Nature of the Atonement

[Jepne]

Good evening Homer - It is a little late, but this is what I have come up with. Perhaps I am missing something here.

“. . . He set us free and also internalized the punishment due us. There is a cost to forgiveness and He bore that cost.”

But, He forgave sins before He ever went to the cross. God forgave sins in the OT.

“If you have committed murder. you will always be guilty of that crime.”

When I repented and made restitution where necessary, I was not longer guilty. I am free, totally. There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, and I am in Christ Jesus. I can no longer be accused, made to feel guilty or be held accountable. It is done. Over. Past.

God treats us as though we are innocent, and He treated His Son, the "Lamb without blemish", as though He was guilty.

I am afraid that sounds like someone who is mentally ill. Why would someone treat a guilty (as you say) person as though he is innocent and a perfect man as though he is guilty?

“. . . he suffered the due penalty for our transgressions.”

When we transgress, God wants us to change our minds about what we have done, make it right, and then He can restore us to soundness and wholeness, and make our relationships with Him and one another right. Ungodly parents make their children sit in the corner, but do nothing to remedy the child’s bad behaviour. He may be cowed into acting better in his outer behavior, but he is not better in his heart.

[Paidion]

Here I am back, to address an issue that is of paramount importance in our modern world of Christendom. I will do so very briefly.

I think the "propitiation" or penal substitute satifies God's spritual law of justice making the believer positionally righteous and from that position we qualify to have a relationship with God ...

Where do you get "penal substitution"? Or Christ's death as a "satisfaction for God's spiritual law of justice"? What does God care if we are "positionally righteous"? God wants actual righteousness! Or will "positional righteousness" ensure a relationship with the God as has been suggested? In the following, Jesus says He will say , "I never knew you" to those who practise lawlessness not to those who didn't receive the cloak of positional righteousness.

“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’ " Matthew 7:21-23

Tell me how the following teaching of the apostle Paul makes "positional rightousness" the criterion for entering heaven:

For he will render to everyone according to his works: to those who by perseverance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, he will give lasting life; but for those who are self-seeking and are not persuaded by the truth, but are persuaded by wickedness, there will be wrath and fury.

Affliction and anguish for every person who does evil ... but glory and honour and well-being for every one who does good ... For God shows no partiality. (Romans 2:6-11)

The above passage gives us the basis upon which we receive affliction and anguish, or glory and honour and well-being. "He will render to everyone according to his works. Not according to his faith, or his acceptance of Christ as personal Saviour, or his accepting Christ as his substitute, or gaining positional righteousness, but by perseverence in well doing.
The ability of persevere in well-doing was made available by the sacrificial death of Christ. This is the reason that Paul gave for Christ's death: "He died in order that we might no longer live for ourselves, but for Him...". Peter also gave the same reason, "He endured (or "bore") our sins in His own body on the tree that we might die to sin and live to righteousness."

Now show me the scripture that says he died in order to give us a pretending... er... positional righteousness.

[steve7150]

I think the "propitiation" or penal substitute satifies God's spritual law of justice making the believer positionally righteous and from that position we qualify to have a relationship with God ...

Where do you get "penal substitution"? Or Christ's death as a "satisfaction for God's spiritual law of justice"? What does God care if we are "positionally righteous"? God wants actual righteousness! Or will "positional righteousness" ensure a relationship with the God as has been suggested? In the following, Jesus says He will say , "I never knew you" to those who practise lawlessness not to those who didn't receive the cloak of positional





I don't think imputed righteousness and acting righteous are intended to be contradictory or mutually exclusive as you frame it, but complimentary.
"He is the propitiation for our sins and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world." 1 John 2.2 Propitiation means satisfaction therefore what is being satisfied other then God's own law of justice?
Also i see in Isa 53 he was our penal substitute as it actually says the words "But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities" 53.5. "and with his stripes we are healed" 53.5.

[Paidion]

"Propitiation" basically means "appeasement". However, this is an incorrect translation of the Greek word . What follows is an excerpt from chapter 2 of The Supreme Sacrifice of Jesus Christ, a booklet I began writing a few years ago (and still haven't finished):

What does the word “atonement” mean?

In the King James Version of the New Testament, the word "atonement" occurs only once.

Ro 5:11 And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.

Oddly enough, it ought not to be so translated! The Greek word καταλλαγη from which it is translated means not "atonement" but "reconciliation". The previous verse reads:

Rom 5:10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.
0

Oddly enough again, the King James translators rendered the verbal form of καταλλαγη
as “reconciled” in verse 10! Why not the nominative form as “reconciliation” in verse 11? Oh the wonders of translation!

It is only in the sense that καταλλαγη has been mistranslated “atonement” that we can correctly affirm that the breakdown “at-one-ment” as expressing the meaning of “atonement.”

The Revised Standard Version and other modern versions are consistent in their translation of these verses:

Romans 5:10,11
For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life. Not only so, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received our reconciliation.

It is wonderful to be reconciled to God! We can indeed rejoice that this has been made possible through our Lord Jesus Christ, through His precious blood, through His death on our behalf!

The Greek Words ἱλασμος (hilasmos) and ἱλαστηριον (hilastārion)

The words used in the Greek New Testament and rendered as “atonement” or “atoning sacrifice in some modern translations are ἱλασμος (1 John 2:2, 1 John 4:10) and ἱλαστηριον Rom 3:25, Heb 9:5). Both are derived from the verbal form ἱλασκομαι The Hebrew word translated as "atonement" is "kippur" and is usually rendered as ἐξιλαστηριον in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures, translated about 250 B.C. in the reign of Ptolemy. Note that it differs from the New Testament word only by the addition of the prefix ἐξ (out of ). The verbal form of the Hebrew word “kippur” is "kaphar".
In the King James Version, ἱλασμος is translated as “propitiation”, that is, an appeasement or conciliation of an offended power. It is so rendered also by Darby, by the Douay translators, and by the translators of the King James Version and of Young’s Literal Translation.
The translators of the Revised Standard Version render ἱλασμος as “expiation”, that is, the act of making amends of reparation for wrongdoing. This is also the meaning of the English word “atonement.” In current English, “atone” is used in precisely the same way as “expiate.” If I accidentally run into the neighbour’s fence post and break it off, the neighbour may tell me, “You’re going to have to atone for that!” In other words, I’m going to have to “make up for it” in some way, perhaps by repairing the fence myself. In the NIV and the NRSV ἱλασμος is translated as “atoning sacrifice.”

The translators of the KJV and the Douay also render ἱλαστηριον as “propitiation” in Rom 3:25, and in the RSV it is translated as “expiation.” However in Heb 9:5, the translators of the KJV render the same word as “mercy seat”! It is so rendered also by Darby, and by the translators of the RSV, the NRSV, and Young’s Literal Translation. Mercy seat! That meaning is quite different from either “propitiation” or “expiation.”

Perhaps a look at the verbal form of the words would be helpful in deciding the true meaning of the words ἱλασμος and ἱλαστηριον

ἱλασκομαι [Strong's 2433]

Lu 18:13 But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, 'God, be merciful to me a sinner!' RSV

In this parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector, every translation of which I am aware translates ἱλασκομαι as "be merciful". ἱλασκομαι is derived from the adjectival form ἱλιως, the meaning of which is “merciful”, and is so translated in Hebrews 8:12.

For I will be merciful toward their iniquities, and I will remember their sins no more. RSV


Curiously, the RSV translators render the word differently in Heb 2:17:

Therefore he had to be made like his brethren in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make expiation for the sins of the people. RSV

Does consistency demand that the final phrase be translated as “to be merciful concerning the sins of the people”? If the verbal form means “be merciful” and the adjectival form means “merciful”, could the nominal forms be rendered as “means of mercy”? Let’s see how the verses would read if that were done:

ἱλασμος [Strong's 2434]

1Jo 2:2 and he is the means of mercy concerning our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.
1Jo 4:10 In this is love, not that we loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the means of mercy concerning our sins.

ἱλαστηριον [Strong's 2435]

Ro 3:25 whom God put forward as a means of mercy by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins;
Heb 9:5 above it were the cherubim of glory overshadowing the mercy seat. Of these things we cannot now speak in detail.

We can leave the translation in Heb 9:5 as “mercy seat,” though under Mosaic law it was indeed considered a “means of mercy.”

One may confidently affirm that the translations which render ἱλαστηριον and ἱλασμος as "propitiation", a word which carries the idea of appeasement and averting of wrath are not correct. Our examination of the passages quoted above would cast doubt even upon the translation of these words as “expiation” or “atonement”. I suggest “means of mercy” as an appropriate translation of these words, a translation that is correct etymologically as well as contextually.

What a mercy the grace of Christ, that divine enablement! This enablement is described in Titus 2:11, 12:

For the grace of God has appeared for the salvation of all people, training us to renounce impiety and worldly passions, and to live sensible, upright, and pious lives in this world.


O gracious Yahweh! Through your son Jesus, and the words with which you have inspired your apostles, help us to understand more fully the means of mercy through the Anointed One, by which you have made available to us the process of salvation from sin. May this understanding help us to more fully appreciate your love and grace, to be better prepared, through your enabling grace, to show others the way to enter the door of salvation, to become your children, and thus to press on toward completion, to be conformed to the image of your son, and to be among the many brothers and sisters of the resurrection, of whom Jesus is the first born.

[Homer]

Hi Paidion,

by which you have made available to us the process of salvation from sin

Do you see us as being saved (in the sense of justified) by actually completing the process, or just being involved in the process? And if only by being involved in the process, how much progress is required and how would a person know when they reached the required level of progress? And what if a person makes considerable progress but then plateaus, making no further progress? Your system brings many questions to mind. Your prayer seems to indicate that one is saved upon beginning the process, which would seem to mean repentance. Is this correct?

Without imputed rightiousness we are left with none but our own.

[Paidion]

Greetings Homer,

It's late at night for me, and so I won't answer all your questions right now. I'll do my best to get to them later. But I cannot let your final statement go unchallenged!

Without imputed rightiousness we are left with none but our own.

I can think of no statement made in all of Christendom with which I disagree more. In response, I affirm the following statement:

Without imputed righteousness, we can appropriate the righteousness of God.

The righteousness of God in our lives is not imputed; it is appropriated, and then becomes our own. For we make it our own. It is a genuine righteousness which becomes part of our nature, and not simply an outer "robe of righteousness" which the world or God sees, but who are blinded to the sinful self beneath the robe who has never become a new creation in Christ.

The righteousness of God is something that a person can "work", by coöperating with the grace of God. This is implied in the following statement by James:

James 1:20 ... for the anger of man does not work the righteousness of God.

The righteousness which comes from God is appropriated by faith.

Romans 1:17 For in [the gospel] the righteousness of God is revealed through faith for faith; as it is written, "He who through faith is righteous shall live."

It's not merely "imputed". We are not merely "counted righteous" (when we're not really). We actually become righteous when we receive God's righteousness. This righteousness is not our own in the sense that we worked it up by our own efforts, but it is our own in the sense that it has become a fundamental part of our character. That this righteousness in not man's own self effort is obvious from:

Romans 10:3 For, being ignorant of the righteousness that comes from God, and seeking to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness.

The following passage does not state that we receive the righteousness of God as an outer cloak. It rather states that we become the righteousness of God.

2 Corinthians 5:21 For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

Does not becoming the righteousness of God imply that God's righteousness becomes an integral part of our character?

The very next sentence explains a lot:

Working together with him, then, we entreat you not to accept the grace of God in vain.

To obtain this righteousness by faith, we must "work together with Him", that is, coöperate with Him in this gift of righteousness which comes from Him. But we are urged not to "accept it in vain". If this gift is not worked out in practical righteousness, then it has been "received" in vain. In other words, it has not been received at all. Would this be the case with those who think they have received an "imputed righteousness" ---- a mere "being counted righteous" while actually continuing in unrighteousness?

[Apollos]

Without imputed rightiousness we are left with none but our own.

Hi Homer,
Imputed Righteousness is a teaching I've not been able to find in Scripture. Where do you think it is taught?

[Apollos]

]The Greek Words ἱλασμος (hilasmos) and ἱλαστηριον (hilastārion)

The words used in the Greek New Testament and rendered as “atonement” or “atoning sacrifice in some modern translations are ἱλασμος (1 John 2:2, 1 John 4:10) and ἱλαστηριον Rom 3:25, Heb 9:5). Both are derived from the verbal form ἱλασκομαι The Hebrew word translated as "atonement" is "kippur" and is usually rendered as ἐξιλαστηριον in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures, translated about 250 B.C. in the reign of Ptolemy. Note that it differs from the New Testament word only by the addition of the prefix ἐξ (out of ). The verbal form of the Hebrew word “kippur” is "kaphar".

The Hebrew word means 'cover'. It's from a completely different root. Noah, for example, 'covered the ark with cover [i.e. pitch]'. The Greek word, in the ancient world, and more importantly, in the 'Bible' of the ancient world [i.e. Homer], meant 'propitiation' [e.g. Iliad 1.100]. You can argue that Paul didn't use it in this sense, but if I were living in the first century, and addressing congregations in Greek, I would probably want to avoid possible misunderstanding by using a word which to the everyday person meant 'propitiation'. I'm not saying he didn't use this word in a different sense, but I think the burden of proof would be on you to show that the word didn't have this meaning in contemporary literature and in the Septuagint.

[Homer]

Paidion and Apollos,

Imputed righteousness is probably an inapt way to say it. N. T. Wright says it much better, I think:

In other words, that which imputed righteousness was trying to insist upon is, I think, fully taken care of in (for instance) Romans 6, where Paul declares that what is true of the Messiah is true of all his people. Jesus was vindicated by God as Messiah after his penal death; I am in the Messiah; therefore I too have died and been raised. According to Romans 6, when God looks at the baptised Christian he sees him or her in Christ. But Paul does not say that he sees us clothed with the earned merits of Christ.

The way I see it, it is always said, in the scriptures, that the final judgement will be based on what we have done. But this does not mean we are saved by works, but our works are evidentiary; they show that we are in Christ, that we are indwelled by the Spirit. Peter informs us how we know we have the Spirit:

Acts 5:32 (New King James Version)
And we are His witnesses to these things, and so also is the Holy Spirit whom God has given to those who obey Him.”

I believe there are at least four views of faith and works:

1. We are saved by a combination of faith and works. This appears to be the Catholic view, although they seem to deny it at times in spite of an anathama or two enforcing the idea.

2. & 3. Both Calvinists and Arminians usually state that we are saved by faith and that works are evidentiary.

4. The Baptist view, or "eternal security", which denys that works are necessary evidence of being saved.

It should be noted that the true Calvinist position is that there will be a perserverance in works, which is different from the eternal security view.

We are saved because we are in Christ:

Romans 6:23 (New King James Version)
For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Here we see that if sin is our master we receive the wage that is owed to us: death. And the antithesis is not earned eternal life, but an unearned gift. If it is implied that this gift is merited by our works then we must see our enabling to do good is also a gift because we abide in Christ: "Apart from me, you can do nothing".

[steve7150]

We are saved because we are in Christ:







OK but Paidion said salvation is a process so if we believe Christ and we are faithful but for some reason a believer either does'nt grow or matures very little are they truly saved?
Sometimes we are compared to a tree bearing fruit, forgetting about the amount of fruit, what if the tree itself grows very little?