• **Notifications**: Notifications can be dismissed by clicking on the "x" on the righthand side of the notice.
  • **New Style**: You can now change style options. Click on the paintbrush at the bottom of this page.
  • **Donations**: If the Lord leads you please consider helping with monthly costs and up keep on our Forum. Click on the Donate link In the top menu bar. Thanks
  • **New Blog section**: There is now a blog section. Check it out near the Private Debates forum or click on the Blog link in the top menu bar.
  • Welcome Visitors! Join us and be blessed while fellowshipping and celebrating our Glorious Salvation In Christ Jesus.

What Did Christ's Atonement Do?

Arial

Admin
Staff member
Joined
May 27, 2023
Messages
5,655
Reaction score
3,910
Points
113
Faith
Christian/Reformed
Country
US
Politics
conservative
True Christians acknowledge that an atonement was made by Jesus. And that He was atoning for our sins. But exactly how His death on the cross provided that atonement is often not looked into closely, and therefore misconceptions in the doctrine arise. Even the Unitarians (not Christian) that I have come across, believe Jesus atoned for our sins on the cross. But when closely looked at and inquired about one will often find an atonement that has no content or power. It becomes no more than a wonderful thing Jesus did. That many cannot answer the question, "What did the atonement do and how did it do it, and why was it absolutely necessary for redemption of any to occur?

It starts way back in the Garden of Eden, to be shadowed and taught by God. And what are types and shadows of redemption but the unfolding of things fallen man must learn and God must show him? So those these things that look forward are historically real, not metaphors, they also begin to unveil what is to come.

In the garden Adam sinned against a holy God and tried to hide from Him. When God confronted him, He did not strike him instantly with death even though the penalty for his disobedience was death. Instead He cursed the serpent and gave a promise that he would be crushed by the seed of the woman. Then He cursed the woman, the man, and all of creation. (Gen 3:14-19) In verse 21 we see what may be the first recorded death. That of an animal most likely as humans and animals are the only ones with skin and they have skin because it is necessary for life.

What we see is God providing a temporary covering for their sin, then putting them out of the Garden where there was access to the tree of life. The sentence of physical death was still on them. And outside the Garden was toil and sorrow and pain.

This same curse came upon all of mankind because Adam stood as the representative (federal head) of all humanity. Thus it is said that his sin in imputed to all. We are all born into this condition and cannot escape it. We begin to pile up sin upon sin. And sin cannot dwell in the presence of absolute perfect holiness, which is God.

As we travel through the OT we see this idea of atonement, one life giving itself for the many. In the Mosaic covenant the covering was temporary, not actually cleansing the conscience of any, had to constantly be repeated. And we see the shedding of blood for forgiveness as well as covenant signs. In all cases it is closely intertwined with worship of God, with approaching Him. So holy is He that for the sacrifice of atonement strict rituals had to be followed that He prescribed. Particular incense. Particular animals or grain or oil.Particular days. Particular places. And only the high priest could enter the Holy of Holies (that place those in Christ enter at any time and in any place. Before His very throne) and first He had to follow stringent laws of purification. The ark and later the temple followed the exact pattern He set. Jerusalem in Judah was the place of meeting set to worship Him. Mt. Zion.

What was all of this doing for the people of God in those days? A temporary overlooking of their sins in the sense that He did not deal out their just punishment of death then, as His plan of redemption moved forward to its earthly zenith in Christ. But God is fully just as He is fully holy, and if He says the soul that sins shall die, then die it must.

So what did the atonement that Jesus made do that the OT sacrifices could not do?

As a man, one of us, tempted as we are, living in the same dark world we live in, surrounded by sin as we are, the second Adam; not born in Adam as we are but born of God, born under the Law, He kept all the Law perfectly, the Law that was good, but also cursed and condemned us because we could not keep it. And as the second Adam, that is, the representative (federal head)of all who God would give Him, He broke the curse of the first Adam whose sin is imputed to us, and He took the penalty of God's just wrath against our sins on His own body, thus paying the just justice of the Just Judge against them so that we would receive mercy, sins forgiven, instead of justice. Jesus met the justice we deserved, substituting Himself for us. He justified us before God, reconciled us to God, and this work of His is applied to the person by the new birth in Christ, still of Adam but no longer in Adam, of the Holy Spirit and through faith in Christ's person and work---alone. In this justification we are given the perfect righteousness of Christ imputed to us, counted as our own, our sins are forgiven. Just as our sins were imputed to Him on the cross, and were nailed to the cross, they are washed away by is shed blood. And lest we forget the shedding of blood in the OT as the shedding of blood for forgiveness but also as a sign of covenant----"This is My blood, the blood of the new covenant."
 
True Christians acknowledge that an atonement was made by Jesus. And that He was atoning for our sins. But exactly how His death on the cross provided that atonement is often not looked into closely, and therefore misconceptions in the doctrine arise. Even the Unitarians (not Christian) that I have come across, believe Jesus atoned for our sins on the cross. But when closely looked at and inquired about one will often find an atonement that has no content or power. It becomes no more than a wonderful thing Jesus did. That many cannot answer the question, "What did the atonement do and how did it do it, and why was it absolutely necessary for redemption of any to occur?

It starts way back in the Garden of Eden, to be shadowed and taught by God. And what are types and shadows of redemption but the unfolding of things fallen man must learn and God must show him? So those these things that look forward are historically real, not metaphors, they also begin to unveil what is to come.

In the garden Adam sinned against a holy God and tried to hide from Him. When God confronted him, He did not strike him instantly with death even though the penalty for his disobedience was death. Instead He cursed the serpent and gave a promise that he would be crushed by the seed of the woman. Then He cursed the woman, the man, and all of creation. (Gen 3:14-19) In verse 21 we see what may be the first recorded death. That of an animal most likely as humans and animals are the only ones with skin and they have skin because it is necessary for life.

What we see is God providing a temporary covering for their sin, then putting them out of the Garden where there was access to the tree of life. The sentence of physical death was still on them. And outside the Garden was toil and sorrow and pain.

This same curse came upon all of mankind because Adam stood as the representative (federal head) of all humanity. Thus it is said that his sin in imputed to all. We are all born into this condition and cannot escape it. We begin to pile up sin upon sin. And sin cannot dwell in the presence of absolute perfect holiness, which is God.

As we travel through the OT we see this idea of atonement, one life giving itself for the many. In the Mosaic covenant the covering was temporary, not actually cleansing the conscience of any, had to constantly be repeated. And we see the shedding of blood for forgiveness as well as covenant signs. In all cases it is closely intertwined with worship of God, with approaching Him. So holy is He that for the sacrifice of atonement strict rituals had to be followed that He prescribed. Particular incense. Particular animals or grain or oil.Particular days. Particular places. And only the high priest could enter the Holy of Holies (that place those in Christ enter at any time and in any place. Before His very throne) and first He had to follow stringent laws of purification. The ark and later the temple followed the exact pattern He set. Jerusalem in Judah was the place of meeting set to worship Him. Mt. Zion.

What was all of this doing for the people of God in those days? A temporary overlooking of their sins in the sense that He did not deal out their just punishment of death then, as His plan of redemption moved forward to its earthly zenith in Christ. But God is fully just as He is fully holy, and if He says the soul that sins shall die, then die it must.

So what did the atonement that Jesus made do that the OT sacrifices could not do?

As a man, one of us, tempted as we are, living in the same dark world we live in, surrounded by sin as we are, the second Adam; not born in Adam as we are but born of God, born under the Law, He kept all the Law perfectly, the Law that was good, but also cursed and condemned us because we could not keep it. And as the second Adam, that is, the representative (federal head)of all who God would give Him, He broke the curse of the first Adam whose sin is imputed to us, and He took the penalty of God's just wrath against our sins on His own body, thus paying the just justice of the Just Judge against them so that we would receive mercy, sins forgiven, instead of justice. Jesus met the justice we deserved, substituting Himself for us. He justified us before God, reconciled us to God, and this work of His is applied to the person by the new birth in Christ, still of Adam but no longer in Adam, of the Holy Spirit and through faith in Christ's person and work---alone. In this justification we are given the perfect righteousness of Christ imputed to us, counted as our own, our sins are forgiven. Just as our sins were imputed to Him on the cross, and were nailed to the cross, they are washed away by is shed blood. And lest we forget the shedding of blood in the OT as the shedding of blood for forgiveness but also as a sign of covenant----"This is My blood, the blood of the new covenant."
We must remember, there are those out there who do not agree with imputation. They believe Christ was just an example, and he died to sin, nothing personal. All we need now is to believe and be obedient.

One major problem with this view of no imputation is we have God the Father punishing a totally innocent person. Which is impossible,
But did Christ have any sin? Of course not, he was perfectly holy. But just as the priests laid hands on the goat and the sins of the people were imputed onto it, so it was with Jesus. He took on our sins and because responsible for them. He endures the Father's wrath, in our place. How else could the Father have inflicted our punishment of Jesus if he had not had such a relationship to our sins?

This has the makings of being a very good thread.
 
We must remember, there are those out there who do not agree with imputation. They believe Christ was just an example, and he died to sin, nothing personal. All we need now is to believe and be obedient.
And it is things like that that make the cross not actually doing anything. As though God sent His Son to the cross, and the Son obediently went to the cross, (as though God simply said to the Son in eternity past, if you obey be and die on the cross I will forgive people's sins). And since Jesus allowed Himself to be killed by sinful wicked men, God raised Him from the dead and now if we believe that our sins are forgiven.
One major problem with this view of no imputation is we have God the Father punishing a totally innocent person. Which is impossible,
But did Christ have any sin? Of course not, he was perfectly holy. But just as the priests laid hands on the goat and the sins of the people were imputed onto it, so it was with Jesus. He took on our sins and because responsible for them. He endures the Father's wrath, in our place. How else could the Father have inflicted our punishment of Jesus if he had not had such a relationship to our sins?
Those that do not believe in imputation and certainly not double imputation, who deny penal substitution and at the same time don't (they just believe in one that didn't actually do anything) do so on the grounds of a fallacy in the first place. They say it teaches that God Himself was venting anger and malicious wrath against Jesus. And it does not teach that at all. The wrath and punishment was against our sins, and Jesus bore the punishment in our place. They forget the substitution. The doctrine does not.
 
Explain what you mean and put forth your argument. We can go from there.
Christus Victor is the idea that the main reason for Jesus to die was in order to assault hell, break down the gates, and set the captives free. Within this paradigm, the focus is less on His death, and more on His resurrection, which stands as proof of his victory.

-Jarrod

P.S. I have grossly oversimplified for the sake of brevity.
 
Christus Victor is the idea that the main reason for Jesus to die was in order to assault hell, break down the gates, and set the captives free. Within this paradigm, the focus is less on His death, and more on His resurrection, which stands as proof of his victory.

-Jarrod

P.S. I have grossly oversimplified for the sake of brevity.
Aside from the fact that He couldn't be resurrected unless He did die, and that He didn't die just so He could be resurrected, where do you find biblical support for your view?

He died for the living on their way to hell, not for the dead in hell. His resurrection was proof of His having conquered the power of sin to condemn over the believer and having conquered the power of death to hold them. And maybe I have misunderstood what you said, but it sounds like the former is what you were asserting.
 
Christus Victor is the idea that the main reason for Jesus to die was in order to assault hell, break down the gates, and set the captives free. Within this paradigm, the focus is less on His death, and more on His resurrection, which stands as proof of his victory.

-Jarrod

P.S. I have grossly oversimplified for the sake of brevity.
I have looked up Christus Victor and will address it tomorrow.
 
Aside from the fact that He couldn't be resurrected unless He did die, and that He didn't die just so He could be resurrected, where do you find biblical support for your view?
I am not a big fan of citing single verses, as I feel that any major doctrine should be established as a theme through multiple chapters if not books. That notwithstanding, a number of quotes immediately jump to mine.

"He led captivity captive."

"The last enemy that shall be defeated is death."

"To day I will be with you in paradise."

"Death and hell were cast into the lake of fire."

"There ariseth another priest...who is made...after the power of an endless life."

I look forward to your post tomorrow.

-Jarrod
 
What Did Christ's Atonement Do?

The atonement ransomed the born again from condemnation (Ro 5:18) to God's wrath (Ro 5:9) on their sin and guilt; i.e.,
the atonement is salvation from God's wrath (Ro 5:9).
 
Last edited:
@Wycliffes_Shillelagh
The copy/paste I will present are from Got Questions. It is not the only site I looked at---I studied several. They are all saying pretty much the same thing but this one wades through a lot to get at the core, so am using it.
The term Christus Victor, Latin for “Christ is the conqueror,” originated with a 1931 book by Gustaf Aulén, which presents a theory of Christ’s work of atonement.


Aulén argued that the Christus Victor model of atonement was espoused by the early church fathers and is therefore closer to the truth than Anselm’s satisfaction (or commercial) theory, formulated in the eleventh century; and the Reformers’ penal substitution theory, which was a modification of Anselm’s view. Christus Victor asserts that “the work of Christ is first and foremost a victory over the powers which hold mankind in bondage: sin, death, and the devil.”

Penal substitution does not deny that Christ in His victory over sin and death did these things, or that it is the big picture of what Christ was accomplishing. It was absolutely necessary. But what the atonement did that has an immediate effect on individuals in order to accomplish defeat over evil beings in spiritual realms, of sin and death, is the subject of the OP.



Adherents to the Christus Victor model of atonement usually object to the penal substitution model because the substitution model is “violent” and supposedly places God in a disagreeable light. The idea that God is a Judge who was willing to kill His own Son to atone for the sins of humanity is repugnant to opponents of substitutionary theory. Those like Aulén dislike the idea that God cares so much about the satisfaction of His justice that He would choose to punish Jesus. Aulén also claimed that the satisfaction and substitution models pit God and Jesus against one another, while Christus Victor places them on the same side, fighting evil together.

The purpose then of the Christus Victor is based on a feeling, and then a way is found without scripture to make something, this bad feeling, go away.They misstate penal substitution when they word the doctrine as God caring so much about the satisfaction of His justice that He would choose to punish Jesus. It ignores an entire characteristic and quality of God. That of being just. His being just does not take away from His being love, nor does His love take away from His being just. It isn't that He cares so much about His justice as is caricatured in the description that in order to maintain it He kills His own Son. If God were to say "Oh never mind. I will just forgive them without justice being met on sin." He would become a liar and untrue to Himself. And of course the Christus Victor view does not establish a more less violent reason for sending the Son to remedy the matter and defeat evil powers. Jesus is still crucified by the will of God.

The Christus Victor is not based on arguments from scripture. Whereas the suffering of Christ in scripture, the atonement, is spoken of as propitiation, reconciliation, justification, substitution.


Second, because Christus Victor asserts that Christ’s sacrifice was not offered to satisfy God’s justice, then the Law—instead of being upheld as righteous—is placed under the heading of “evil things defeated by Christ’s sacrifice.” If God and Jesus are fighting alongside one another against the powers of darkness, they would be fighting Satan, man’s sin, and, ironically, the Law that made sin a problem in the first place.
Christus Victor sees the penal substitution theory of the atonement as violent and unpleasant. However, the doctrine of propitiation is biblical, and the Bible does say that Christ took our punishment upon Himself. He became a curse for us (Galatians 3:13), and He was made sin on our behalf (2 Corinthians 5:21).
 
Penal substitution does not deny that Christ in His victory over sin and death did these things, or that it is the big picture of what Christ was accomplishing. It was absolutely necessary.
By the same token, I don't deny that the crucifixion accomplished an atonement.

However, I do perceive a problem of timing. It makes perfect sense to atone for crimes already committed. But the idea of atoning for future infractions does not pass muster logically. I reckon that would be a license-to-sin, something that is clearly condemned in the Bible.

So then, I view The Atonement as covering all the people who went before. It could be argued that the Old Testament sacrifices were a system of deferment, and The Atonement was meant to deal with that deferred debt once-and-for-all. See Hebrews chapter 10.

Adherents to the Christus Victor model of atonement usually object to the penal substitution model because the substitution model is “violent” and supposedly places God in a disagreeable light. The idea that God is a Judge who was willing to kill His own Son to atone for the sins of humanity is repugnant to opponents of substitutionary theory. Those like Aulén dislike the idea that God cares so much about the satisfaction of His justice that He would choose to punish Jesus. Aulén also claimed that the satisfaction and substitution models pit God and Jesus against one another, while Christus Victor places them on the same side, fighting evil together.

The purpose then of the Christus Victor is based on a feeling, and then a way is found without scripture to make something, this bad feeling, go away. They misstate penal substitution when they word the doctrine as God caring so much about the satisfaction of His justice that He would choose to punish Jesus. It ignores an entire characteristic and quality of God. That of being just. His being just does not take away from His being love, nor does His love take away from His being just. It isn't that He cares so much about His justice as is caricatured in the description that in order to maintain it He kills His own Son. If God were to say "Oh never mind. I will just forgive them without justice being met on sin." He would become a liar and untrue to Himself. And of course the Christus Victor view does not establish a more less violent reason for sending the Son to remedy the matter and defeat evil powers. Jesus is still crucified by the will of God.

The Christus Victor is not based on arguments from scripture. Whereas the suffering of Christ in scripture, the atonement, is spoken of as propitiation, reconciliation, justification, substitution.
The explanation you've brought in from Got Questions misses the mark.

First, it supposes that Christus Victor was formulated against Anselm, which is not the case. The theology of Christ's victory is embedded in Scripture - you yourself have recognized such in your first paragraph.

The orthodox position from the 2nd-to-10th centuries was that Christ was ruling and reigning on the earth through the proxy of his apostles and The Church. The devout were expecting Christ to physically return to the earth at the end of 1,000 literal years since the Resurrection - i.e. the 10th century. When this return did not happen, it created a crisis of faith. Anselm formulated his theory of atonement in explanation of this problem, shifting the focus from Christ's Victory to Christ's Sacrifice. Others would re-interpret the millennium - as figurative, or undisclosed duration, or even never-ending. I seem to be digressing...

Second, I disagree with the bits in red/bold, above. I've never heard anyone put forth any such objection. The argument against Anselm is one of logic, not feelings.

Anselm argues that God killed... Himself... in order to appease... Himself... and that this satisfies God's Justice. Now there's multiple logical problems in that sentence, but let's focus on just one - that's not justice. There's a word for when someone else pays the price as a substitute and that word is Redemption.

Justice is a well-developed concept in the Bible. In the Old Testament legal system, when an accuser brought a defendant before a Judge, one of them was pronounced Just and the other was Judged. Righteousness is a synonym for Justice (in both Hebrew & Greek). Justice is when someone does the right thing, not when they do the wrong thing and the penalty is paid by someone else.

Third - speaking for myself here and not everyone who holds Christus Victor theology - I find theodicial arguments to be banal. Neither I nor anyone else has the standing to sit in judgment of God's actions (the book of Job in a nutshell). If God wishes to crucify His Son, or sentence Judas to an eternity in hell, I have no objections or criticism.

Second, because Christus Victor asserts that Christ’s sacrifice was not offered to satisfy God’s justice, then the Law—instead of being upheld as righteous—is placed under the heading of “evil things defeated by Christ’s sacrifice.” If God and Jesus are fighting alongside one another against the powers of darkness, they would be fighting Satan, man’s sin, and, ironically, the Law that made sin a problem in the first place.
Christus Victor sees the penal substitution theory of the atonement as violent and unpleasant. However, the doctrine of propitiation is biblical, and the Bible does say that Christ took our punishment upon Himself. He became a curse for us (Galatians 3:13), and He was made sin on our behalf (2 Corinthians 5:21).
I have already touched on the answer to this objection above. Christ did offer a propitiation, redeeming all of Israel that came before. This has not been denied.

-Jarrod
 
The explanation you've brought in from Got Questions misses the mark. . .Anselm argues that

God killed... Himself... in order to appease... Himself... and that this satisfies God's Justice.
Anselm should know better.

Divinity didn't die on the cross, divinity can't die.
Humanity died on the cross, for the sacrifice had to be human.
Divinity didn't and couldn't count for atonement for human sin, but it could provide the human perfection required for the human sacrifice.
There was no war of divinity with itself in the atonement.

And yes, if our law allowed it, where the only Judge in the territory sentenced his mother to jail time and then served the sentence for her himself, would anyone object to the judge punishing himself to satisfy the Court?
Anselm is foolish enough to apply man's own law (every man must pay his own debt to justice) to God?
 
Last edited:
By the same token, I don't deny that the crucifixion accomplished an atonement.

However, I do perceive a problem of timing. It makes perfect sense to atone for crimes already committed. But the idea of atoning for future infractions does not pass muster logically. I reckon that would be a license-to-sin, something that is clearly condemned in the Bible.

So then, I view The Atonement as covering all the people who went before. It could be argued that the Old Testament sacrifices were a system of deferment, and The Atonement was meant to deal with that deferred debt once-and-for-all. See Hebrews chapter 10.
Many believe that the imputed righteousness of Christ (which is pretty much what it seems you are denying was given by the atonement) will lead to antinomianism. Anywho believes it does give us a license to sin shows that they are not truly in Christ and it show a complete lack of knowledge of who Jesus is, therefore cannot contain faith in Him. And those who shy away from imputed righteousness through the atonement on those grounds, inadvertently are suggesting that the Vine is not capable of producing the good fruit in the branches, or that He won't.

But your stated view of the atonement here gives no place for sins to be dealt with in it, therefore no place for a sinner to come before His throne of grace. What about the sins of everyone after the crucifixion. Will there need to be another atonement for them?
First, it supposes that Christus Victor was formulated against Anselm, which is not the case. The theology of Christ's victory is embedded in Scripture - you yourself have recognized such in your first paragraph.
I don't deny that His victory is embedded in scripture. That does not negate penal substitution. The way He gained the victory was over man's sin and its penalty death by defeating them with His substitutionary death and His resurrection. Those in Him can no longer be condemned. And we multiply. God is taking back His creation through the redemption of man, who brought about its fall when he fell. And the quote I gave did not say it was formulated against Anselm.

There is still much of your post to address, and I will, but I have to attend to other things right now. Back soon.
 
Many believe that the imputed righteousness of Christ (which is pretty much what it seems you are denying was given by the atonement) will lead to antinomianism. Any who believes it does give us a license to sin shows that they are not truly in Christ and it show a complete lack of knowledge of who Jesus is, therefore cannot contain faith in Him. And those who shy away from imputed righteousness through the atonement on those grounds, inadvertently are suggesting that the Vine is not capable of producing the good fruit in the branches, or that He won't.

But your stated view of the atonement here gives no place for sins to be dealt with in it, therefore no place for a sinner to come before His throne of grace. What about the sins of everyone after the crucifixion. Will there need to be another atonement for them?
My understanding is that The Atonement provided redemption to those under the Old Covenant of the Law. It did not give them imputed righteousness; it paid the penalty for their unrighteousness.

Romans 3-4 contains a good discussion comparing salvation under the Law to salvation after the Law.

Of those under the Old Covenant of the Law, Paul says that what is salvic is faith in Christ's blood, with emphasis on redemption and propitiation, and the stipulation that this is for sins that are past:

Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God (3:24-25)

If Israel were to be saved based on belief... they wouldn't have been saved. They didn't believe. They didn't take hold of the promise. So they needed a deal based on redemption; not belief. God provided that.

As for those after the crucifixion, they are part of the New Covenant; not the Old. The imputed righteousness you refer to is part of this covenant, which Paul explains is a continuation of God's covenant with Abraham. Like Abraham, those after the crucifixion are saved when they are imputed righteousness based on their belief in the Son/Seed that God promised Abraham.

I don't deny that His victory is embedded in scripture. That does not negate penal substitution. The way He gained the victory was over man's sin and its penalty death by defeating them with His substitutionary death and His resurrection. Those in Him can no longer be condemned. And we multiply. God is taking back His creation through the redemption of man, who brought about its fall when he fell.
The way I see it, God does not need to take back His creation. He never lost it. He has finished redeeming Israel. Now, He rules the earth through the agency of those who believe. His work? To perfect both us and the creation. The work He started in Genesis 1 continues.

-Jarrod
 
The orthodox position from the 2nd-to-10th centuries was that Christ was ruling and reigning on the earth through the proxy of his apostles and The Church. The devout were expecting Christ to physically return to the earth at the end of 1,000 literal years since the Resurrection - i.e. the 10th century. When this return did not happen, it created a crisis of faith. Anselm formulated his theory of atonement in explanation of this problem, shifting the focus from Christ's Victory to Christ's Sacrifice. Others would re-interpret the millennium - as figurative, or undisclosed duration, or even never-ending. I seem to be digressing...
Some in the NT church were having the same crisis of faith. Paul is dealing with it in 1 and 2 Thess. The focus should be and should have always been on the sacrifice for this is how Jesus crushes the head of the serpent. To say that Anselm formulated his theory of atonement to explain the problem is saying you have access to his mind. It also doesn't mean he was wrong (And I have not studied what he says about the atonement.) So let's take the conversation back into the Reformation to the same penal substitution that exists in Christianity today. Does the Bible present penal substitution? It does. Loud and clear and in plain language, evertytime it speaks of it in relation to substitution, propitiation, reconciliation, justification.
Romans 3-4 contains a good discussion comparing salvation under the Law to salvation after the Law.

Of those under the Old Covenant of the Law, Paul says that what is salvic is faith in Christ's blood, with emphasis on redemption and propitiation, and the stipulation that this is for sins that are past:

Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God (3:24-25)
This is the whole sentence, not the portion you quoted. "For there is no difference; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith,to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God has passed over the sins that were previously committed, to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.
When it says God passed over the sins that were previously committed it has nothing to do with those under the old covenant law. It says ALL. And it simply means that until the advent of Jesus, His death and resurrection and ascension, God gave temporary covering of sin so as not to destroy all of mankind. Salvation was by faith then, just as it is now.
If Israel were to be saved based on belief... they wouldn't have been saved. They didn't believe. They didn't take hold of the promise. So they needed a deal based on redemption; not belief. God provided that.
Some were saved in Israel and before Israel---through faith. What you have here is God changing His plan rather than having one complete with all its details from the beginning. And they are saved the same way as Gentiles are. Through faith in Jesus and His work.
As for those after the crucifixion, they are part of the New Covenant; not the Old. The imputed righteousness you refer to is part of this covenant, which Paul explains is a continuation of God's covenant with Abraham. Like Abraham, those after the crucifixion are saved when they are imputed righteousness based on their belief in the Son/Seed that God promised Abraham.
Jesus is the fulfillment of the old covenant. He is also the fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant of promise. But there can be no imputed righteousness without our sins being imputed to Christ, and our sins meeting their just punishment in Him. Our substitute. Th
at is the only way His righteousness can be imputed to us.
The way I see it, God does not need to take back His creation. He never lost it. He has finished redeeming Israel. Now, He rules the earth through the agency of those who believe. His work? To perfect both us and the creation. The work He started in Genesis 1 continues.
God has always ruled over and governed His creation. That is not what I mean. But it is not what it was when He created it because through the actions of Adam, and our gaining the knowledge of evil, we eventually corrupt everything we touch, everything He gives us. God cursed the man and the woman and their progeny and He cursed the ground. He did that, because as sinful creatures we cannot be allowed eternal life. Since it fell through man, it has to be redeemed and restored through man's redemption.
 
Does the Bible present penal substitution? It does. Loud and clear and in plain language, evertytime it speaks of it in relation to substitution, propitiation, reconciliation, justification.
Yes, for Israel. We only disagree on the who and when here, not that it happened.

This is the whole sentence, not the portion you quoted. "For there is no difference; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith,to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God has passed over the sins that were previously committed, to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.
If brevity isn't a consideration, then please continue. Chapter 4 establishes all of what I said about the continuation of Abraham's covenant.

When it says God passed over the sins that were previously committed it has nothing to do with those under the old covenant law. It says ALL. And it simply means that until the advent of Jesus, His death and resurrection and ascension, God gave temporary covering of sin so as not to destroy all of mankind. Salvation was by faith then, just as it is now.
I would point you to the beginning of chapter 3. The context is about Jews and Gentiles, and the Law and condemnation/redemption under the Law, vs grace and belief under the New Covenant.

Some were saved in Israel and before Israel---through faith. What you have here is God changing His plan rather than having one complete with all its details from the beginning. And they are saved the same way as Gentiles are. Through faith in Jesus and His work.
Other than Abraham?

Yes, God changed the plan. When Israel failed, He installed the covenant of the Law as a temporary measure... and installed the kings in place of the theocracy.

But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster. (Galatians 3)

But it is not what it was when He created it because through the actions of Adam, and our gaining the knowledge of evil, we eventually corrupt everything we touch, everything He gives us. God cursed the man and the woman and their progeny and He cursed the ground. He did that, because as sinful creatures we cannot be allowed eternal life. Since it fell through man, it has to be redeemed and restored through man's redemption.
Our worldviews are very different.

As I see it, the creation started in a state of chaos, not perfection. Since then, God has been working, often through mankind, to make it progressively better. You seem to have the opposite view.
 
Some in the NT church were having the same crisis of faith. Paul is dealing with it in 1 and 2 Thess. The focus should be and should have always been on the sacrifice for this is how Jesus crushes the head of the serpent. To say that Anselm formulated his theory of atonement to explain the problem is saying you have access to his mind. It also doesn't mean he was wrong (And I have not studied what he says about the atonement.) So let's take the conversation back into the Reformation to the same penal substitution that exists in Christianity today. Does the Bible present penal substitution? It does. Loud and clear and in plain language, evertytime it speaks of it in relation to substitution, propitiation, reconciliation, justification.
This is the whole sentence, not the portion you quoted. "For there is no difference; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith,to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God has passed over the sins that were previously committed, to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.
When it says God passed over the sins that were previously committed it has nothing to do with those under the old covenant law. It says ALL. And it simply means that until the advent of Jesus, His death and resurrection and ascension, God gave temporary covering of sin so as not to destroy all of mankind. Salvation was by faith then, just as it is now.

Some were saved in Israel and before Israel---through faith. What you have here is God changing His plan rather than having one complete with all its details from the beginning. And they are saved the same way as Gentiles are. Through faith in Jesus and His work.

Jesus is the fulfillment of the old covenant. He is also the fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant of promise. But there can be no imputed righteousness without our sins being imputed to Christ, and our sins meeting their just punishment in Him. Our substitute. Th
at is the only way His righteousness can be imputed to us.
God has always ruled over and governed His creation. That is not what I mean. But it is not what it was when He created it because through the actions of Adam, and our gaining the knowledge of evil, we eventually corrupt everything we touch, everything He gives us. God cursed the man
Reminder: God judged the man, the woman and the serpent, but only the serpent and the ground were cursed (Ge 3:14, 17).
and the woman and their progeny and He cursed the ground. He did that, because as sinful creatures we cannot be allowed eternal life. Since it fell through man, it has to be redeemed and restored through man's redemption.
 
Yes, for Israel. We only disagree on the who and when here, not that it happened.
Show me in scripture where penal substitution is only for Israel.
If brevity isn't a consideration, then please continue. Chapter 4 establishes all of what I said about the continuation of Abraham's covenant.
First define what you consider the Abrahamic covenant---and there were two of them.
I would point you to the beginning of chapter 3. The context is about Jews and Gentiles, and the Law and condemnation/redemption under the Law, vs grace and belief under the New Covenant.
What does that have to do with the post it is responding to that explains what it means when it says God passed over the former sins?
Other than Abraham?
Yes.
Yes, God changed the plan. When Israel failed, He installed the covenant of the Law as a temporary measure... and installed the kings in place of the theocracy.

But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster. (Galatians 3)
So you don't think God knew Israel would fail? You really think God works according to contingencies? What Israel failed to do was keep the Law. The Law did not come into effect after they failed. And a king is a theocrat, therefore under kings was a theocracy. God was there King. They wanted a human king like the other nations. But those kings were still meant to be under His Kingship---vassal kings. The law was our schoolmaster to teach us righteousness and show us we could not achieve it. It condemned us and should drive us to Christ. We need a Savior.
As I see it, the creation started in a state of chaos, not perfection. Since then, God has been working, often through mankind, to make it progressively better. You seem to have the opposite view.
That is not what the Bible says---at all. Have you ever done a straight through cover to cover read of the Bible. Amazingly it starts with "In the beginning God----" and it is one continuous story unfolding with many parts. Just like a normal book!
 
Reminder: God judged the man, the woman and the serpent, but only the serpent and the ground were cursed (Ge 3:14, 17).
You could look at it that way. No problem. But the Bible does say we are under the curse of the law and that Jesus removed the curse from us. A
 
Back
Top