul wrote about it, Peter wrote about it, the author of Hebrews wrote about it, Jesus talked about it. Before them, Isaiah clearly prophesied about it, and long before Isaiah, the sacrificial system foreshadowed it.

1 John 4:10 could not be more clear. God sent His son to be the propitiation for our sins.

---

Agree. I disagree that God did the killing due to His wrath. Not compatible with God's character in my opinion. And not confirmed by Scripture. There is no Scripture that says God killed Jesus.
And the early church certainly did not teach that. It was unknown until the Reformation.
Satan and evil men killed Jesus in my opinion. Not God.

---

I don't believe God killed Jesus, nor have I ever heard a proponent of PSA describe it that way. I'm as responsible for the death of Jesus as anyone.

Mostly Peaceful said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Mostly Peaceful said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

lobopride said:

---

#5 for the W

---

Honest confession

How many of y'all who voted for #5 knew there were other atonement theories?

And that penal substitution was unknown in the early church?

---

Yes, I was familiar with the various theories. I subscribe to both CV and PSA. I disagree that PSA was unknown in the early church. Obviously, it wasn't called that, but the early church fathers wrote about Jesus dying in our place, bearing our sins on the cross, etc.

Paul wrote about it, Peter wrote about it, the author of Hebrews wrote about it, Jesus talked about it. Before them, Isaiah clearly prophesied about it, and long before Isaiah, the sacrificial system foreshadowed it.

1 John 4:10 could not be more clear. God sent His son to be the propitiation for our sins.

---

Agree. I disagree that God did the killing due to His wrath. Not compatible with God's character in my opinion. And not confirmed by Scripture. There is no Scripture that says God killed Jesus.
And the early church certainly did not teach that. It was unknown until the Reformation.
Satan and evil men killed Jesus in my opinion. Not God.

---

I don't believe God killed Jesus, nor have I ever heard a proponent of PSA describe it that way. I'm as responsible for the death of Jesus as anyone.

---

This link says it better than me.

https://catholicnick.blogspot.com/2014/03/john-piper-says-jesus-was-damned-in-our.html

The whole of the punishment of his people was distilled into one cup; no mortal lip might give it so much as a solitary sip. When he put it to his own lips, it was so bitter, he well nigh spurned it."Let this cup pass from me." But his love for his people was so strong, that he took the cup in both his hands, and
"At one tremendous draught of love
He drank damnation dry,"
for all his people. He drank it all, he endured all, he suffered all; so that now for ever there are no flames of hell for them, no racks of torment; they have no eternal woes; Christ hath suffered all they ought to have suffered, and they must, they shall go free.

https://theoldguys.org/2013/12/05/charles-spurgeon-he-drank-damnation-dry/

dermdoc said:

---

Mostly Peaceful said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Mostly Peaceful said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

lobopride said:

---

#5 for the W

---

Honest confession

How many of y'all who voted for #5 knew there were other atonement theories?

And that penal substitution was unknown in the early church?

---

Yes, I was familiar with the various theories. I subscribe to both CV and PSA. I disagree that PSA was unknown in the early church. Obviously, it wasn't called that, but the early church fathers wrote about Jesus dying in our place, bearing our sins on the cross, etc.

Paul wrote about it, Peter wrote about it, the author of Hebrews wrote about it, Jesus talked about it. Before them, Isaiah clearly prophesied about it, and long before Isaiah, the sacrificial system foreshadowed it.

1 John 4:10 could not be more clear. God sent His son to be the propitiation for our sins.

---

Agree. I disagree that God did the killing due to His wrath. Not compatible with God's character in my opinion. And not confirmed by Scripture. There is no Scripture that says God killed Jesus.
And the early church certainly did not teach that. It was unknown until the Reformation.
Satan and evil men killed Jesus in my opinion. Not God.

---

I don't believe God killed Jesus, nor have I ever heard a proponent of PSA describe it that way. I'm as responsible for the death of Jesus as anyone.

---

This link says it better than me.

https://catholicnick.blogspot.com/2014/03/john-piper-says-jesus-was-damned-in-our.html

---

I take damned to mean sent to hell. If that is what Piper meant here I would wholeheartedly disagree, but it's hard to tell without any context and the link to the blog post this guy refers to is broken. I did find a different post where he says essentially the same thing, "he was damned for us" and the context there is that Jesus took the wrath of God on our behalf. That I do agree with and see clearly supported by Scripture.

Thanks for sharing this. So much depth behind each of these. Multiple life-times worth of work spent by very Godly men exploring each of these, but this page is so accessible. Very neat source.

1) I don't find that these are all mutually exclusive. It is probable, in my opinion, that the truth is likely some mix of most if not all of these.

2) The entire subject is so full of paradox that the full truth is likely inconceivable to mortal, temporal man.

3) Getting the "model" of atonement "right" is not really all that important, in my opinion. There are clear facts about atonement that are easy to understand and irrefutable (from a theological perspective anyways). The critical aspects are that man was lost to sin without the sacrifice of Jesus, and through Jesus' sacrifice, man is saved. The "how stuff works" explanation of why is not nearly as important as the fact that it does work.

4) I would add that I am hesitant to limit God's power to saying that Jesus' sacrifice was the only way that God was capable in bringing salvation to man. When Jesus heals the paralytic man, he tells the man that his sins are forgiven. When Jesus sends out the apostles, he gives the apostles the authority to forgive sins in his name. I find it dangerous to believe that the only reason that Jesus was able to say these things is due to his pending death. It puts a limit on God's power, which I am uncomfortable doing. Arguments like "this is the only way that the story of atonement makes sense" has the effect of putting God in a box in order to make him conceivable to our limited, rational mind. I fully believe that Jesus had the power to forgive sins while he walked on the earth. He tells us this directly.

However it works, thank you Jesus and thank you God for providing us with salvation that works!

BusterAg said:

---

Thanks for sharing this. So much depth behind each of these. Multiple life-times worth of work spent by very Godly men exploring each of these, but this page is so accessible. Very neat source.

1) I don't find that these are all mutually exclusive. It is probable, in my opinion, that the truth is likely some mix of most if not all of these.

2) The entire subject is so full of paradox that the full truth is likely inconceivable to mortal, temporal man.

3) Getting the "model" of atonement "right" is not really all that important, in my opinion. There are clear facts about atonement that are easy to understand and irrefutable (from a theological perspective anyways). The critical aspects are that man was lost to sin without the sacrifice of Jesus, and through Jesus' sacrifice, man is saved. The "how stuff works" explanation of why is not nearly as important as the fact that it does work.

4) I would add that I am hesitant to limit God's power to saying that Jesus' sacrifice was the only way that God was capable in bringing salvation to man. When Jesus heals the paralytic man, he tells the man that his sins are forgiven. When Jesus sends out the apostles, he gives the apostles the authority to forgive sins in his name. I find it dangerous to believe that the only reason that Jesus was able to say these things is due to his pending death. It puts a limit on God's power, which I am uncomfortable doing. Arguments like "this is the only way that the story of atonement makes sense" has the effect of putting God in a box in order to make him conceivable to our limited, rational mind. I fully believe that Jesus had the power to forgive sins while he walked on the earth. He tells us this directly.

However it works, thank you Jesus and thank you God for providing us with salvation that works!

---

I agree!

Mostly Peaceful said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Mostly Peaceful said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Mostly Peaceful said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

lobopride said:

---

#5 for the W

---

Honest confession

How many of y'all who voted for #5 knew there were other atonement theories?

And that penal substitution was unknown in the early church?

---

Yes, I was familiar with the various theories. I subscribe to both CV and PSA. I disagree that PSA was unknown in the early church. Obviously, it wasn't called that, but the early church fathers wrote about Jesus dying in our place, bearing our sins on the cross, etc.

Paul wrote about it, Peter wrote about it, the author of Hebrews wrote about it, Jesus talked about it. Before them, Isaiah clearly prophesied about it, and long before Isaiah, the sacrificial system foreshadowed it.

1 John 4:10 could not be more clear. God sent His son to be the propitiation for our sins.

---

Agree. I disagree that God did the killing due to His wrath. Not compatible with God's character in my opinion. And not confirmed by Scripture. There is no Scripture that says God killed Jesus.
And the early church certainly did not teach that. It was unknown until the Reformation.
Satan and evil men killed Jesus in my opinion. Not God.

---

I don't believe God killed Jesus, nor have I ever heard a proponent of PSA describe it that way. I'm as responsible for the death of Jesus as anyone.

---

This link says it better than me.

https://catholicnick.blogspot.com/2014/03/john-piper-says-jesus-was-damned-in-our.html

---

I take damned to mean sent to hell. If that is what Piper meant here I would wholeheartedly disagree, but it's hard to tell without any context and the link to the blog post this guy refers to is broken. I did find a different post where he says essentially the same thing, "he was damned for us" and the context there is that Jesus took the wrath of God on our behalf. That I do agree with and see clearly supported by Scripture.

---

I agree with the view of this link.

https://davidbsloan.com/blog/did-jesus-experience-the-fathers-wrath/

God's reconciling act in Jesus Christ is a mystery which the Scriptures describe in various ways. It is called the sacrifice of a lamb, a shepherd's life given for his sheep, atonement by a priest; again it is ransom of a slave, payment of debt, vicarious satisfaction of a legal penalty, and victory over the powers of evil. These are expressions of a truth which remains beyond the reach of all theory in the depths of God's love for man. They reveal the gravity, cost, and sure achievement of God's reconciling work.

-The Confession of 1967, United Presbyterian Church in the United States of America

dermdoc said:

---

lobopride said:

---

#5 for the W

---

#3 for me!

---

This…I can't understand #5 at all.

I can only see #5- penal substitution from the opposite perspective. Jesus is not a substitute for man, but a "substitute" or a stand-in for the Godhead. After all, God created everything including men. God gave men free will and the ability to sin. God has never committed sin, but He certainly set the stage to make sin possible. Because of free will and sin, men suffer and die. However, God cannot suffer and die even though his gift of free will to us causes us to suffer and die. That is unjust. So Christ becomes a man who suffers and dies, and the injustice is resolved.

Otherwise I'm solidly on #1 plus #3

PSA is violative of the Trinity.

God is not bound by necessity or justice.

I probably fall in a mixture of 3-6. I have heard all of those taught and they encompass God's action in order to reach His people and enable reconciliation with Him.

Zobel said:

---

God is not bound by necessity or justice.

---

I don't think I agree with that. God is bound only by Himself, but part of His nature is perfect justice. We see Him bind Himself with the various covenants of scripture. Once He makes a covenant, He is bound by His own perfect justice to fulfill it.

To expound a little bit, because not everyone keeps track of my crackpot theology all the time: It is greater to love someone who hates you than someone who loves you per many different passages in the Gospels. God can love Himself, being triune, but all of those parts are perfectly loving toward each other. In order express a greater love, God needs to love someone that hates Him. That requires the existence of people that hate God. However, while loving God brings joy, peace, life, and contentment, hating God brings death, suffering, and all the other bad things that exist. Therefore, God's love is maximized by people hating Him, and that hatred also introduces all the evil and suffering in the world. Therefore, God's love directly leads to misery for many of those He loves at least temporarily.

Now God didn't do anything wrong and has no guilt in this situation. He gave us free will and we chose to be evil, but He still gave us the choice. In the interest of His own sense of justice, God incarnates His Son and that Son undergoes suffering and death. In that way, God directly partakes in our misery. It's not a situation where we suffer due to God's loving nature while God does not. God's loving nature makes the suffering necessary, but God endures that suffering with us in His own unique way

Quote:

---

He is bound by His own perfect justice to fulfill it.

---

then His justice is truly God. I think you run into the limit of cataphatic theology here.

Quote:

---

God's love is maximized by people hating Him, and that hatred also introduces all the evil and suffering in the world. Therefore, God's love directly leads to misery for many of those He loves at least temporarily.

---

yeah i don't follow this at all. God's love for mankind is neither increased or decreased by mankind's response to that love. it may be revealed when people hate him, but in no way does it change. And this last sentence seems extremely suspect.

Mostly Peaceful said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

lobopride said:

---

#5 for the W

---

Honest confession

How many of y'all who voted for #5 knew there were other atonement theories?

And that penal substitution was unknown in the early church?

---

Yes, I was familiar with the various theories. I subscribe to both CV and PSA. I disagree that PSA was unknown in the early church. Obviously, it wasn't called that, but the early church fathers wrote about Jesus dying in our place, bearing our sins on the cross, etc.

Paul wrote about it, Peter wrote about it, the author of Hebrews wrote about it, Jesus talked about it. Before them, Isaiah clearly prophesied about it, and long before Isaiah, the sacrificial system foreshadowed it.

1 John 4:10 could not be more clear. God sent His son to be the propitiation for our sins.

---

Lord of Spirits did a great takedown of PSA in the midst of explaining the early church position. Thesis: Saying you believe Jesus died on behalf of our sins doesn't equate to the full definition of PSA. PSA belief requires that the Father turned his back on Christ on the cross when Christ took on the sins of the world. This is, of course, hogwash and destroys the trinity as well as misunderstands the power of Christ over death as death has no claim on Christ. It also misinterprets Psalm 22 ("My God, My God why have you forsaken me" Is the start of Psalm 22 beginning the reign of the Messiah. Not that the Father has turned his back on Christ.)

https://www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts/lordofspirits/every_stick_of_wood_in_the_old_testament/

Remember the goats on the day of Atonement. Both are perfect. On one goat the sins of Israel are placed on it and it is cast out of the camp. It is taking the sins back to the Azazel (satan) by being cast out of the camp. The other goat is killed (no ritualization of the killing itself, the goat is offered as a sacrifice) and its blood is sprinkled throughout the holiest of holies to cleanse it of sins.

Did the goat become sinful by taking on the sins or was it just the vehicle to return sin to its originator? The Azezel goat is still blameless, but it is carrying the sins of Israel. Christ is the same. He did not become sinful but carried the sins to its original creator as he gave up his human body and went to Hades.

Agree.

Quote:

---

yeah i don't follow this at all. God's love for mankind is neither increased or decreased by mankind's response to that love. it may be revealed when people hate him, but in no way does it change. And this last sentence seems extremely suspect.

---

It's not that the love is increased or decreased by the reaction. The act itself of loving someone who hates you is fundamentally different than loving someone who loves you. In all the verses in the Gospels referencing this, people who love those who hate them are specifically called children of the most High. So those who do this are most like God Himself. We can also break it down a bit. Love reciprocated is love rewarded. It is certainly possible to love someone for selfish reasons such as the desire to be loved in return. However, loving someone who hates you gets you nothing in return, and is a less selfish love. So loving those who hate you is a qualitatively more selfless act than loving those who love you.

In regards to the last sentence, I'm not sure how you get around it. God created everything. He is therefore responsible for our suffering even though he is not culpable for it. How would a loving and just God deal with that? In my reading, He chooses to suffer with us to the maximal extent that He can

one MEEN Ag said:

---

Mostly Peaceful said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

lobopride said:

---

#5 for the W

---

Honest confession

How many of y'all who voted for #5 knew there were other atonement theories?

And that penal substitution was unknown in the early church?

---

Yes, I was familiar with the various theories. I subscribe to both CV and PSA. I disagree that PSA was unknown in the early church. Obviously, it wasn't called that, but the early church fathers wrote about Jesus dying in our place, bearing our sins on the cross, etc.

Paul wrote about it, Peter wrote about it, the author of Hebrews wrote about it, Jesus talked about it. Before them, Isaiah clearly prophesied about it, and long before Isaiah, the sacrificial system foreshadowed it.

1 John 4:10 could not be more clear. God sent His son to be the propitiation for our sins.

---

Lord of Spirits did a great takedown of PSA in the midst of explaining the early church position. Thesis: Saying you believe Jesus died on behalf of our sins doesn't equate to the full definition of PSA. PSA belief requires that the Father turned his back on Christ on the cross when Christ took on the sins of the world. This is, of course, hogwash and destroys the trinity as well as misunderstands the power of Christ over death as death has no claim on Christ. It also misinterprets Psalm 22 ("My God, My God why have you forsaken me" Is the start of Psalm 22 beginning the reign of the Messiah. Not that the Father has turned his back on Christ.)

https://www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts/lordofspirits/every_stick_of_wood_in_the_old_testament/

Remember the goats on the day of Atonement. Both are perfect. On one goat the sins of Israel are placed on it and it is cast out of the camp. It is taking the sins back to the Azazel (satan) by being cast out of the camp. The other goat is killed (no ritualization of the killing itself, the goat is offered as a sacrifice) and its blood is sprinkled throughout the holiest of holies to cleanse it of sins.

Did the goat become sinful by taking on the sins or was it just the vehicle to return sin to its originator? The Azezel goat is still blameless, but it is carrying the sins of Israel. Christ is the same. He did not become sinful but carried the sins to its original creator as he gave up his human body and went to Hades.

---

So what would my position be if I believe things like He was pierced for our transgressions, crushed for our iniquities, and that it was the will of the Lord to crush Him as it says in Isaiah 53? Or He made Him to be sin who knew no sin in, He bore our sins on the tree, He became a curse for us, and that He was sent by God to be the propitiation for our sins.

The way I have understood PSA is that Jesus paid the penalty for my sins by dying in my place. If that isn't PSA, which theory of atonement would it be?

Doesn't a ransom = a substitution = a scapegoat?

Mostly Peaceful said:

---

one MEEN Ag said:

---

Mostly Peaceful said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

lobopride said:

---

#5 for the W

---

Honest confession

How many of y'all who voted for #5 knew there were other atonement theories?

And that penal substitution was unknown in the early church?

---

Yes, I was familiar with the various theories. I subscribe to both CV and PSA. I disagree that PSA was unknown in the early church. Obviously, it wasn't called that, but the early church fathers wrote about Jesus dying in our place, bearing our sins on the cross, etc.

Paul wrote about it, Peter wrote about it, the author of Hebrews wrote about it, Jesus talked about it. Before them, Isaiah clearly prophesied about it, and long before Isaiah, the sacrificial system foreshadowed it.

1 John 4:10 could not be more clear. God sent His son to be the propitiation for our sins.

---

Lord of Spirits did a great takedown of PSA in the midst of explaining the early church position. Thesis: Saying you believe Jesus died on behalf of our sins doesn't equate to the full definition of PSA. PSA belief requires that the Father turned his back on Christ on the cross when Christ took on the sins of the world. This is, of course, hogwash and destroys the trinity as well as misunderstands the power of Christ over death as death has no claim on Christ. It also misinterprets Psalm 22 ("My God, My God why have you forsaken me" Is the start of Psalm 22 beginning the reign of the Messiah. Not that the Father has turned his back on Christ.)

https://www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts/lordofspirits/every_stick_of_wood_in_the_old_testament/

Remember the goats on the day of Atonement. Both are perfect. On one goat the sins of Israel are placed on it and it is cast out of the camp. It is taking the sins back to the Azazel (satan) by being cast out of the camp. The other goat is killed (no ritualization of the killing itself, the goat is offered as a sacrifice) and its blood is sprinkled throughout the holiest of holies to cleanse it of sins.

Did the goat become sinful by taking on the sins or was it just the vehicle to return sin to its originator? The Azezel goat is still blameless, but it is carrying the sins of Israel. Christ is the same. He did not become sinful but carried the sins to its original creator as he gave up his human body and went to Hades.

---

So what would my position be if I believe things like He was pierced for our transgressions, crushed for our iniquities, and that it was the will of the Lord to crush Him as it says in Isaiah 53? Or He made Him to be sin who knew no sin in, He bore our sins on the tree, He became a curse for us, and that He was sent by God to be the propitiation for our sins.

The way I have understood PSA is that Jesus paid the penalty for my sins by dying in my place. If that isn't PSA, which theory of atonement would it be?

---

Jesus's physical flesh was pierced for transgressions, crushed for our iniquities. God became man and suffered the most tortuous of deaths. He gave up his spirit, and in old testament speak everything that dies on a tree shall be cursed. I'll do you one more, he was sent out of the city to die, he was exiled. Also curses of the old testament. Jesus is both goats of the Day of Atonement.

But these physical tolls do not surmount to A) God the father turning his back on the son. That would destroy the trinity and the single nature of God. That Jesus, when bearing these sins and returning them to their originator (satan) that he became sinful. That can't be. Jesus's life on this earth is Him showed that death has no claim on Him, thats why unclean places become clean in His presence. That he can heal and forgive sins. The stain of sin does not rub off on Christ like it does to us, he cleans everything he touches with His presence. Christ died a humiliating, excruciating death to redeem every last part of mankind's fallen nature to sin. During Christ's passion the soldiers who killed Christ, the jews who demanded he die, and the disciples who abandoned Christ are all forgiven of their sins of participation if they choose to repent.

I would say you just have a less than full view of Christ, the cross, and how Jesus fulfilled the role of bearing our sins. Its protestant centric, but that is not PSA as it was coming hot off the press by John Calvin. PSA requires God turning his back on the son, destroying the trinity and giving Christ over to Satan even though Satan had no claim on Him, and then the Father restoring Him.

This is why the orthodox church says Christ broke down the gates of Hades. Hades did not take Christ as a captive as satan can for anyone else who has sinned.

one MEEN Ag said:

---

Mostly Peaceful said:

---

one MEEN Ag said:

---

Mostly Peaceful said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

lobopride said:

---

#5 for the W

---

Honest confession

How many of y'all who voted for #5 knew there were other atonement theories?

And that penal substitution was unknown in the early church?

---

Yes, I was familiar with the various theories. I subscribe to both CV and PSA. I disagree that PSA was unknown in the early church. Obviously, it wasn't called that, but the early church fathers wrote about Jesus dying in our place, bearing our sins on the cross, etc.

Paul wrote about it, Peter wrote about it, the author of Hebrews wrote about it, Jesus talked about it. Before them, Isaiah clearly prophesied about it, and long before Isaiah, the sacrificial system foreshadowed it.

1 John 4:10 could not be more clear. God sent His son to be the propitiation for our sins.

---

Lord of Spirits did a great takedown of PSA in the midst of explaining the early church position. Thesis: Saying you believe Jesus died on behalf of our sins doesn't equate to the full definition of PSA. PSA belief requires that the Father turned his back on Christ on the cross when Christ took on the sins of the world. This is, of course, hogwash and destroys the trinity as well as misunderstands the power of Christ over death as death has no claim on Christ. It also misinterprets Psalm 22 ("My God, My God why have you forsaken me" Is the start of Psalm 22 beginning the reign of the Messiah. Not that the Father has turned his back on Christ.)

https://www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts/lordofspirits/every_stick_of_wood_in_the_old_testament/

Remember the goats on the day of Atonement. Both are perfect. On one goat the sins of Israel are placed on it and it is cast out of the camp. It is taking the sins back to the Azazel (satan) by being cast out of the camp. The other goat is killed (no ritualization of the killing itself, the goat is offered as a sacrifice) and its blood is sprinkled throughout the holiest of holies to cleanse it of sins.

Did the goat become sinful by taking on the sins or was it just the vehicle to return sin to its originator? The Azezel goat is still blameless, but it is carrying the sins of Israel. Christ is the same. He did not become sinful but carried the sins to its original creator as he gave up his human body and went to Hades.

---

So what would my position be if I believe things like He was pierced for our transgressions, crushed for our iniquities, and that it was the will of the Lord to crush Him as it says in Isaiah 53? Or He made Him to be sin who knew no sin in, He bore our sins on the tree, He became a curse for us, and that He was sent by God to be the propitiation for our sins.

The way I have understood PSA is that Jesus paid the penalty for my sins by dying in my place. If that isn't PSA, which theory of atonement would it be?

---

Jesus's physical flesh was pierced for transgressions, crushed for our iniquities. God became man and suffered the most tortuous of deaths. He gave up his spirit, and in old testament speak everything that dies on a tree shall be cursed. I'll do you one more, he was sent out of the city to die, he was exiled. Also curses of the old testament. Jesus is both goats of the Day of Atonement.

But these physical tolls do not surmount to A) God the father turning his back on the son. That would destroy the trinity and the single nature of God. That Jesus, when bearing these sins and returning them to their originator (satan) that he became sinful. That can't be. Jesus's life on this earth is Him showed that death has no claim on Him, thats why unclean places become clean in His presence. That he can heal and forgive sins. The stain of sin does not rub off on Christ like it does to us, he cleans everything he touches with His presence. Christ died a humiliating, excruciating death to redeem every last part of mankind's fallen nature to sin. During Christ's passion the soldiers who killed Christ, the jews who demanded he die, and the disciples who abandoned Christ are all forgiven of their sins of participation if they choose to repent.

I would say you just have a less than full view of Christ, the cross, and how Jesus fulfilled the role of bearing our sins. Its protestant centric, but that is not PSA as it was coming hot off the press by John Calvin. PSA requires God turning his back on the son, destroying the trinity and giving Christ over to Satan even though Satan had no claim on Him, and then the Father restoring Him.

This is why the orthodox church says Christ broke down the gates of Hades. Hades did not take Christ as a captive as satan can for anyone else who has sinned.

---

As I stated earlier in the thread, my theory of atonement isn't limited to PSA. I'm a believer in CV as well. I do agree, however, that I don't have a full view of Christ, the cross, and all that entailed. Working on that daily.

Where I disagree is that PSA requires God turning His back on Jesus. I only see things like this from those who object to PSA. Here it is straight from one of my theology textbooks: The view of atonement that holds that Christ in his death bore the just penalty of God for our sins, and did so as a substitute for us.

It is God's holiness that required a payment for sin, and His love provided that payment. Through that act, the powers of sin, death and satan were defeated.

Mostly Peaceful said:

---

one MEEN Ag said:

---

Mostly Peaceful said:

---

one MEEN Ag said:

---

Mostly Peaceful said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

lobopride said:

---

#5 for the W

---

Honest confession

How many of y'all who voted for #5 knew there were other atonement theories?

And that penal substitution was unknown in the early church?

---

Yes, I was familiar with the various theories. I subscribe to both CV and PSA. I disagree that PSA was unknown in the early church. Obviously, it wasn't called that, but the early church fathers wrote about Jesus dying in our place, bearing our sins on the cross, etc.

Paul wrote about it, Peter wrote about it, the author of Hebrews wrote about it, Jesus talked about it. Before them, Isaiah clearly prophesied about it, and long before Isaiah, the sacrificial system foreshadowed it.

1 John 4:10 could not be more clear. God sent His son to be the propitiation for our sins.

---

Lord of Spirits did a great takedown of PSA in the midst of explaining the early church position. Thesis: Saying you believe Jesus died on behalf of our sins doesn't equate to the full definition of PSA. PSA belief requires that the Father turned his back on Christ on the cross when Christ took on the sins of the world. This is, of course, hogwash and destroys the trinity as well as misunderstands the power of Christ over death as death has no claim on Christ. It also misinterprets Psalm 22 ("My God, My God why have you forsaken me" Is the start of Psalm 22 beginning the reign of the Messiah. Not that the Father has turned his back on Christ.)

https://www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts/lordofspirits/every_stick_of_wood_in_the_old_testament/

Remember the goats on the day of Atonement. Both are perfect. On one goat the sins of Israel are placed on it and it is cast out of the camp. It is taking the sins back to the Azazel (satan) by being cast out of the camp. The other goat is killed (no ritualization of the killing itself, the goat is offered as a sacrifice) and its blood is sprinkled throughout the holiest of holies to cleanse it of sins.

Did the goat become sinful by taking on the sins or was it just the vehicle to return sin to its originator? The Azezel goat is still blameless, but it is carrying the sins of Israel. Christ is the same. He did not become sinful but carried the sins to its original creator as he gave up his human body and went to Hades.

---

So what would my position be if I believe things like He was pierced for our transgressions, crushed for our iniquities, and that it was the will of the Lord to crush Him as it says in Isaiah 53? Or He made Him to be sin who knew no sin in, He bore our sins on the tree, He became a curse for us, and that He was sent by God to be the propitiation for our sins.

The way I have understood PSA is that Jesus paid the penalty for my sins by dying in my place. If that isn't PSA, which theory of atonement would it be?

---

Jesus's physical flesh was pierced for transgressions, crushed for our iniquities. God became man and suffered the most tortuous of deaths. He gave up his spirit, and in old testament speak everything that dies on a tree shall be cursed. I'll do you one more, he was sent out of the city to die, he was exiled. Also curses of the old testament. Jesus is both goats of the Day of Atonement.

But these physical tolls do not surmount to A) God the father turning his back on the son. That would destroy the trinity and the single nature of God. That Jesus, when bearing these sins and returning them to their originator (satan) that he became sinful. That can't be. Jesus's life on this earth is Him showed that death has no claim on Him, thats why unclean places become clean in His presence. That he can heal and forgive sins. The stain of sin does not rub off on Christ like it does to us, he cleans everything he touches with His presence. Christ died a humiliating, excruciating death to redeem every last part of mankind's fallen nature to sin. During Christ's passion the soldiers who killed Christ, the jews who demanded he die, and the disciples who abandoned Christ are all forgiven of their sins of participation if they choose to repent.

I would say you just have a less than full view of Christ, the cross, and how Jesus fulfilled the role of bearing our sins. Its protestant centric, but that is not PSA as it was coming hot off the press by John Calvin. PSA requires God turning his back on the son, destroying the trinity and giving Christ over to Satan even though Satan had no claim on Him, and then the Father restoring Him.

This is why the orthodox church says Christ broke down the gates of Hades. Hades did not take Christ as a captive as satan can for anyone else who has sinned.

---

As I stated earlier in the thread, my theory of atonement isn't limited to PSA. I'm a believer in CV as well. I do agree, however, that I don't have a full view of Christ, the cross, and all that entailed. Working on that daily.

Where I disagree is that PSA requires God turning His back on Jesus. I only see things like this from those who object to PSA. Here it is straight from one of my theology textbooks: The view of atonement that holds that Christ in his death bore the just penalty of God for our sins, and did so as a substitute for us.

It is God's holiness that required a payment for sin, and His love provided that payment. Through that act, the powers of sin, death and satan were defeated.

---

The point I am trying to make is that Penal Substitionary Atonement is basically a 'Trademarked' term that describes original Calvinist thought. What I am describing is what Calvin describes. His original definition demands what I have said it demands.

You not holding to calvinist thought, nor your seminary textbooks is besides the point. Who wrote your theology textbooks? From which background do they hail? Who gave you the authority to decide by yourself how atonement works? Where did you or your theology textbook get the ability to decide for themselves this theology? Its an authority fight all the way down.

God's holiness cannot demand anything of God. Whatever is demanding something of God is actually your God, not God. God isn't bound by anything. The scriptures are very clear that the metaphor for sin is wages. We've earned them. And the bible is very clear that God bought this debt and has chosen to set it aside and forgive the debt.

So yes, we can agree there is a part of substitution on the cross. And there is a part of bearing a penalty on mans behalf. But that is not the same as Penal Substitutionary Atonement (TM) as made famous by Calvin. Your beliefs are downstream of his and have been comingled. He seized authority to decide atonement, and so have you. But don't say you believe in PSA. Because you don't.

User name checks out.