The strange endurance of substitutionary atonement doctrine

[Homer]

Hi Seeker,

I'm curious about your view of the atonement is. What do you believe the atonement accomplished and how did it do so? Your analogy
("Imagine a group of rotten kids in your neighborhood. How illogical would it be to attempt to remove their rottenness in the act of slaying an innocent child?") doesn't seem to work with any of the most prominent models explaining the atonement:

Christus Victor
Moral Influence
Satisfaction (of debt owed)
Penal Substitution

Is your view somehow different than the four listed above?

Thanks

[dizerner]

Try as I might I don't see substitutionary atonement in Romans 3:25-27. Someone previously committed to the doctrine could find it a tempting proof text.

You're missing my point with that.

The point is past sins are connected to the Work of Christ.

No one disputes there is atonement.

Uh, yes people DO dispute this.

But that's besides the point here.... again.

And besides, if you redefine a word, you are not even talking about the same thing.

I could say the atonement is chocolate ice cream if I wanted, and say I believed in "the atonement" while I'm eating my cone.

The doctrine in question is substitution. Did we owe a debt to God that Jesus paid?

Clearly Scripture describes it that way in hundreds of places.

Imagine a group of rotten kids in your neighborhood. How illogical would it be to attempt to remove their rottenness in the act of slaying an innocent child? Would the rotten kids' sin have been in any way been dealt with by another child's death?

This is a false equivalence.

A human being trying to enact justice as God is sinful.

Human beings are not infinite uncaused supreme perfectly holy Beings that uphold all things and to whom all things are owed.

There is your fundamental mistake—you are framing justice in the light of a created thing as supreme, which is idolatry.

[Seeker]

Hi Seeker,

I'm curious about your view of the atonement is. What do you believe the atonement accomplished and how did it do so? Your analogy
("Imagine a group of rotten kids in your neighborhood. How illogical would it be to attempt to remove their rottenness in the act of slaying an innocent child?") doesn't seem to work with any of the most prominent models explaining the atonement:

Christus Victor
Moral Influence
Satisfaction (of debt owed)
Penal Substitution

Is your view somehow different than the four listed above?

Thanks

Jesus makes us one with God. Atonement = at one ment. He provides the ultimate example of victory over sin, showing us how the war against it is to be waged. Every sin that man heaped upon him fell dead at his feet.

Punishment does not take away sin ever. So much less does punishment of an innocent party take away sin! Rather sin can only be dealt with by repentance and the genuine turning away from it. To believe otherwise is to not take sin seriously.

I can't stop anyone from believing that sin can be magically transferred and expunged by an unjust wrath (a wrath that would not take away sin even if it was laid upon the guilty party). I can only point out the very serious flaws in the notion.

[Seeker]

Because it's the truth and always will endure.

It is humanism, putting the fickle and sinful values of humans first, that minimizes how serious and evil all sin is, and how pure and perfect God's holiness is.

If you believe the Bible, it fully supports PSA—you would have to just throw the Bible out, or the important parts.

God's wrath is a major BIblical theme, supported and reinforced all through the Scriptures from the first book to the last.

It is a major deception to no longer understand and accept the atonement as the Bible describes it:

Christ suffering for sins, the Just for the unjust, to bring us to God.

You can see dozens of my posts supporting PSA in another forum: https://berean-apologetics.community.forum/

I signed up for that forum a few days ago. Looks very active and has promise. Haven't done much dabbling yet but looking forward to when as time allows.