Upon more reflection, I’ll refrain from identifying myself with any particular view of atonement. Here are basics of my view:
James,
I’ve always had difficulty with point number 3.
If the debt has been paid but I don’t become a believer then I get punished - isn’t that paying the debt twice?
Some people see it like Jesus leaving a bag of gold outside my front door such that I have to pick up the bag and take it to my creditor before the debt is paid. Yet the bible never describes that scenario - it always says that the debt has already been paid. That is more like Jesus taking the bag of gold to the house of my creditor and giving it to him.
This has always confused me 
Hi Jeff,
I appreciate that your an agnostic, but regardless of what you now don’t know, you’ll eventually get saved and tap into the redemption of Jesus Christ.
While we we’re camping we had a good long discussion on this topic. One thing I’ve noticed in our discussions has been that the seemingly inevitably conclusion of Ultra Universalism if Penal Substituion is held. I mentioned to Bob that I’ve been trying to tread the waters of Imputed Righteoussness with Univeralism and wondering if it has to lead to Ultra Universalism.
My thoughts are it does. As I’ve listened to Mike Williams and panetlists like him, it seems they are big on Imputed Righteoussness which I believe is inseperable to Penal Substitution.
For if Jesus died to appease the anger of God because God requires perfection, and we are not perfect then the righteoussness must be imputed to us.
now as for the paper,
**point 1: So, the cross satisfies & “demonstrates His love,” not his wrath (Rom. 5:6-10). No change is ever needed in God’s inclination toward sinners (Mal. 3:6). **
Often we take it to be God is punishing Jesus on the cross but it seems that in the typology it is MAN (high priest) who holds the knife which kills the lamb of God. It’s as if God was telling us, he’s not going to kill the innocent man, WE WILL!
I don’t see much depiction that God is trashing the innocent. If he does than I’ll assume the calvinist can be right in saying he can make some men for heaven and some for hell by his own decree without giving men a choice. Truly Jesus did not die to save us from God, but to RECONCILE us TO God.
Hi Aug,
I’m still unsure why you believe the Imputed Righteousness would result in Ultra Universalism.
And concerning Point 1 in the paper, the Ancient Church had alternatives. Some said that Christ paid the ransom for our redemption to the Father. Others said that Christ paid the ransom for our redemption to the devil. And others said that Christ paid the ransom for our redemption, but not to the Father or the devil. Regardless, Christ paid the ransom for our redemption (Mt 20:28, Mk 10:45, 1Ti 2:6, Heb 9:15). And that redemption cleanses us of our sin by the regeneration of the Holy Spirit, which makes us righteous. We don’t have to believe in Penal Substitution to believe that the regeneration of the Holy Spirit makes us righteous.
Hi Aug and Bob,
As I’ve been reading the Bible since my last post in this thread, I reviewed Hebrews teaching about the atonement and noticed Romans 3:25-26:
[25] God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished-- [26] he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus. (Romans 3:25-26 TNIV)
As far as I can see, this verse teaches that the Father presented the Son as a sacrifice. And Hebrews clearly associates the death of Jesus with Old Testament sacrifices.
I think we’re seeing a complex situation. On one level, the Father had no joy in sacrificing his Son. But the Son, being equal to the Father and the creator of all humans, decided to take punishment on behalf of believers. And God allowed the devil and evil humans to actually strike down the Son, as temporary as it was.
James,
I don’t think anyone is contending that Jesus was a sacrifice which was offered by God. What is being contended is that it was God punishing his son. If God punished a innocent man then that would actually show that he is not just (being Jeff’s point).
Of course the typology is Abraham/Isreals father (God) who places his son upon the altar. What the typology does not show is that Abraham was angry at Isreal/Abrahams Son (Son of God).
I believe the position that God punishing an innocent man can ONLY mean an injustice since GOD NEVER punishes the innocent. Offering up his son as a sacrifice can mean many things. What we DO KNOW it means is God LOVES mankind (adom). The “many things” it might mean is what we should really look at.
Aug
Hi Aug,
I have a clearer idea about your concerns. I hope to answer them in the next four paragraphs, but we’ll see.
This argument is big among various neo-unitarians such as Fausto Sozzini, who by definition reject that Jesus Christ is God Almighty. The two biggest points in Christian orthodoxy are: 1) Jesus is both human and God Almighty; 2) Jesus voluntarily chose to take the punishment on behalf of others before he created the universe. If Jesus were drafted into the crucifixion, then I would share some of the concern. But Jesus lovingly decided to die on the cross on behalf of others and Jesus made this decision before he created the universe.
Concerning typology with Abraham and his son Isaac, we must remember that types/prefigurations are never exact matches. Prefigurations foreshadow. They have some similarities and some differences.
In the case of Abraham and Isaac, I agree we see no specific mention of God being angry with Abraham. And we need to understand the cultural background. Human sacrifice was a common religious practice in the Middle East in Abraham’s time. And scripture clearly teaches that God merely tested Abraham and never wanted him to sacrifice Isaac. And the ram in thicket, not Isaac, was the prefiguration of Christ.
God setting up the volunteer sacrifice of the incarnate Son of God is the only example of God punishing an innocent human. And I assume that there are many cases of innocent humans who voluntarily pay a debt owed by a loved one.
Jim,
I too see a crucial need to avoid distortion and extremes about grace and works. I’ll grant that the imputation interpretation arguably could be consistent with that, but my central question as to how it is biblical remains.
Thanks for the “govermental” atonement link, distinguishing it from Penal Satisfaction, especially since Christ doesn’t receive the “exact” punishment due to us. Still, its’ language that Jesus provides a “propitiation” (pain that relieved God’s anger?) that “appeased” God and was a “substitute” for our “penalty” sounds like the essence of P.S. that my paper argued is contra-Scripture. I was also puzzled by citing an arch-Calvinist, Jonathan Edwards, for an ostensibly Arminian alternative.
Blessings, Bob
I’m not sure how it all follows logically. Simply because one does not see Jesus as being punished does not logically deduce to 1) he is not God nor 2) Jesus did voluntarily gave himself. So I affirm both 1 and 2 (He is God, and He did give himself).
Agreed, I’m simply saying some people might read into the typology what is not there. I’m not saying it PROVES he is not angry but rather that it does not show he is angry and so I used it as an example where it’s an offering of love.
in my opinion he was not only testing Abe, but was also teaching us through the imagery. Similar to Jonah being in the belly for 3 days and nights.
Then it is the only injust act God has done. For God does not punish the innocent. I see no way around this except to rethink our view of what happened and consider other approaches to understanding it. Indeed I’m sure innocent humans have voluntarily payed a debt owed by another but bale out money is different than a murderer found guilty and his/her innocent family member gets to go to jail while the murderer walks…name one example of that?
If this was done would justice be served?
I don’t see sacrifice as a necessity of God to forgive sin but rather, it is Love in it’s most beautiful form being played like a symphony. For if you love one perfectly YOU WILL GIVE YOURSELF and that is what might have appeased God. Namely that this Jesus of Nazareth loved perfectly (obedience), died perfectly (sacrifice) and lives.
Aug
Hi Bob,
Concerning the Jonathon Edwards quote, How much can we expect from a Wikipedia article?
Anyway, would it help to say that “propitiation” primarily refers to appeasing God’s plan for justice?
Jim,
Of course, you’re right that Wikipedia can present confusing unreliable juxtoposition. Also that appeasing (or even just satisfying) God’s requirement for “justice” sounds better than appeasing his anger.
Yet my critique (esp. #3) emphasizes that the Bible doesn’t teach any concept of true “justice” or righteouness that inflicting punishment would “satisfy.” If the Bible argues both that it’s unjust to punish the innocent, and that failing to press for true righteousness in the wicked is injustice, how does Jesus’ suffering “appease” God’s plan for justice? If “justice” means making something “right” again, and if the heart of the story is that it was God’s will for Jesus to lovingly respond to the wicked’s “injustice,” why not say that the gracious love demonstrated in that powerful love brings the crucial change and righteous outworking of grace and transformation in us, instead of saying that God punishes Jesus or that this pays or executes “justice” itself?
Blessings,
Bob
Thanks for your genuine research and wrestling with the mysteries of the cross. You’ve cited some crucial texts, and I reflected in detail on Isaiah 53. But I just realized you’ve mentioned TNIV’s Romans 3:25f, understandably the usual critical linchpin for P.S. “Justice” surely makes it sound like the implication is that bearing punishment is what would demonstrate that, especially when it translates (non-literally) another word as pointing to “punishment.”
But N.T. Wright is one who insists the dikaios or “righteousness” in Israel’s story typically refers to God’s “faithfulness,” which appeared problematic when He apparently kept “overlooking” (translated non-literally as “unpunished” by TNIV) Israel’s (the supposed light of the world’s) untransformed failures. But now Paul sees that Jesus is the (one seed of) Israel, who embodies the faithfulness that God seeks, and that his faithful demonstration of the Good News of God’s kingdom has power to produce in any who by faith enter into union with Him precisely what Israel lacked.
It is that “sin-offering” that enables a people in whom “the righteous requirement of the law might be fully met…” as they "live not according to the sinful nature," which establishes that God is in fact faithful and “righteous” (8:4). I admit this non P.S. interpretation is debateable, but my bias is that it is then more consistent with many other Bible themes, such as my own points 1-12.
Gentlemen:
Am enjoying this conversation greatly. More to say when/if I get the time but found this brief essay while searching for something else and found it incredibly interesting and pertinent to this discussion. Here is the link:
frederica.com/writings/christs-death-a-rescue-mission-not-a-payment-for-sins.html
The author is Frederica Mathewes-Green and the title is CHRIST’S DEATH: A RESCUE MISSION, NOT A PAYMENT FOR SINS
As I’ve heard it, she considers herself more of the Orthodox tradition which, it seems, views atonement without involving payments of penalties and without substitution. This position resonates very deeply with me. I’d be interested to know how firstborn 888 sees this; my sense he will like the “rescue mission” aspect, but would have trouble with the depiction of a personal “evil one” ie devil that Frederica talks about.
Blessings,
TotalVictory
Bobx3
Hi Aug,
I didn’t saying somebody must be a unitarian if they struggle with any of these concepts, but I’m noting a historical precedent. I saw some parallel in that Sozzini argued that it’s an injustice, and I appreciate that you clearly explain the different perspective.
I cannot quote any examples, but I wouldn’t be surprised if somebody took a murder wrap for a loved one. And David felt like dying in Absalom’s place, which is prefiguration of Christ. Anyway, I see no reason for that exact example and I see no logic in saying that Christ voluntarily taking punishment that others deserves was unjust.
To me, that looks to be the implication of Isaiah 53 and Romans 3:25-26.
Romans 3:25-26 and Hebrews appear to teach that the death of Christ was a covenantal sacrifice that satisfies justice for believers. Was that sacrifice a punishment? I’ll work on that in my reply to Bobx1 in this thread because he brought up the implications of Isaiah 53:4-5.
Hi Bob,
First, I want say that I never rely on a single translation when making conclusions about doctrine. Second, I want to see how much we agree about the atonement. Do you agree with the following? “The death of Jesus was a covenantal sacrifice that appeases justice for the moral debt of humans while faith in Christ is the condition for the covenant.”
Jim,
I’m sympathetic that Jesus’ life and death is “sacrificial,” and certainly that the accounts of the last supper associate it with sealing the promised new “covenant.” But all my posts to you including the original paragraph I emphasized and the comment on Romans three that you reprinted, are questioning the meaning of saying that Jesus’ death appeased “justice.”
I have argued that Jesus was actually faithful in embracing an act of ‘injustice’ which does not in itself satisfy or accomplish the importance God puts upon righteousness, but which is an instrument God uses to transform us in a way that accomplishes and satisfies God’s properly required goal of creating a gracious people of faith who reflect his righteous character and love. I’ve sought to enunciate this in a variety of ways and to address objections you’ve raised. I’m not sure how to make it clearer that I don’t think Jesus’ death is about God exacting justice.
Grace be with you,
Bobx1
Hi Bobx1,
Sorry it took me this long to understand that. May I ask how you interpret Romans 3:25-26, which I copied earlier?
Jim,
See the letter you quoted above from June 27.
Thanks, Bobx1