literarydiscussions.myfreeforum.org

Sitaram · Site Admin Joined: 14 Sep 2005 Posts: 1079

Date: Sun Jul 6, 2003 3:26 pm
Subject: The Crucifixion as Substitutionary Atonement

http://sulekha.com/chpost.asp?for...ilosophy&show=0&cid=65821

Gandhi, in his autobiography, stated very clearly his reason for
rejecting Christianity when he was a student in England. Gandhi wrote
(paraphrasing) "I would regularly see Christians sinning in the most
casual fashion, and whenever I questioned them, they replied that
they were constantly being washed clean by the blood of Christ
through Christ's substitutionary atonement upon the Cross. But I
(Gandhi) did not seek merely to escape the CONSEQUENCES of sin, but
desired, if possible, to extinguish sin at it's very source and root."

===========

Sitaram points to the 51st Psalm:

Verse 16 For thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give it: thou
delightest not in burnt offering (holocaust)

Verse 17 The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a
contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.
Mark 8: 34 And when he had called the people unto him with his
disciples also, he said unto them, Whosoever will come after me, let
him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.

http://www.sundayschoollessons.com/lent2kart.htm

Why would Jesus say "Take up your cross", if it was to be HIS
personal crucifixion which would provide substitutionary atonement
for all mankind?

http://ascendmagazine.com/readmore/archives/issue_1_love/000010.shtml

Not Far From the Kingdom—Mark 12:32-34

When Jesus hears the teacher of Torah correctly explain the
significance of the two commandments, he tells him, "You are not far
from the Kingdom." This statement is very similar to Rabbinic thought
in which the recitation of the "Shema" was called "accepting the yoke
of the Kingdom of Heaven."

Rabbi Joshua ben Korcha said, "Why does the Shema precede the
words `And it shall come to pass that if you keep my commandments….'?
In order that one may first accept upon himself the yoke of the
Kingdom of Heaven and afterwards may accept upon himself the yoke of
commandments." (Berakoht 2:2)

"You are not far from the kingdom of God." (Mark 12:34)

Jesus said that the kingdom of God is "at hand." What did Jesus mean
by the term "at hand?" We find the answer to this in a conversation
that Jesus had with a Jewish scribe. "The scribe said to Jesus, 'You
are right, teacher, you have truly said that He (God) is one, and
there is no other (God) but Him; and to love Him with all the heart,
and with all the understanding, and with all the strength, and to
love one's neighbor as oneself, is much more than burnt offerings and
sacrifices.'

And when Jesus saw that he answered wisely, he (Jesus) said to
him, 'You are not far from the kingdom of God.'" (Mark 12:32-34).

A verse such as this speaks against the Crucifixion as some kind of
substitutionary atonement.

How can Jesus tell this man that he is not far from the Kingdom, if
the Crucifixion has not yet taken place (if the substitutionary
atonement of the Crucifixion is the sine qua non for salvation).

=============

Here is a fascinating excerpt from their site, which raises some
profound questions:

Jesus (who is not yet crucified) tells the woman to "go and sin no
more". How is this possible for her to do, if the substitutionary
atonement of the Crucifixion is essential for her salvation, the
Crucifixion has not yet taken place.

(excerpt):

We note here two constructions that show that sin cannot continue or
exist in the new life of the person who is under Divine mandate to
stop sinning, or who has experienced God in a creative sense. These
constructions are, respectively-apo tou nun (from now on) and ou
dunatai (not able).

In John 8:11, we have the first construction:

"And she said `no one, Lord,' and Jesus said to her, `neither do I
condemn you; go and stop sinning (hamartane; present imperative) from
now on (apo tou nun)'"

See Luke 1:48; 5:10; 2 Corinthians 5:16 on apo tou nun (from now on).

Two great truths are evident here: 1) Jesus commanded this woman to
stop sinning; 2) while the present tense may refer to continuous
action, here Jesus commanded that the action of sinning that had been
in motion, STOP-stop sinning! Dana and Mantey state the following:

"A prohibition in the present imperative demands that the action then
in progress be stopped."

How long was the woman to stop sinning? Both Jesus' imperative and
the construction agree that she was to stop then . . . from now on.
The Calvinist will claim that it is impossible to stop sinning from
now on while in the body, which is, of course, a continuation of
first century Gnosticism. But Jesus knew very well that it is utterly
impossible to simultaneously bring together both sin and
righteousness in the same life.

Thus, His approach to sin and its separation from righteousness
clearly acknowledges that two different moral states cannot be
conjoined. They are clearly perceived or marked off as distinct from
each other.
By nature sin and righteousness stand in antithesis to each other and
function in opposite morals and move in opposing directions:

==============

http://homepage.mac.com/craigadams1/HHJohn/Atonem.html

Wherever it is taught that God punished His Son on the cross there
have always been some who indulge in the rhetorical statement
that "Christ on Calvary was the greatest sinner in the universe" --
language which I have heard within thirty years. Within that time I
have heard an English Wesleyan doctor of divinity in public prayer
represent the Father as "hurling the hottest thunderbolts of His
wrath down upon the head of His devoted Son in punishment for the
sins of mankind."

Such statements give occasion to the liberalists to caricature the
orthodox doctrine of the atonement, making the Father the embodiment
of unsparing distributive justice, a relentless Shylock demanding his
pound of flesh; and the Son, the incarnation of mercy and love,
appeasing His personal wrath and making Him willing to be
compassionate.

The word " atonement" appears but once in the New Testament, and is
in that text a mistranslation for "reconciliation," as in the R. V.
of Rom. v. 11. But the idea of the atonement, hinted at in the
Gospels, where it could not be intelligibly explained as a ransom for
many (Matt. xx. 28), is after the death and resurrection of Christ
fully unfolded under such terms as "redemption through His
blood," "gave Himself for our sins," "reconcile . . . by the
cross," "hath given Himself a sacrifice to God," "Christ suffered for
us in the flesh," "He is the propitiation for our sins," and many
similar expressions. It is the central fact of Christianity
perpetually emphasized in the Lord's Supper, which ordinance sooner
or later is discontinued wherever the idea of redemption through the
blood of the Son of God is no longer preached.

When Ralph Waldo Emerson was pastor of a Unitarian church in Boston,
about seventy years ago, he ceased to administer the Holy Communion,
and being asked by his deacons for the reason for omitting this
sacrament,, replied that "it was giving undue prominence to one among
many good men." From the standpoint of his theology, which made Jesus
Christ a mere man, the son of a Jewish sire, his answer was logical,
the memorial of the death of Christ was an invidious distinction.

Christ is repeatedly declared to be a propitiation. "Whom God hath
set forth to be a propitiation, through faith, by His blood" (Romans
3:25). "He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only,
but also for the whole world" (1 John 2:2). "God sent His Son to be a
propitiation for our sins" (1 John 4:10). "Wherefore it behooved Him
in all things to be made like unto His brethren, that He might be a
merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to
make propitiation for the sins of the people" (Hebrews 3:17).

Christ is "the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world"
(John 1:29). "The Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to
minister, and to give His life a ransom for many" (Matthew 20:28;
Mark 10:45). "Him that knew no sin He made to be sin on our behalf,
that we might become the righteousness of God in Him" (2 Corinthians
5:2).

Atonement in the New Testament is a translation of the Greek
word "katalithozo" (Strong's 2643). It appears as atonement only
once, in Ro. 5:11. The other appearances are translated
reconciliation. Ro. 11:15; II Cor. 5:18; II Cor. 5:19.

In the Old Testament atonement was always related to the idea of a
sacrifice being given to atone for sins of the people. It is used
almost exclusively in Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers. Only four other
occurrences are found outside these three books.

There are two words translated atonement in the Old Testament. ("Kip-
poor'" and "kaw-far'") The first comes from the second and the
meaning is to cover. It is the word that is used in Genesis
6:14, "Make thee an ark of gopher wood; rooms shalt thou make in the
ark, and shalt pitch it within and without with pitch." Noah was to
use pitch, or kawphar to cover the ark.

Indeed, is not Noah covering the ark with pitch and being saved, a
picture of the Old Testament saint that sacrificed an animal, and the
animal becoming a covering for the sin, to protect the saint?

The New Testament term is one which we studied under propitiation.
The term is translated reconciling or reconciliation in the New
Testament usually, and atonement only once in the New Testament.

Atonement is the paying of a price to bring man and God back
together. The question of whom the atonement was for, is often
raised.

Some see the atonement as only for the elect. The strong Calvinist
would be in this group. Christ died only for those that God in His
sovereign will did elect in eternity past. Others view Christ's work
on the cross for the sins of the world - for all of mankind.

The abundance of Scripture seems to indicate the unlimited atonement
is best.

John 1:29 Christ taketh away the sin of the world.

John 3:16 God loved the world.

John 6:51 Christ gave flesh for the world.

Rom. 11:12,15 Reconciling of the world.

II Cor. 5:19 Christ reconciling the world to Himself.

I Jo. 2:2 Christ propitiation for sins of the world.

II Cor. 5:14 Christ died for all.

I Tim. 2:4,6 Christ ransom for all.

Tit 2:11 Grace that bringteth salvation appeared to all men.

Heb. 2:9 Christ tasted death for every man.

II Pet. 3:9 God wants all to come to repentance.

(Pardington notes p 261 ff list more references if they are needed.)

It would seem from these verses that Christ died for the sins of
every individual that has, or will live on this earth. The fact that
many are lost shows that the work of Christ must be accepted to
become effectual in the life.

There are some inadequate views of the atonement. We should look at
these briefly.

1. REPLACEMENT THEORY: (Iraneus)

Christ's obedience to God replaced the Devil's disobedience, and thus
Christ conquered the devil. This theory does not deal with sin,
however, and that is the problem that man needs cared for.

2. RANSOM TO SATAN: (Origen) Christ died to buy us back from the
Devil. The problem with this theory is that the Bible nowhere
mentions that we are Satan's, nor that we need to be bought back from
him.

3. MYSTICAL THEORY: (Schleirmacher/a liberal) Christ took on a sinful
nature. Just how making Christ sinful in nature cares for lost man's
sin, I don't know. This theory does not deal with death nor penalty.

4. MORAL INFLUENCE THEORY also known as the BUSHNELLIAN THEORY:
(Abelard) Death of Christ softens our heart to lead us to repentance.
As we consider and meditate on the death of Christ our soul is moved
to repentance.

5. HONOR, COMMERCIAL or ANSELMIC THEORY: (Anselm) Christ received
honor and he didn't need it so Christ passed it on to us if we follow
the Gospel.

The Roman Catholic church expands this thought and see grace as
coming from this source. They feel that the Church Saints also had
extra grace which went into a pool with that of Christ, where the
person can come to gain grace, through the sacraments.

6. TRUE DOCTRINE: (God) The atonement must be manward as well as
Godward. God's holiness demands sin be punished. (eternal torment)
Christ died as our substitute for our sin. This affects both God and
man. Man becomes correct before God, and God can see His creatures
face to face.

Christ did all that was needed to bring man to God. We could not do
it.

7. SOCINIAN: (originally set forth by Laelius & Faustus Socinus of
Poland in 16th century. Today it is basically a Unitarian doctrine.)
Only man has a problem. God is okay and when man gets it right all
will be well. Man does this by his own will and works. Christ was an
example for us to show how we are to be faithful to duty.

8. GROTIAN, or GOVERNMENTAL THEORY: God's governmental set up
requires that the punishment be levied and carried out. This is what
Christ was doing. It has nothing to do with God's nature.

9. IRVINGIAN, or THEORY OF GRADUALLY EXTIRPATED DEPRAVITY: (Set forth
by Edward Irvin in England 1792-1834 and presently held by some
German scholars.) Christ took upon Himself a fallen human nature and
through suffering here on earth lived a perfect life and purified
that nature. His death on the cross was His final reuniting the
perfected nature with God. (This may be similar to the mystical
theory that has already been covered.)

10. DRAMATIC THEORY: (Aulen 1879-1978) "Christ in His death gained
victory over the powers of evil." (Reprinted by permission: Ryrie,
Charles C.; "BASIC THEOLOGY"; Wheaton: Victor Books, 1986, p 309)

11. BARTHIAN THEORY: (Barth 1886-1968) "Christ's death was
principally a revelation of God's love and His hatred of sin.
(Reprinted by permission: Ryrie, Charles C.; "BASIC THEOLOGY";
Wheaton: Victor Books, 1986, p 309)

12. SUBSTITUTIONAL OR SATISFACTION THEORY: This one is the correct
one by the way. It was mentioned in number six previously. This view
was set forth by Augustine, and later Calvin. It is present in todays
Reformed and Presbyterian theologies. "Christ the sinless One took on
Himself the penalty that should have been borne by man and others."
(Reprinted by permission: Ryrie, Charles C.; "BASIC THEOLOGY";
Wheaton: Victor Books, 1986, p 309)

SUBSTITUTIONARY ATONEMENT is a term we often use today. It describes
the fact that Christ died in our place as a substitute for us on the
cross.

This principle is seen in the Old Testament sacrificial system. The
saint was to lay his hand on the sacrifice as it was slain. Ryrie
states of this, "This meant transmission and delegation, and implied
representation; so that it really pointed to the substitution of the
sacrifice for the sacrificer...." (Reprinted by permission: Ryrie,
Charles C.; "BASIC THEOLOGY"; Wheaton: Victor Books, 1986, p 287)

==========

http://www.tentmaker.org/books/Prevailing.html

http://www.faithalone.org/journal/2000i/townsend2000e.htm

C.S. Lewis

In commenting upon his friend Charles Williams's poem, Lewis offered
this commentary: "The Atonement was a Substitution, just as Anselm
said: `All salvation, everywhere and at all time,…is vicarious.'"
This, however, appears to be Williams's view rather than Lewis's.

In The Allegory of Love Lewis referred to a poem whose "theology
turns on a crudely substitutional view of the Atonement." In Mere
Christianity Lewis indicated that he did not accept the
substitutionary view of atonement.
Arthur Greeves's cousin, Sir Lucius O'Brien, claimed that the
atonement was not taught in the Gospels. Lewis countered that the
atonement must have been an integral part of Christ's teaching
because "the Apostles…did teach this doctrine in His name immediately
after His death."
Unless Lewis altered his opinion in later years, it would appear that
he saw some difference between vicarious and substitutionary
atonement, for he wrote: "In the Incarnation we get…this idea of
vicariousness of one person profiting by the earning of another
person. In its highest form that is the very center of
Christianity."Lewis's apparent devaluing of substitution led Edgar
Boss to conclude that Lewis held "the Example Theory [of the
Atonement] with a very important modification. Mr. Lewis is a
supernaturalist, while the Example Theory is usually held by
Naturalists." However, I do not think Lewis would have wished to be
so neatly pigeonholed into that single category. For him this was the
bottom line: "Christ's death redeemed man from sin, but I can make
nothing of the theories as to how!"

=========

http://reslight.addr.com/atonementbasis.html

*Atonement, or At-one-ment, is based on the Hebrew word Kaphar
(Strong's Hebrew #3722). This word is given several meanings: "(1) to
cover, purge, make an atonement, make reconciliation, cover over with
pitch (a) (Qal) to coat or cover with pitch (b) (Piel) 1. to cover
over, pacify, propitate 2. to cover over, atone for sin, make
atonement for 3. to cover over, atone for sin and persons by legal
rites (c) (Pual) 1. to be covered over 2. to make atonement for (d)
(Hithpael) to be covered" (Brown, Driver, Briggs and
Gesenius. "Hebrew Lexicon entry for Kaphar". The KJV Old Testament
Hebrew Lexicon".

http://www.biblestudytools.net/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?
number=3722&version=kjv

Another related Hebrew word is Kippur (Strong's Hebrew #3725). In the
New Testament Greek, the atonment is referred under the words
Katallage (Strong's Greek #2643), which appears at Romans 5:11;
11:15; 2 Corinthians 5:18,19, and Katallasso (Strong's Greek #2644;
Romans 5:10; 1 Corinthians 7:11; 2 Corinthians 5:18,19,20). Three
other related words in Greek are Hilasmos (Strong's Greek #2434; 1
John 2:2; 4:10), Hilasterion (Strong's Greek #2435; Romans 3:25;
Hebrews 9:5) and Hilaskomai (Strong's Greek #2433, Luke 18:13;
Hebrews 2:17). "The meaning of the word is simply at-one-ment, i.e.,
the state of being at one or being reconciled, so that atonement is
reconciliation. Thus it is used to denote the effect which flows from
the death of Christ." (Easton, Matthew George. "Entry for Atonement".
Easton's Bible Dictionary.

================

The following URL is to an interesting site which combats Calvinist
Doctrines

http://www.crisispub.com/greek/5.htm

They are not clear as to which denomination they represent.

In their recommended books section, regarding THE OTHER SIDE OF
CALVINISM, by Laurence M. Vance, PH.D., they have the following
disclaimer:

Disclaimer: Vance holds to the doctrine of penal satisfaction in
atonement (pp.415-416) and the doctrine that Christians are not
delivered from sin while in the body, pp., 205-206. Both these
doctrines are false to the Scriptures. An otherwise great work is
thus corrupted

Here is a fascinating excerpt from their site, which raises some
profound questions:

Jesus (who is not yet crucified) tells the woman to "go and sin no
more". How is this possible for her to do, if the substitutionary
atonement of the Crucifixion is essential for her salvation, the
Crucifixion has not yet taken place.

(excerpt):

We note here two constructions that show that sin cannot continue or
exist in the new life of the person who is under Divine mandate to
stop sinning, or who has experienced God in a creative sense. These
constructions are, respectively—apo tou nun (from now on) and ou
dunatai (not able).
In John 8:11, we have the first construction:

"And she said `no one, Lord,' and Jesus said to her, `neither do I
condemn you; go and stop sinning (hamartane; present imperative) from
now on (apo tou nun)'"
See Luke 1:48; 5:10; 2 Corinthians 5:16 on apo tou nun (from now on).

Two great truths are evident here: 1) Jesus commanded this woman to
stop sinning; 2) while the present tense may refer to continuous
action, here Jesus commanded that the action of sinning that had been
in motion, STOP—stop sinning! Dana and Mantey state the following:

"A prohibition in the present imperative demands that the action then
in progress be stopped."

How long was the woman to stop sinning? Both Jesus' imperative and
the construction agree that she was to stop then . . . from now on.
The Calvinist will claim that it is impossible to stop sinning from
now on while in the body, which is, of course, a continuation of
first century Gnosticism. But Jesus knew very well that it is utterly
impossible to simultaneously bring together both sin and
righteousness in the same life. Thus, His approach to sin and its
separation from righteousness clearly acknowledges that two different
moral states cannot be conjoined. They are clearly perceived or
marked off as distinct from each other.

By nature sin and righteousness stand in antithesis to each other and
function in opposite morals and move in opposing directions:

http://www.crisispub.com/greek/5.htm

Substitute: Christ died in our behalf, not in our place. Man was dead
in sin; Christ did not take our place there; Man was under punishment
of the Fall and eternal punishment eminently; Christ did not take our
place there.

Christ, a being of another order, did not condescend to our place in
any sense-to be made sin, to take our punishment, etc. He was truly
Incarnate, but in no sense did He take, or partake of, our fallen
nature or punishment. The doctrine of substitution as held in
theology is blasphemy.

The place that Christ took at Calvary was uniquely His-the Holy of
Holies of the NT; the cross was His-the place of Atonement in our
behalf. The judgment of sin was set, in place. This lofty place He
took reversed the judgment of sin for whosoever of the world.

Vicarious: A vicarious sacrifice or punishment.

In Five Point Calvinism this term is understood to mean that "…
Christ's satisfaction includes and implies the obedientia Christi…
[obedience of Christ] through which Christ both fulfills the law for
us vicariously and then accepts, vicariously, the punishment for sin
required under the law, death."[44]

So then, according to this reasoning, Christ was righteous for us and
punished for our sins; accordingly, neither righteousness nor
punishment may now be required of the believer inasmuch as total
satisfaction is fulfilled in Christ. This is false to the Scriptures.

There is no such thing as being good for another or being punished
for another!

All these terms are fictitious coinage to usurp the lofty place of
Priestly-Sacrificial Atonement-Christ died in our behalf, offered
Himself, etc. The Person, Christ, was involved in atonement. But
Divinity cannot be punished; punishment then cannot be beneficial to
Divinity for atonement. Punishment or satisfaction can only exist
when the Person of Christ is divided in atonement. Punishment cannot
become a complement in atonement. Any true complement is able to
properly relate to the Person, Christ, in atonement without
contradiction. Penal satisfaction can punish the body of Christ in
bloodshed, but it makes no complement to the Divine side of Christ in
atonement. Priestly-Sacrificial Atonement offers humanity for
bloodshed and death, Divinity for efficacy. The Person, Christ, is
thus vital to atonement.

Get your own free IRC Chat room