SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : Did Jesus really Die as a Substitute for our Sins?- by Michael Brown

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 Next Page )
PosterThread
TMK
Member



Joined: 2012/2/8
Posts: 5413
NC, USA

 Did Jesus really Die as a Substitute for our Sins?- by Michael Brown

http://www.charismanews.com/opinion/in-the-line-of-fire/45425-did-jesus-really-die-as-the-substitute-for-our-sins


_________________
Todd

 2014/9/17 9:54Profile
sermonindex
Moderator



Joined: 2002/12/11
Posts: 37307
"Pilgrim and Sojourner." - 1 Peter 2:11

Online!
 Re: Did Jesus really Die as a Substitute for our Sins?- by Michael Brown

from the article:

Did Jesus really pay for our sins on the cross, taking our punishment for us? Did He really die as an atoning sacrifice on our behalf?

In recent years, this doctrine, known as penal substitutionary atonement (PSA), has come under increasing attack, with some Christian leaders claiming that for God to punish His Son for our sins would be an example of "cosmic child abuse" (Steve Chalke).

This past Saturday, I was able to debate this important issue with pastor Brian Zahnd, who was eloquent in his arguments against PSA, claiming that it made our Father into a "monster god" and a "pagan deity."


_________________
SI Moderator - Greg Gordon

 2014/9/17 10:52Profile
Sidewalk
Member



Joined: 2011/11/11
Posts: 706
San Diego

 Re: Atonement issues

The old argument was between the doctrine of Retributive Justice and Public Justice.

Descending from Calvinistic ideas of predestination, Retributive Justice was the belief that all the sins of God's elect were literally placed on Jesus at the time of His crucifixion, every piercing and blow representing a punishment for the exact number of sins that the Father knew ahead of time would be committed by the elect. It was a one for one deal, and only the sins of the elect were covered.

Public Justice is a completely different explanation of the atonement protocol. Here, Jesus dies a single death, the exact punishment due to any one man for his sin. It does not cover all men, just one- and any man who repents and believes unto salvation is that man.

Thus Jesus atoning death is available to all men, and all who believe and repent will be saved. At the same time, the death of Jesus does not obligate God to save anyone! The provision of God to save men is valid whether all men repented and believed, or none did.

Therefore truly it is incumbent on Christians to reach out to the lost and bring as many as we can to the saving knowledge of Christ Jesus. He can save anyone, but He cannot save those who refuse repentance and faith.

In the end, it is the Holy Spirit who confirms to a believer's heart that the atonement is within. No intellectual argument can do that, it is personal between the Father and His children.


_________________
Tom Cameron

 2014/9/17 11:31Profile
dolfan
Member



Joined: 2011/8/23
Posts: 1632
Alabama

 Re:

Zahnd posted a blog post of his own in the comments section of Brown's article.

Whether you accept PSA or not, I think an honest reading of Zahnd's blog post response leads one to see that the strength of his argument is mere emotional appeal to modern cultural norms that eschew propitiation in favor of "letting bygones be bygones". He manipulates language by posing questions in such a way that if you assent to them it makes you a "monster". Brown's article puts the lie to Zahnd's method.

Now, I know some here probably reject PSA. Intellectual honesty requires, though, that if the rejection is on the grounds Zahnd asserts then there is no sufficient rebuttal to the witness of Scripture regarding the crucifixion of Jesus. Perhaps more solid argument from Scripture exists, but Zahnd's is simply a hodge podge of Spock era child rearing rhetoric, outright blasphemy (Jesus' death and resurrection simply "recycled our sin into forgiveness"), and New Age spiritualism.

The substantive problem with Zahnd's point is this: God did not need to suffer the death of His Son if He did not Himself ordain it, will it, and make it so in satisfaction of His own nature of righteousness. He could have simply forgiven us. Zahnd says PSA makes God a "cosmic child abuser" who subjected His own Son and His own Self to an abstract notion of justice that would be higher than God Himself. That is manifestly irresponsible and reckless handling of the Word. Yet, Zahnd creates an even worse problem: if Zahnd is right, God is a part time Father who was content to let the world kill His only Son as no big deal, and God, who wasn't looking all the time, just decided to take advantage of the situation to make his caprice seem like love in "letting bygones be bygones". That is very nice for the ones forgiven, but it says about the forgiver that maybe his forgiveness is not worth having. Zahnd makes God worse than the monster he imagines PSA "makes him": God is complicit in the sin of men. If Zahnd is right, then Madalyn Murray O'Hare was right, as was Paul who said we are, then, of all men most miserable.

Salute Michael Brown for his able defense of the gospel.


_________________
Tim

 2014/9/17 11:48Profile
Sidewalk
Member



Joined: 2011/11/11
Posts: 706
San Diego

 Re: A further note

Regarding the idea that the Father was a monster for murdering His Son- and similar lying distortions from the father of lies, no such thing happened.

It is critical to know two things: that God is responsible for justice in the universe and cannot allow sin to go unpunished. For Him to do that, all the laws of the universe would unravel and explode into chaos.

The other thing is that the choice to die on the cross was entirely in Jesus' hands. He chose it, He did not have to do it since He did not owe anything for sin. The prayer in the garden of Gethsemane holds a key, "Not My will but Thine be done." There were two wills in that monumental discussion, where Jesus inquired whether there was another way to save His disciples and mankind in general.

The Father had no other way to preserve the integrity of the law and pardon the sin, but Jesus had to give Himself. There was no way the Father could slay Jesus, an innocent man, without stepping into sin Himself!

So Jesus "drank the cup" as it were, and gave Himself... for me! And you of course!

So the law is preserved, honor is preserved, love is preserved, and all other virtues are magnified in the relationship between the Father, the Son, and the crown of creation, mankind.


_________________
Tom Cameron

 2014/9/17 11:48Profile
sermonindex
Moderator



Joined: 2002/12/11
Posts: 37307
"Pilgrim and Sojourner." - 1 Peter 2:11

Online!
 Re:

Quote:
Public Justice is a completely different explanation of the atonement protocol. Here, Jesus dies a single death, the exact punishment due to any one man for his sin. It does not cover all men, just one- and any man who repents and believes unto salvation is that man.



Is it not right to say that Jesus Christ died and took upon Him ALL sins and not the sins of 1 person metaphorically? He died for all. He became SIN (the whole of it). The Father turned His face away from His Son because of this.


_________________
SI Moderator - Greg Gordon

 2014/9/17 11:50Profile
Sidewalk
Member



Joined: 2011/11/11
Posts: 706
San Diego

 Re: Public Justice

Indeed, Jesus died for the whole world and the sins of all. But we know that this does not force all men to be saved. That would be Universalism, and the idea that all men will be saved stems from that first idea that believes all the sins of all men are literally imputed into Jesus' crucifixion.

It would be fair to say from that argument that if all men's sins are covered in the death of Jesus, God has no right to deny anyone entrance into heaven.

The death and atoning power of what Jesus did on the cross enables God to save men, but only one at a time as they repent and believe. Again, Jesus' work is sufficient to save all men, but does not obligate God to save anyone!


_________________
Tom Cameron

 2014/9/17 12:03Profile
TrueWitness
Member



Joined: 2006/8/10
Posts: 526


 Re:

PSA would be considered cosmic child abuse except for the fact that Jesus WILLINGLY accepted his death on the cross. He did it because he wanted to please His Father whom he dearly loved and trusted. And He also did it to gain a bride, the Church. God did not force or otherwise foist the cross on Jesus. In the Garden of Gesthemene Jesus struggled in prayer over this decision but in the end he chose it. Jesus himself said that He laid down his life and no one took it from Him. The Bible says he went to the cross "for the joy set before him." This is all plainly stated in the scriptures.

 2014/9/17 12:21Profile
Oracio
Member



Joined: 2007/6/26
Posts: 2039
Whittier CA USA

 Re:

When it comes to the atonement, I lean toward both a limited atonement and general atonement.

By limited atonement I mean that Christ paid the full penalty for the sins of His elect, thus eternally saving them from God's ultimate wrath because Christ took that ultimate wrath on Himself.

By general atonement I mean that Christ also paid partially for the sins of the non-elect and therefore they are able to live temporarily in this life without immediately being thrown into hell when they commit a sin. Because of this general atonement God can bestow temporal blessings on the non-elect here on earth. Without this general atonement there would be no forbearance of God toward the non-elect.

Respectfully, the view of a full atonement for the whole world doesn't make sense to me. If it was true that Christ actually paid fully for the sins of the non-elect, to me it would have to follow that they shouldn't perish in hell because their sins have been paid for.

Let me give a human example. If someone faces criminal charges and someone else pays their fine fully, that criminal is free to go regardless of whether or not he is repentant.


_________________
Oracio

 2014/9/17 13:48Profile
TMK
Member



Joined: 2012/2/8
Posts: 5413
NC, USA

 Re:

But Oracio, I could bring a lunch in for all of my co-workers, but only those who actually grab a sandwich benefit. And I'm not about to force anyone to eat.


_________________
Todd

 2014/9/17 14:14Profile





©2002-2020 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Affiliate Disclosure | Privacy Policy