Comments on: Substitutionary Atonement

By: Mark

Mark — Mon, 28 Dec 2009 04:21:15 +0000

@Theodore – To say that Romans 2 is talking about a new law that the believer must obey completely ignores the context of the first half of Romans. Paul is expounding on the relationship of the Jews and Gentiles to the OT law. You continually use this as some sort of proof-text without listening to arguments against your position. I’ve seen you around on other blogs arguing against PSA with some absurd argumentation.
Your argument regarding Jn 16:8 is also lacking in understanding the context. The sin which Christ is judging the world of is unbelief. He explicitly states that in the next verse. He is not setting up a new law by which He will judge the world. He is judging those who refuse to believe in Him, who trust in their own righteousness.
The Bible is also very clear about the benefit of Christ’s death. Your view seems to make the crucifixion of Christ incidental to His overall ministry. The Bible, however, makes it the culmination of all Scripture. Everything before Calvary leads up to and points to it. Everything afterward is denouement, an explication of the meaning of it. To say that the crucifixion bears no direct benefit to me is ridiculous in light of statements like, “whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith,” “Therefore he had to be made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people,” “He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world,” “But he was wounded for our transgressions;
he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his stripes we are healed,” and “who was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification.”
So Heb 7:12 does explain that there is a change in the law, but it is setting up Christ as the fulfillment of the law. He has fulfilled the law, paid the penalty of sin, and purchased the benefits of the New Covenant for the elect. Part of the benefits of the New Covenant is the cleansing described in Ezekiel 36, where God cleanses His people and causes them to walk according to His statutes. He accomplishes the salvation of His elect through the sacrifice offered by Christ in their place.
Frankly, your arguments don’t make a whole lot of sense. You’ve thrown out some proof-texts that seem to fit your argument without interacting with the context of those passages. Show why those passages mean what you say they mean in context and maybe we’ll have a real discussion.

By: Theodore A. Jones

Theodore A. Jones — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 14:55:46 +0000

@ Mark.
The grave misunderstanding you refer to is the fact of you not comprehending that the law referred to in Rom. 2:13 is a law that was added to the law AFTER Jesus was crucified. And it is this law that Jesus is referring to in Jn. 16:8. For it is only by the faith of obeying this law in a particular Way that will prevent you from misunderstanding that your grave is permanent if you enter your grave but have not obeyed God by this particular Way. Your doctrine of salvation hinges on the false assumption that it is possible for a man’s death caused by bloodshed to be a direct benefit to you like the OT animal sacrifices were. But Jesus quashed your assumption by illustrating that new wine can only be contained in a wine skin which is also new.
Therefore a new law confines the benefit of Jesus crucifixion to the factor of obedience of a law or his crucifixion is of no benefit to you. See Heb. 7:12 that explains when the priesthood is changed a change of the law has also taken place. It is a grave misunderstanding to assume that any man’s death caused by bloodshed is a direct benefit. While it is certainly true that scads of people think Jesus has died in their place; it is only a few that ever find what the small narrow gate into the kingdom of God actually is, according to Jesus.

By: Alyssa

Alyssa — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 22:43:55 +0000

Whoa! Gospels class flashback!

By: Mark

Mark — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 16:02:47 +0000

@Nick: I read through portions of your debate and, frankly, Turretinfan and I share the same presuppositions about God and Scripture so I didn’t find your arguments convincing in the least.

@Theodore A. Jones: You have gravely misunderstood Romans 2, especially verse 13. The point of that section of Romans 2 was that the Jews were not special just because they had received the law. In other words, its not good enough just to receive the law. You must completely obey the law. Paul goes on to explain that no one has or can do this. So Christ fulfilled it in our place and imputed his righteousness to us.
And Jesus has by no means contradicted that statement. When He comes He WILL convict the world of guilt because the world is still guilty. However, if we are in Christ we are not of the world, in fact John tells us in 1 John that we have overcome the world. The world will be judged, but if we are in Christ we are righteous in God’s eyes and will not face that judgment.

By: Theodore A. Jones

Theodore A. Jones — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 14:07:19 +0000

“It is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous.” Rom. 2:13.
It is this law you really need to find and be taught why and how it must be obeyed or perish.

And regarding your close “the sin issue has been settled”. Jesus by a direct statement beforehand has contradicted your conclusion. “When he comes he will convict the world of guilt in regard to sin” Jn. 16:8. Sin is the remaining issue outstanding AFTER Jesus’ crucifixion. Your close is an error.

By: jeremy

jeremy — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 01:30:58 +0000

The book on Romans is more than sufficiently clear as to the meaning of the cross. Boyd is correct in that the sin issue was a “legal matter in the heavenly realms between God’s holy wrath and our sin.” Up to the cross, the sacrifices only covered sin. Christ’s atonement settled the sin issue forever. His blood is the propitiation for our sin. God’s wrath is eternally satisfied. Boyd is also correct in that this sacrifice is not enough for the Christian walk. That is were Grace enters. That is why we are to walk in the Spirit. The Christian walk is possible, however, only because the sin issue has been settled.

By: Nick

Nick — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 20:20:05 +0000

It’s important not to confuse “substitutionary atonement” with “Penal Substitution.”
P-Sub is only ONE form of ’substitutionary atonement’.

Here is a debate against a Calvinist where it is shown that Penal Substitution doesn’t fit the Biblical evidence of the Atonement:
http://catholicdefense.googlepages.com/psdebate

p.s. you should enable the option of ‘email me of follow up comments’, because it’s hard to know when someone responds.