The strange endurance of substitutionary atonement doctrine

[Seeker]

My definition of it:
“God was furious at sin and was unable to forgive even the repentant sinners, and so he sent an innocent man and unleashed wrath on him. Now God smiles upon believers, his pent up wrath satisfied.”

As you might tell I have a dim view of the doctrine. But is this definition wrong in any way and how so?

I’ve heard it said that the idea of substitutionary atonement was invented in the 11th century by Aquinas.

Therefore I’m curious as to why it seems nearly every Christian still holds to it? After all, several other doctrines have rightly started to come into question. Why does this one, which the older I get the more illogical and biblically unsupported it seems, remain virtually unscathed?

Is it just a matter of time?

[dizerner]

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/

[jeremiah]

Nearly every Christian in the west believes it, sure, but now and historically this only accounts for maybe half of all Christians. But still today, in the west, it is nothing like 95 or 99%. Some eastern Orthodox Christians have begun to support PSA in the recent past, but historically it was rightly rejected by them on the whole.

The water we swim in as American Christians is almost entirely downstream of the Augustinian and Calvanist reformers. Among these, in my view, sprang the worst iterations of PSA, developing through the centuries and became embedded in the gray matter of our thinking now. Frankly, I think it is a grossly mistaken lens with which the redemptive work of Jesus and our father is read. Instead of throwing off Rome's teaching on vicarious sacrifice, far too many reformers assumed it part of the fabric of the gospel, without discovering it a pagan innovation worthy of rejection.

I agree with Diz that many in our time reject it from another pagan 'foundation'. It is a strange bird though, while certainly godless, I regard Humanism as the product of a thoroughly Christian culture which through unbelieving blindness has simply asserted they no longer need God, the source of all truth, goodness, and beauty, and so continue in building their cathedral on sand. And I agree these minimize sin and the sinfulness of Mankind generally. But neither is it correct to conclude that the equalizer for the holiness of God and the sinfulness of his creation was the vicarious sacrifice and damnation of the Son of God. That is indeed false, and worthy of rejection.

[dizerner]

But neither is it correct to conclude that the equalizer for the holiness of God and the sinfulness of his creation was the vicarious sacrifice and damnation of the Son of God. That is indeed false, and worthy of rejection.

The whole point of the Cross is to marry the love and the holiness of God together without compromising or sacrificing either.

Framing it in some perspective of child abuse or "a big mean old God" is frankly, demonic.

God does not violate justice—Jesus gets the punishment we all deserved.

[jeremiah]

The whole point of the Cross is to marry the love and the holiness of God together without compromising or sacrificing either.

This sounds like a pretty wild way to present it. God is one, his attributes are not boxes of thought or attitudes towards his creatures he must balance. To say he shows us mercy is not to say he did not give us justice. He shows mercy, and is just, and he punishes whom he will, and is just.

God does not violate justice—...

Amen

...—Jesus gets the punishment we all deserved.

no, that would violate justice.

[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 agree with much of what you say so far as it goes, but does it add up to the idea that the only cure for sin being the punishment of innocence.

Yes Christ suffered for our sins, died because of man’s sin, and was the ultimate victor over sin. But the Bible never claims that God could only forgive sin by redirecting his wrath toward an innocent party. In the OT for example God forgave for genuine repentance only (often brought about by punishment). No biblical figure ever wonders “how is it that God forgives sin without a human sacrifice?”

[dizerner]

no, that would violate justice.

Not necessarily—you are approaching with a human limited understanding and a wrong value standard.

Justice is not something external to God that he must bow down to to be just—justice is the character and nature of God himself.

This means, that as the Judge, he has a unique authority and right and worth, to determine how he finds himself valued.

Because sin is, in essence, an attempt to attribute low value on God, it is not a violation of a human-centered idolatrous standard that put the creation's well-being above even the Creator.

God has a unique place of importance to determine himself what is right or wrong, aside from what we personally prefer or feel is right.

[dizerner]

But the Bible never claims that God could only forgive sin by redirecting his wrath toward an innocent party. In the OT for example God forgave for genuine repentance only (often brought about by punishment). No biblical figure ever wonders “how is it that God forgives sin without a human sacrifice?”

Actually, Scripture is quite clear that all forgiveness is based on the Work of the Cross, no other Name by which we must be saved:

25 whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed,
26 to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. (Rom. 3:25-26 NKJ)

Job knew his Redeemer lived, OT saints had a concept that God must do something for them to make them righteous, and this is called "Grace."

The reason this actually upholds justice, is because The Judge is the only one who determines justice based on his own worth. God is the standard, the gold standard, of all spiritual value and currency, and that is why he must redeem us with his own blood, a life for a life. As Psalms says, the price is too high to ransom back a life from the grave—only God could pay it.

And by the union of Christ and his Bride, the two becoming one, justice is upheld since the union counts them as the same person, therefore one can stand in for the other without violating justice.


I invite you both to a new forum we just started if you'd like to continue discussing.

Don't be concerned you'll get jumped on, there are several who support your position as well, sadly.

https://berean-apologetics.community.forum/

[Homer]

Seeker wrote:

My definition of it:
“God was furious at sin and was unable to forgive even the repentant sinners, and so he sent an innocent man and unleashed wrath on him. Now God smiles upon believers, his pent up wrath satisfied.”

As you might tell I have a dim view of the doctrine. But is this definition wrong in any way and how so?

I’ve heard it said that the idea of substitutionary atonement was invented in the 11th century by Aquinas.

Therefore I’m curious as to why it seems nearly every Christian still holds to it? After all, several other doctrines have rightly started to come into question. Why does this one, which the older I get the more illogical and biblically unsupported it seems, remain virtually unscathed?

Is it just a matter of time?

John mark Hicks' review of David Moffit's book on the atonement:

https://johnmarkhicks.com/2023/05/15/mo ... atonement/

Quote from review of Moffit's book:

Through the lens of Hebrews, Moffitt’s book is a welcome acknowledgement that atonement is a fuller concept than simply the work of Jesus on the cross. Jesus is both victim and priest, both sin-bearer and intercessor, both the offering and the offeror.

As a Trinitarian I would say that a Gracious God internalized the punishment for our sins.

Almost every Christian holds to it because the idea was "invented" long before the 11th cerntury.

Hebrews 9:22
New American Standard Bible
22 And almost all things are cleansed with blood, according to the Law, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.

[Seeker]

But the Bible never claims that God could only forgive sin by redirecting his wrath toward an innocent party. In the OT for example God forgave for genuine repentance only (often brought about by punishment). No biblical figure ever wonders “how is it that God forgives sin without a human sacrifice?”

Actually, Scripture is quite clear that all forgiveness is based on the Work of the Cross, no other Name by which we must be saved:

25 whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed,
26 to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. (Rom. 3:25-26 NKJ)

Job knew his Redeemer lived, OT saints had a concept that God must do something for them to make them righteous, and this is called "Grace."

The reason this actually upholds justice, is because The Judge is the only one who determines justice based on his own worth. God is the standard, the gold standard, of all spiritual value and currency, and that is why he must redeem us with his own blood, a life for a life. As Psalms says, the price is too high to ransom back a life from the grave—only God could pay it.

And by the union of Christ and his Bride, the two becoming one, justice is upheld since the union counts them as the same person, therefore one can stand in for the other without violating justice.


I invite you both to a new forum we just started if you'd like to continue discussing.

Don't be concerned you'll get jumped on, there are several who support your position as well, sadly.

https://berean-apologetics.community.forum/

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.

No one disputes there is atonement. The doctrine in question is substitution. Did we owe a debt to God that Jesus paid?

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? Of course not, and nor would our heavenly father do something so irrational. We have to interpret texts in the light of God's character. God is loving, logical, and just. Substitutionary atonement is none of these.