Atonement, Protestants please respond

[DeSales111]

I’ve heard it said by some Protestants, even a very close friend, that God poured out His wrath on Christ to make atonement for our sins.

I am no theologian, but this just seems absurd. How can that be love, how can that be merciful, and how could that be just?

To put this into perspective I thought about how I’m a father with a son. If my neighbors sinned against me, and I’m angry, should I torture my innocent son just to satisfy my wrath? If my son is innocent (and Jesus was and is), then it would be a sin for me to act out in violence against him when he has done nothing wrong.

I just can’t imagine such an injustice, that to me goes against everything I believe about the relationship between God the Father and His only Son Jesus Christ. I can never believe the source and author of love could ever act in such as way.

 

[drac16]

I think it’s called ‘penal substitution’. I believe that God must punish sin in order to be just. He cannot be passive about sin. All throughout the Old Testament, a sacrifice must be offered for sin. I don’t know how someone can read the first five books in the Bible and come to the conclusion that justice is not necessary. There must be a blood sacrifice. Jesus is our blood sacrifice.

One of the most glorious verses in the Bible, in my opinion, says “For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God” (2 Corinthians 5:21). We know that we deserve the wrath of God, so if God were to just gloss over them, there would be no justice in that. God must punish sin. We can see the love of God in the cross, right? well, I would argue that unless one sees the wrath first, one has not truly seen the love.

 

[Hume]

I am no theologian, but this just seems absurd. How can that be love, how can that be merciful, and how could that be just?

I wonder the same thing about why hell supposedly exists…

To the question, what I learned at a Baptist school was the idea of substitutional propitiation. Some one else pays the debt.

Like some of the sacrifices of the old testament, Jesus of Nazareth was a perfect lamb sacrificed for the sins of humankind.

To benefit from that sacrifice, you have just to simply believe. Amen, hallelujah.
As a benefit for most Baptists (and any denomination heavily influenced by Reformation views), if you do this once with a sincere heart, it’s binding forever.

Just say those words with true conviction and then in the words of Martin Luther, (who must’ve really been a Baptist, just like Jesus), “Sin Boldly”. Again - amen, hallelujah.

 

[Hodos]

I’ve heard it said by some Protestants, even a very close friend, that God poured out His wrath on Christ to make atonement for our sins.

I am no theologian, but this just seems absurd. How can that be love, how can that be merciful, and how could that be just?

To put this into perspective I thought about how I’m a father with a son. If my neighbors sinned against me, and I’m angry, should I torture my innocent son just to satisfy my wrath? If my son is innocent (and Jesus was and is), then it would be a sin for me to act out in violence against him when he has done nothing wrong.

I just can’t imagine such an injustice, that to me goes against everything I believe about the relationship between God the Father and His only Son Jesus Christ. I can never believe the source and author of love could ever act in such as way.

There are a couple of issues in this whole line of thinking. First, you are ignoring the Triune nature of the Godhead. The comparison between you punishing your son for your neighbor’s offense does not translate at all. These two things are fundamentally different, it would be far more akin to your son damaging your neighbor’s property, and you as his father paying the penalty for the damages in place of your son. Remember, the second person of the Trinity, the Son, is no less your Creator than the Father is (if you believe John’s prologue and Colossians 1). Second, the idea that God himself pays the price for your sin is the definition of mercy. You deserve God’s wrath, yet he himself bears it (so the curse of the law is paid) so that you might be reconciled to Him and know the depth of his love for you.

 

[TULIPed]

RCC 1992:

"Justification has been merited for us by the Passion of Christ who offered himself on the cross as a living victim, holy and pleasing to God, and whose blood has become the instrument of atonement for the sins of all men. "

Atonement doesn’t seem to be an entirely Protestant concept…

 

[ltwin]

I am no theologian, but this just seems absurd. How can that be love, how can that be merciful, and how could that be just?

Its loving and merciful because God himself pays the price instead of us.

To put this into perspective I thought about how I’m a father with a son. If my neighbors sinned against me, and I’m angry, should I torture my innocent son just to satisfy my wrath?

It would be more accurate to say that you take upon yourself the penalty for your neighbor’s sin. The Father and the Son are one.

Or to be faithful to your analogy, imagine if your neighbor broke something in your yard. You were going to make him pay for it, but your son decided to fix it so the neighbor didn’t suffer the consequences.

If my son is innocent (and Jesus was and is), then it would be a sin for me to act out in violence against him when he has done nothing wrong.

Yes, Jesus was innocent. But he voluntarily took on our sins and bore our iniquity. He chose to lay down his life for us. Further, he gives us his righteousness.

 

[DeSales111]

But the sacrifices in the OT were not acts of wrath or violence against the animals were they? Wasn’t it about love and giving rather than taking out revenge on an innocent animal? I just can not see a comparison of any wrath. I mean, which Holy and righteous OT high priest punished and tortured any animal to satisfy God’s wrath?

I do not recall God ever saying that spitting upon, cursing, flogging, stripping, humiliating, and nailing an animal to the Cross to die would satisfy His anger over sin.

I guess I can see someone “giving all” but I can not see God taking like there is monetary value in any sacrifice.

 

[ltwin]

But the sacrifices in the OT were not acts of wrath or violence against the animals were they?

Taking a life isn’t violent? The animal sacrifices were slaughtered and their blood was spilled to illustrate to us the deadly consequences of sin. Sin leads to death. The animal sacrifice was to cover or atone for the sin. A life for a life. Jesus was the perfect, complete sacrifice. His life for our life.

Look at it this way: I should have been on that cross. It should have been me, not the Lamb, who was slaughtered in the Temple. But Jesus made a way, so that I wouldn’t have to die. That is love.

Wasn’t it about love and giving rather than taking out revenge on an innocent animal?

It was about love in the sense that God was providing a way of atonement for sin for his people, whom he loved. It wasn’t very loving for the animal that died.

I do not recall God ever saying that spitting upon, cursing, flogging, stripping, humiliating, and nailing an animal to the Cross to die would satisfy His anger over sin.

Isaiah 53 is useful here:

Surely he took up our pain
and bore our suffering,
yet we considered him punished by God,
stricken by him, and afflicted.
5 But he was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was on him,
and by his wounds we are healed.
6 We all, like sheep, have gone astray,
each of us has turned to our own way;
and the Lord has laid on him
the iniquity of us all.

7 He was oppressed and afflicted,
yet he did not open his mouth;
he was led like a lamb to the slaughter,
and as a sheep before its shearers is silent,
so he did not open his mouth.
8 By oppression[a] and judgment he was taken away.
Yet who of his generation protested?
For he was cut off from the land of the living;
for the transgression of my people he was punished.
9 He was assigned a grave with the wicked,
and with the rich in his death,
though he had done no violence,
nor was any deceit in his mouth.

10 Yet it was the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer,
and though the Lord makes[c] his life an offering for sin,
he will see his offspring and prolong his days,
and the will of the Lord will prosper in his hand.
11 After he has suffered,
he will see the light of life[d] and be satisfied[e];
by his knowledge[f] my righteous servant will justify many,
and he will bear their iniquities.
12 Therefore I will give him a portion among the great,[g]
and he will divide the spoils with the strong,[h]
because he poured out his life unto death,
and was numbered with the transgressors.
For he bore the sin of many,
and made intercession for the transgressors.

 

[DeSales111]

You said this…

“Or to be faithful to your analogy, imagine if your neighbor broke something in your yard. You were going to make him pay for it, but your son decided to fix it so the neighbor didn’t suffer the consequences.”

If my son had to suffer violence because of my neighbor that would not be justice nor would it satisfy my wrath. If anything I would be more mad. It would be like handing my son over to the rest of the neighbors and saying “ok, beat him, then I will be satisfied.” So I think my analogy in my opinion is correct. I see what you are trying to say, but wrath and restitution are different.

I do not believe the killing of the animals was an act of violence, it was humane and an act of necessity just as we kill animals today to eat them. None of the sacrifices were done in anger as though the punishment inflicted upon the animals is what satisfied God’s anger with sin.

Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut. I would love for someone Jewish to jump in and give their (name removed by moderator)ut on OT sacrifices. I’d like to know was it the lashing out that satisfied God, or was it giving up something really needed and cared about that God desired.

 

[DeSales111]

It’s hearing someone say “God poured out His wrath” that I have the problem with, as though His anger played a part in the sacrifice of His own Son. Maybe that better explains what I’m trying to say.

 

[ltwin]

It’s hearing someone say “God poured out His wrath” that I have the problem with, as though His anger played a part in the sacrifice of His own Son. Maybe that better explains what I’m trying to say.

It wasn’t God’s anger that led to the sacrifice of Christ. It was God’s love. And we must remember that Jesus was a willing sacrifice. The Father wasn’t angry at Jesus, but he is angry at sin. And when Jesus was sacrificed the Bible tells us that he “became sin” for us. God’s wrath is against sin.

Romans 1:18, “But God shows his anger from heaven against all sinful, wicked people who suppress the truth by their wickedness.”

Deuteronomy 4:25 “After you have had children and grandchildren and have lived in the land a long time—if you then become corrupt and make any kind of idol, doing evil in the eyes of the LORD your God and provoking him to anger . . .”

Psalm 78:58-59 “For they provoked him to anger with their high places; they moved him to jealousy with their idols. When God heard, he was full of wrath, and he utterly rejected Israel.”

Isaiah 5:25 “Therefore the anger of the Lord was kindled against his people, and he struck out his hand and struck them."

The sinless Christ (who is both God and man) became sin (meaning he took upon himself our sins and iniquities) and bore the penalty for our sins. So, yes, God’s righteous anger against sin was poured out on Jesus and by his sacrifice God provides atonement for our sins. This was an act of perfect justice and perfect love.

Romans 3:25-26 "whom God put forward as a propitiation 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. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

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.”

Galatians 3:13 “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, ‘Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree.’”

Yes, God’s wrath was poured out on Jesus because he voluntarily “became sin” for us. But this wasn’t just so God could enact “child abuse”. The Father and the Son are united in will and purpose. God’s purpose was to save you and me.

1 John 4:9-11 “This is how God showed his love to us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him. This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins. My beloved ones, since God has loved us in this way, we also are obligated to love one another.”

Notice that just as Christ laid down his life for us and just as the Father was willing to sacrifice his own son, we also are called to love others even when it is costly.

 

[Hume]

God’s wrath is against sin.

Respectfully, god doesn’t throw sin into hell. He throws people. You’ve a very obvious incongruence there.

 

[ltwin]

Respectfully, god doesn’t throw sin into hell. He throws people. You’ve a very obvious incongruence there.

True. The wages of sin is death, but Jesus gives us eternal life.

 

[ltwin]

I’ve said enough, but this article from the Gospel Coalition makes the point that when we speak of God’s anger or wrath we need to avoid thinking of these in terms of human anger and human wrath:

Today ‘wrath’ and ‘anger’ are very unpopular words, mainly because human beings do wrath and anger so badly and unlovingly. It is usually self-indulgent, and often destructive.

We need to help people to see and hear that God’s wrath and anger are holy, not out of control, responsible and appropriate.

We might use the word ‘judgement.’ The problem is that in our world legal judgements are impersonal, whereas God’s judgements are deeply personal, as God’s Law is deeply personal. To break God’s law is to offend God personally, to damage a relationship with the Law-maker, the Law-giver.

Cut for space

I do not say that God was angry with Jesus. I have said that God’s wrath was poured out on Christ, but I prefer not to use that expression. Even though it reflects Bible truth, it is not what the Bible says. I usually say that ‘God poured out his wrath, and his Son bore that wrath in our place’. Or, ‘God acted in judgement, and Jesus took that judgement on our behalf, as our substitute’. Or ‘Jesus suffered the curse of God instead of us’.

 

[DeSales111]

It is unjust both to punish the innocent and to allow the guilty to go free, and God is perfect in His justice.

To say God had to punish sin doesn’t make any sense, as sin is an inanimate object, an action. I think there is a misinterpretation in believing Jesus became actual sin, as that would put God at enmity with Himself, Father against Son, and Son against Father. It makes more sense that Jesus became one with us, a human, offering Himself in solidarity. It was His love that merited our salvation, not the satisfaction of a wrath.

One more thought, sin can not be imputed.

 

[TULIPed]

I think there is a misinterpretation in believing Jesus became actual sin, as that would put God at enmity with Himself, Father against Son, and Son against Father.

One more thought, sin can not be imputed.

In the immortal words of Inego Montoya, “I do not think that word means what you think it means.”

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Michaelangelo]

I’ve heard it said by some Protestants, even a very close friend, that God poured out His wrath on Christ to make atonement for our sins.

I am no theologian, but this just seems absurd. How can that be love, how can that be merciful, and how could that be just?

It is based on the idea that anything done against the divine will is a crime and a crime must be punished. So if the divine being keeps count of the crimes they will add up to a significant punishment after a while. Then combine this idea with the idea that the divine punishment must be executed because otherwise there would not be any true justice, and voila there you have the concept in a nutshell. No mercy or forgiveness there. Only blood, punishment, pain and suffering.

 

[ltwin]

It is unjust both to punish the innocent and to allow the guilty to go free

Then what is the point of Christianity then? Every person who ever lived except Jesus is guilty of sin. If it is unjust for God not to punish us for our sins, then what is this forgiveness thing about? What is this freedom from the curse of the law thing about? What is this “there is now no condemnation to those who are in Christ” thing about?

The Bible says “For Christ also suffered for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God” (1 Peter 3:18). Or in other words, the innocent one suffered and died for the guilty (all of us).

Isn’t that the point of the Incarnation? God himself–who was sinless and righteous–chose to become man and save us from our sins.

And if God says that his own death on the Cross satisfies his own justice, who are we to disagree?

To say God had to punish sin doesn’t make any sense, as sin is an inanimate object, an action. I think there is a misinterpretation in believing Jesus became actual sin, as that would put God at enmity with Himself, Father against Son, and Son against Father.

No one is saying he became actual sin. What most Protestants would say is that there is a double imputation going on: our sin was imputed to Christ and his righteousness imputed to us. He “bore our sins” on the Cross so that we could die to sin and live to righteousness.

It makes more sense that Jesus became one with us, a human, offering Himself in solidarity. It was His love that merited our salvation, not the satisfaction of a wrath.

Two things can be true at once. Christ offered himself in our place, and this voluntary act of suffering was acceptable to God because it was done in love. But there also needed to be a shedding of blood as Hebrews 9:22 makes clear, “In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.”

One more thought, sin can not be imputed.

Not sure I agree with that. 1 Peter 2:24 says that Christ “Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed.” You can also read 2 Corinthians 5:21 and elsewhere in Scripture would seem to suggest a double imputation.

 

[JonNC]

Here’s a blog that quotes Luther on the topic of atonement.

 

[DeSales111]

So you don’t think it’s unjust to punish the innocent? Imagine your mother being punished for something someone on the other side of the world did. That’s not justice, that’s revenge. Would you say those burning down businesses during the riots are justified? It’s the same concept of “somebody has to pay the price to satisfy the wrath.” I’m sorry but that is everything Christ was not, and Christ and God are one and the same.

I’m not saying it is unjust for God to punish us for our sins, I’m saying it is unjust to punish the innocent. Christ was innocent, and He wasn’t punished by His own Father as some seem to believe.

Are you saying we will or will not be punished for our sins?