What I believe about the Atonement

[John Caldwell]

@Steve Owen,

Let me reword the question.

You have suggested that God punished Jesus (or our sins laid upon Jesus) instead of punishing us.

You agree that we suffer and die.

What do you believe Jesus suffered instead of us?

 

[Steve Owen]

One correction- "everyone" does not suppose Origen taught that God literally paid a price to Satan. Most contemporary scholars do not believe this to be the case. But it does not matter because we know there are some ECF's who affirmed at least a ransom theory while rejecting that idea (and the error did gain ground outside of Christian scholarship of the time).

Something similar is the use of "sheep" and "goats" (Scripture uses it as an illustration of how God will separate nations - not of people groups but on God's actions). We also see it in the imagery of the lost being spiritually dead (Scripture uses it as an illustration of lacking spiritual life while we sometimes see people pushing the illustration to link physical characteristics to spiritual abilities...or a lack thereof).

The reason people question the Ransom Theory being that God made a payment to Satan is that while it occurs in Origen's commentary on Romans the use of "Satan" symbolically is not uncommon to mean sin and death as a principle or power (similar to Paul's personification of "sin" in Romans) and it was my means of illustration in Origen's commentary.

This strikes me as being liberal revisionism and I question that 'most contemporary scholars' hold to it. But to suggest that God had to pay a ransom to a 'principle of sin and death' is hardly any better than that He paid a ransom to Satan. I reject it utterly.

I'd consider the various expressions of Ransom Theory (various because of how they are presented insofar as to whom a payment, if any, is made) to be under the classic view (what Gustaf Aulén coined as the "Christus Victor" position in the 1930's). Even Moral Influence seems (to me) to be at least related to the classic view (if not a direct sub-position within the view).

Aulen's view has been dismantled by Henri Blocher in his essay Agnus Victor, part of What does it mean to be Saved' (ed. John Stackhouse' Baker, 2002). I will post an extract presently. But I don't find Aulen's view at all persuasive.

But it also deals with divine justice (albeit differently than Penal Substitution Theory).

" It was only Anselm of Canterbury who first articulated an atonement theory that positioned Jesus as a ‘satisfaction’ of ‘an attribute’ of God. In Anselm’s theory, Jesus satisfied God’s honor, which contributed to the idea that Jesus stored up a ‘treasury of merit’ others could
access. Anselm could therefore leave the question of the scope of the atonement open, and genuinely open to human free will to choose Jesus. However, Anselm paved the way for John Calvin and others to position Jesus as satisfying God’s retributive justice, which became a broader category that was extended across people and across time, and which was understood in such a way that Jesus exhausted God’s wrath at one time, upholding God’s retributive justice on their behalf. Unlike Anselm’s theology where Jesus satisfied God’s honor in a personal way, giving others access, person by person, to his achievement, Calvin’s theology positioned Jesus against God’s justice in a categorical way, on behalf of the elect, all at once." (same reference as my last post)

And this is nonsense too. The Doctrine of Penal Substitution goes way back further than Calvin or Anselm, as does the Roman Catholic doctrine of a 'Treasury of Merit' (though not as far as PSA. It seems to have originated around 800, been promulgated by Alexander of Hales and systematized by Aquinas). The author does not seem to understand either history or PSA.

 

[John Caldwell]

This strikes me as being liberal revisionism and I question that 'most contemporary scholars' hold to it. But to suggest that God had to pay a ransom to a 'principle of sin and death' is hardly any better than that He paid a ransom to Satan. I reject it utterly.

Aulen's view has been dismantled by Henri Blocher in his essay Agnus Victor, part of What does it mean to be Saved' (ed. John Stackhouse' Baker, 2002). I will post an extract presently. But I don't find Aulen's view at all persuasive.

And this is nonsense too. The Doctrine of Penal Substitution goes way back further than Calvin or Anselm, as does the Roman Catholic doctrine of a 'Treasury of Merit' (though not as far as PSA. It seems to have originated around 800, been promulgated by Alexander of Hales and systematized by Aquinas). The author does not seem to understand either history or PSA.

Most scholars view Penal Substitution Theory as a product of the Reformation, so I suppose it depends on which ones we include in our counts.

The point is we know as a fact not all who held the view taught that God paid Satan (unless you dispute Gregory Nazianzen's position, among others).

The point here, Steve, is that I agree with you about the Classic view (what was termed Christus Victor in the 1930's).

But none of that matters here.

The classic view (or Christus Victor) answers the question "why did Christ have to suffer and die" in terms of becoming man (one of us, sharing in our infirmity). It holds that Christ died for us, for our sins, but not instead of us. He took the "penalty" we deserve upon Himself and shared in our suffering under the curse. That makes sense to me.

What I am asking you is what you believe Christ suffered instead of us. What aspects of the Cross was instead of us suffering them?

 

[Steve Owen]

@Steve Owen,

Let me reword the question.

You have suggested that God punished Jesus (or our sins laid upon Jesus) instead of punishing us.

You agree that we suffer and die.

What do you believe Jesus suffered instead of us?

I have not suggested but joyfully proclaimed that Christ willingly took upon Himself the death, punishment and curse due to fallen humanity as the penalty for sin. Christians are already raised from the dead and already seated with Christ in the heavenly places (Romans 6:11 etc., Ephesians 2:6). :)

But there is something else that Christ has achieved for us on the cross. '.....That through death He might destroy Him who had the power of death, that is, the devil' (Hebrews 2:14; cf. 1 John 3:8 etc.). Here I quote from Henri Blocher: 'How is Satan's role as the Accuser related to his power? If Satan's opposition to the Lord were a matter of mere power, the rebel's finite resources would equal zero confronted with infinity. But the accuser can appeal to justice. He may also indulge in slander, but his force resides in the rightness of his accusation. Joshua is unclean; unspeakably unclean.......[Zechariah 3:1-3]. The righteous Judge of all the earth, who can only do right, cannot refuse to hear the charges the Accuser brings without denying Himself. In other words, the weapon in the devil's hand is God's own law - hence the association in some passages of the law and inimical powers which Aulen was not able to read aright.'

Satan appeals to God's justice, calling on Him to punish humanity as we deserve. That is why He is called 'the adversary' and 'the accuser of the brethren' (cf. Revelation 12:9-10). Consequently, the defeat of the devil must involve the removal of our guilt, and that is the way that the N.T. presents it. That is why Colossians 2:14-15 presents to us Christ's triumph on the cross to the cancellation of the bond of our debt by His substitutionary death upon the cross. Then all the principalities and powers, chief of whom was Satan, were 'disarmed.' They have nothing of which to accuse Christians because Christ has paid the penalty in full. So the ransom paid by Christ to free us from the grasp of Satan was paid to God's justice. Now the ransom has been paid, 'There is now therefore no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus.' Satan is cast down.

 

[John Caldwell]

I have not suggested but joyfully proclaimed that Christ willingly took upon Himself the death, punishment and curse due to fallen humanity as the penalty for sin. Christians are already raised from the dead and already seated with Christ in the heavenly places (Romans 6:11 etc., Ephesians 2:6). :)

But there is something else that Christ has achieved for us on the cross. '.....That through death He might destroy Him who had the power of death, that is, the devil' (Hebrews 2:14; cf. 1 John 3:8 etc.). Here I quote from Henri Blocher: 'How is Satan's role as the Accuser related to his power? If Satan's opposition to the Lord were a matter of mere power, the rebel's finite resources would equal zero confronted with infinity. But the accuser can appeal to justice. He may also indulge in slander, but his force resides in the rightness of his accusation. Joshua is unclean; unspeakably unclean.......[Zechariah 3:1-3]. The righteous Judge of all the earth, who can only do right, cannot refuse to hear the charges the Accuser brings without denying Himself. In other words, the weapon in the devil's hand is God's own law - hence the association in some passages of the law and inimical powers which Aulen was not able to read aright.'

Satan appeals to God's justice, calling on Him to punish humanity as we deserve. That is why He is called 'the adversary' and 'the accuser of the brethren' (cf. Revelation 12:9-10). Consequently, the defeat of the devil must involve the removal of our guilt, and that is the way that the N.T. presents it. That is why Colossians 2:14-15 presents to us Christ's triumph on the cross to the cancellation of the bond of our debt by His substitutionary death upon the cross. Then all the principalities and powers, chif of whom was Satan, were 'disarmed.' They have nothing of which to accuse Christians because Christ has paid the penalty in full. So the ransom paid by Christ to free us from the grasp of Satan was paid to God's justice. Now the ransom has been paid, 'There is now therefore no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus.' Satan is cast down.

I agree with a lot of what you say, Steve.

I agree Christ had to suffer and die (to become a curse) to "be one of us" to have victory over the evil one and free us from the law of sin and death. We are tracking there.

Do you believe Christ suffered anything instead of us? If so, what?

Do you believe Christ suffered a punishment for sin instead of us (so we would not)? If so, what was that punishment?

 

[John Caldwell]

@Steve Owen ,

I am not sure that I am being clear on my question. You have my apology if the barrier is my lack of skill with words.

What I am saying is that we all agree Christ suffered and died to identify with us ("share in our infirmities").

My question relates specifically to Penal Substitution Theory. If the blood Christ shed, the "chastening" (the wounding, stripes, piercing) was not "instead of us" but rather "sharing in our infirmities" then what part of Christ's work was "instead of us"?

 

[Steve Owen]

@Steve Owen ,

I am not sure that I am being clear on my question. You have my apology if the barrier is my lack of skill with words.

What I am saying is that we all agree Christ suffered and died to identify with us ("share in our infirmities").

My question relates specifically to Penal Substitution Theory. If the blood Christ shed, the "chastening" (the wounding, stripes, piercing) was not "instead of us" but rather "sharing in our infirmities" then what part of Christ's work was "instead of us"?

I think I know what you are asking. You are asking if Christ suffered death instead of us, so that you can then ask, Why do we still die then?
If that's correct, perhaps you will confirm ASAP, and I will answer as soon as I can.

 

[John Caldwell]

I think I know what you are asking. You are asking if Christ suffered death instead of us, so that you can then ask, Why do we still die then?
If that's correct, perhaps you will confirm ASAP, and I will answer as soon as I can.

No. I think we both agree it is appointed man once to die and then the Judgment. It is obvious that Jesus did not suffer in the flesh do that we would not suffer in the flesh and physically die so that we would not die physically. He suffered and died physically for us, not instead of us in this context (as @marks indicated, He gave out death a different outcome).

I am asking what part of Jesus' suffering was not only for us but instead of us (experienced so that we would not experience it).

 

[Steve Owen]

No. I think we both agree it is appointed man once to die and then the Judgment. It is obvious that Jesus did not suffer in the flesh do that we would not suffer in the flesh and physically die so that we would not die physically. He suffered and died physically for us, not instead of us in this context (as @marks indicated, He gave out death a different outcome).

I don't think I do agree with this. I think it denies a number of important Scriptures.
John 6:53. "I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread that I shall give is My flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world."
John 11:25. "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live. And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die. Do you believe this?"

I am asking what part of Jesus' suffering was not only for us but instead of us (experienced so that we would not experience it).

I answered this already. Death, punishment and curse due to fallen humanity as the penalty for sin. Christians are already raised from the dead and already seated with Christ in the heavenly places (Romans 6:11 etc., Ephesians 2:6).

 

[John Caldwell]

I don't think I do agree with this. I think it denies a number of important Scriptures.
John 6:53. "I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread that I shall give is My flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world."
John 11:25. "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live. And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die. Do you believe this?"

I answered this already. Death, punishment and curse due to fallen humanity as the penalty for sin. Christians are already raised from the dead and already seated with Christ in the heavenly places (Romans 6:11 etc., Ephesians 2:6).

Thanks for your clarification, Steve.

For me, I do believe that Christ is the living bread and he who eats of this bread will live forever. And I believe that Christ is the resurrection and the life. He who believes, though he may die, he shall live. And whoever lives and believes in Him shall never die.

One difference is I do not believe that the passage is speaking of a physical life in these bodies but a spiritual life. I believe that we will die (for it is appointed man once to die) and we will be transformed into the likeness of Christ. I believe that in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive. I believe that the dead (those who are physically dead) will be resurrected.

Do you believe it is only people who are lost who physically die. Your friend who died, my father who died...do you believe the reason they experienced physical death is that they were not saved?

 

[Steve Owen]

Thanks for your clarification, Steve.

For me, I do believe that Christ is the living bread and he who eats of this bread will live forever. And I believe that Christ is the resurrection and the life. He who believes, though he may die, he shall live. And whoever lives and believes in Him shall never die.

One difference is I do not believe that the passage is speaking of a physical life in these bodies but a spiritual life. I believe that we will die (for it is appointed man once to die) and we will be transformed into the likeness of Christ. I believe that in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive. I believe that the dead (those who are physically dead) will be resurrected.

Do you believe it is only people who are lost who physically die. Your friend who died, my father who died...do you believe the reason they experienced physical death is that they were not saved?

No, obviously I don't believe that at all. But when someone is saved, they receive eternal life, at that point. That is why we are told that we are raised with Christ and that we are seated in the heavenly places with Christ. "Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and are dead. This [I assume the Lord Jesus was pointing to Himself] is the bread that came down from heaven that one may eat and not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever........" Now it is true that unless the Lord Jesus returns quite speedily, I shall shuffle off this mortal coil and go to be with my Lord, but by the grace of God I am in a very different position to the unbelieving Jews who ate the manna and are dead. I have not merely eaten food to the benefit of my body; I have feasted spiritually upon the Lord Jesus in my heart; I have received Him by faith into my heart and therefore I (and all other genuine believers) already possess eternal life. The question is, what is the means by which we attain to this happy state? '.......and the bread that I [Myself] shall give is My flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world." What our Lord means here is that He is going to give Himself (see 6:57) as a vicarious sacrifice for sin.; that He will offer up His human nature (soul and body) to eternal death on the cross. The Father gives the Son; the Son gives Himself (John 10:18; Galatians 2:20; Ephesians 5:2). Note "the bread that I Myself...." in distinction from the Father ".....shall give is My flesh." To believe on Christ is to receive (appropriate and assimilate) Him as the Crucified One. Apart from that sacrifice, He is not bread for us in any sense. That Jesus is speaking of His death is lear from 6:4, 53-56, 64, 70-71.

Now I want you to deal with my post #224. Christ died to satisfy God's justice; that He might be just and the justifier of the one who believes in Jesus. This is how Satan is defeated; that he can no longer accuse the brethren, because Christ has taken their sin away by paying the just penalty for it. This is the big fat hole in Ransom, Christus Victor, Moral Influence and all the other nonsense. None of it satisfies God's justice or defeats Satan.

 

[John Caldwell]

No, obviously I don't believe that at all. But when someone is saved, they receive eternal life, at that point. That is why we are told that we are raised with Christ and that we are seated in the heavenly places with Christ. "Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and are dead. This [I assume the Lord Jesus was pointing to Himself] is the bread that came down from heaven that one may eat and not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever........" Now it is true that unless the Lord Jesus returns quite speedily, I shall shuffle off this mortal coil and go to be with my Lord, but by the grace of God I am in a very different position to the unbelieving Jews who ate the manna and are dead. I have not merely eaten food to the benefit of my body; I have feasted spiritually upon the Lord Jesus in my heart; I have received Him by faith into my heart and therefore I (and all other genuine believers) already possess eternal life. The question is, what is the means by which we attain to this happy state? '.......and the bread that I [Myself] shall give is My flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world." What our Lord means here is that He is going to give Himself (see 6:57) as a vicarious sacrifice for sin.; that He will offer up His human nature (soul and body) to eternal death on the cross. The Father gives the Son; the Son gives Himself (John 10:18; Galatians 2:20; Ephesians 5:2). Note "the bread that I Myself...." in distinction from the Father ".....shall give is My flesh." To believe on Christ is to receive (appropriate and assimilate) Him as the Crucified One. Apart from that sacrifice, He is not bread for us in any sense. That Jesus is speaking of His death is lear from 6:4, 53-56, 64, 70-71.

Now I want you to deal with my post #224. Christ died to satisfy God's justice; that He might be just and the justifier of the one who believes in Jesus. This is how Satan is defeated; that he can no longer accuse the brethren, because Christ has taken their sin away by paying the just penalty for it. This is the big fat hole in Ransom, Christus Victor, Moral Influence and all the other nonsense. None of it satisfies God's justice or defeats Satan.

While I agree those who are saved receive eternal life it seems you are missing the question.

Jesus suffered physically. We suffer physically. Jesus died physically. We will die physically.

My question is what did Jesus suffer instead of us?

 

[reformed1689]

The classic view (or Christus Victor) answers the question "why did Christ have to suffer and die" in terms of becoming man (one of us, sharing in our infirmity). It holds that Christ died for us, for our sins, but not instead of us. He took the "penalty" we deserve upon Himself and shared in our suffering under the curse. That makes sense to me.

And here you are again arguing that he took the penalty. So the penalty is getting charged twice? Once to Christ, once to us? No, that is nonsense.

 

[Steve Owen]

While I agree those who are saved receive eternal life it seems you are missing the question.

Jesus suffered physically. We suffer physically. Jesus died physically. We will die physically.

My question is what did Jesus suffer instead of us?

And you are missing my response: The Lord Jesus suffered instead of us (ie. believers) death, punishment and curse due to fallen humanity as the penalty for sin. We have passed from death to life; there is no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus; John writes to us that we may know that we have (right now) eternal life; the second death will not hurt us at all; nothing in all creation will separate us from the love that there is in Christ Jesus. How many texts do you want?

And now are you going to deal with my post #224?

 

[John Caldwell]

And you are missing my response: The Lord Jesus suffered instead of us (ie. believers) death, punishment and curse due to fallen humanity as the penalty for sin. We have passed from death to life; there is no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus; John writes to us that we may know that we have (right now) eternal life; the second death will not hurt us at all; nothing in all creation will separate us from the love that there is in Christ Jesus. How many texts do you want?

And now are you going to deal with my post #224?

I do not want the text (we agree on the text).

I agree with your post that there is something that Christ has achieved for us on the cross. '.....That through death He might destroy Him who had the power of death, that is, the devil'.

I joyfully proclaimed that Christ willingly took upon Himself the death, and curse due to fallen humanity as the wages of sin. Christians are already raised from the dead and already seated with Christ in the heavenly places (Romans 6:11 etc., Ephesians 2:6

What I am asking is not about Christ "sharing in our infirmities" but in Christ experiencing those "infirmities" instead of us.

That is what you have not answered. Christ suffered and died for us physically bearing our sins in the flesh. Yet we still suffer and die physically And we bear our sins in the flesh so that there is a need for us to die daily to sin and to bear our crosses.

My question is what part of Christ's work was instead of us.

 

[reformed1689]

I agree with your post that there is something that Christ has achieved for us on the cross. '.....That through death He might destroy Him who had the power of death, that is, the devil'.

And now you have fallen into very dangerous territory. You have just given satan power that he does not actually have. He does not have the power of death.

That is what you have not answered. Christ suffered and died for us physically bearing our sins in the flesh. Yet we still suffer and die physically And we bear our sins in the flesh so that there is a need for us to die daily to sin and to bear our crosses.

Christ did not take away the general curse of sin at this time. Animals still die, thorns still grow, and we physically die. But we do not experience the second death. We do not experience God's wrath.

 

[Steve Owen]

The Lord Jesus suffered instead of us (ie. believers) death, punishment and curse due to fallen humanity as the penalty for sin.

@John Caldwell I'm sorry! How could it have slipped my mind? Not only the above, but the Lord Jesus experienced being forsaken by God (Psalms 22:1 etc.) so that we never will.

 

[John Caldwell]

@John Caldwell I'm sorry! How could it have slipped my mind? Not only the above, but the Lord Jesus experienced being forsaken by God (Psalms 22:1 etc.) so that we never will.

Thank you. That does help me to understand your view.

To make sure I am tracking - you believe that Christ's blood was shed for us, that He suffered and died (physically) as we do ("shared in our weakness"/ "shared in our infirmities"). And you believe that the purpose of Christ's death was that He might destroy Satan.

But where we differ is that you believe Christ experience some type of "being forsaken by God" so that we will not (instead of us).

If so then the only part that is distinct to Penal Substitution Theory is this "being forsaken" because the purpose is that Christ experienced this as a punishment instead of us experiencing it. In other words, this is the part that Christ did not share but took instead of us. (We suffer and die physically but are not "forsaken" by God whereas Jesus suffered and died physically but was "forsaken" by God).

Is that correct?

What is the "being forsaken" that you point to?

What does it entail?

 

[Steve Owen]

Thank you. That does help me to understand your view.

To make sure I am tracking - you believe that Christ's blood was shed for us, that He suffered and died (physically) as we do ("shared in our weakness"/ "shared in our infirmities"). And you believe that the purpose of Christ's death was that He might destroy Satan.

No. I think you need to study and reply to my post #224 to help you understand what the Bible says on the matter

But where we differ is that you believe Christ experience some type of "being forsaken by God" so that we will not (instead of us).

That is certainly a part of it.

If so then the only part that is distinct to Penal Substitution Theory is this "being forsaken" because the purpose is that Christ experienced this as a punishment instead of us experiencing it. In other words, this is the part that Christ did not share but took instead of us. (We suffer and die physically but are not "forsaken" by God whereas Jesus suffered and died physically but was "forsaken" by God).

Is that correct?

What is the "being forsaken" that you point to?

What does it entail?

It is not correct. Your theology is far too earthbound. May I direct you to Luke 21:16-18? It may be a help to you. How can one be put to death and yet not lose one hair from his head? Also, are you acquainted with the book, The Death of Death in the Death of Christ by the puritan John Owen? I don't ask if you've read it, but perhaps the title will be suggestive to you.

 

[John Caldwell]

No. I think you need to study and reply to my post #224 to help you understand what the Bible says on the matter
That is certainly a part of it.

It is not correct. Your theology is far too earthbound. May I direct you to Luke 21:16-18? It may be a help to you. How can one be put to death and yet not lose one hair from his head? Also, are you acquainted with the book, The Death of Death in the Death of Christ by the puritan John Owen? I don't ask if you've read it, but perhaps the title will be suggestive to you.

No. I will study the Bible, not your post, to see what the Bible says on the matter. I am asking about what you say on this matter.

I have read pretty much everything Owen's has written (I was once a Calvinist who affirmed and taught Penal Substitution Theory and Owen's was one of my favorites... still is in many ways). I know what Owen's said, but again, I am asking about you.

I believe that we will die physically, Steve. And I can affirm many of us have less hair than when we first believed.

What do you believe Jesus experienced instead of us. You say Jesus experienced being forsaken instead of us. What does this mean to you?