The Meaning Of Christ's Atonement For Sin Without Hell

[Seth]

Well I see a difference between "by proxy" vs "through us"

He does the righteous works THROUGH us which is what makes us Christ's workmanship and not of our own righteousness. By proxy means that God "cannot see our sin" that we do after belief in Christ because he sees the righteous act Christ did at the cross. I think the scripture is very clear that not only can God see our sin, he is prompt in delivering the chastening we need when we need it.

Proxy means a representative stand-in. To ETers it means God cannot now beat you up because Christ is the stand-in. It's the old Father=Angry but Jesus=Nice model. The "through us" model is where Christ indeed substitutes his own works, but does it through us daily, not as a stand-in to get us into Heaven and past the Father's angry glare. See what I mean?

[jabcat]

I was typing this so I'll post it, then try to respond to your post Seth.  :)


Another 2 cents...I do understand how dismissing the concept of eternal torment causes the need to re-examine things from some different angles, rethinking some things.  However, I believe we can go too far then the other way, dismissing other things that are still vital, though perhaps not in exactly the same way as thought of before, i.e., "escaping eternal hell".  Still, things like salvation by grace through belief on Jesus, and other necessities of the faith, still need to fit the scripture test and not just our new "no hell" paradigm. 

[Seth]

Still, things like salvation by grace through belief on Jesus, and other necessities of the faith, still need to fit the scripture test and not just our new "no hell" paradigm. 

Right! Salvation from death in Adam by Grace which "chastening (scourging) us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world...." (Titus 2:11)

That's salvation by Grace. Salvation by Grace does not mean Jesus being the nice guy to appease a really angry Father so that the Father does not whip us. Jesus and the Father are one. They are of the same temperament. The only reason for the Penal Substitution model is to appease an angry God.

But the wrath of God is already in the world: death in Sin. It's been going on since Adam. The Father is saving his creation through Christ by giving us the Spirit so that Christ may work through us the righteous works which save us from "this untoward generation."

[Seth]

Take a look at Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5. They tried to trick God and they died for it. Works led to death (that is symbolic). Why didn't they appeal to Christ's sacrifice on the cross if they were believers? Works of death lead to death for the sting of death is sin.

ETers would explain this by saying, yes they died but they didn't go to Hell, because they were saved by Grace. James, you and I know that hell does not exist. Now what?

[eaglesway]

I gues I would say I see it in a more organic way. Our righteousness is not by proxy, it is by transmission. To be cut out of one vine and grafted into another is an exchange of the nature of the life now flowing through the branch. For me the details of the transaction are less important.

But as I see it there is a substitutionary payment that allows for the transplant, initially. In my opinion, Jesus fulfilled the law in life, he did not have to die. The death He payed paved the way for my being grafted into the new vine. The righteousness that flows thru me is transmitted from the root of the new vine- rooted and grounded in love.

The transaction is that the one who owned me(the law) was payed in full by Jesus, so, as long as I am willing to die with Him, that which held me back from being grafted in is removed, and I can live with Him.

[Seth]

I gues I would say I see it in a more organic way. Our righteousness is not by proxy, it is by transmission. To be cut out of one vine and grafted into another is an exchange of the nature of the life now flowing through the branch. For me the details of the transaction are less important.

But as I see it there is a substitutionary payment that allows for the transplant, initially. In my opinion, Jesus fulfilled the law in life, he did not have to die. The death He payed paved the way for my being grafted into the new vine. The righteousness that flows thru me is transmitted from the root of the new vine- rooted and grounded in love.

The transaction is that the one who owned me(the law) was payed in full by Jesus, so, as long as I am willing to die with Him, that which held me back from being grafted in is removed, and I can live with Him.

YES! Especially the bolded part. Jesus did not die so that we would not have to. He died so that we could pick up cross and follow him to death, so that we could be freed from death in sin.

Jesus did not become dead in Adam. He did not become a sinner so that he could save sinners because that is the true wrath of God, to be turned over to a wicked mind. He became a sin offering who knew no sin. He was spotless when we were not, so that he could experience a PHYSICAL death so as to save us from spiritual death.

It's not a mirror/mirror penal substitution. Not even ETers believe in a perfect mirror penal substitution when you really press them on it: did Jesus burn in hell forever to save people from burning in hell forever? Um, no.

[jabcat]

Well I see a difference between "by proxy" vs "through us"

He does the righteous works THROUGH us which is what makes us Christ's workmanship and not of our own righteousness. By proxy means that God "cannot see our sin" that we do after belief in Christ because he sees the righteous act Christ did at the cross. I think the scripture is very clear that not only can God see our sin, he is prompt in delivering the chastening we need when we need it.

Proxy means a representative stand-in. To ETers it means God cannot now beat you up because Christ is the stand-in. It's the old Father=Angry but Jesus=Nice model. The "through us" model is where Christ indeed substitutes his own works, but does it through us daily, not as a stand-in to get us into Heaven and past the Father's angry glare. See what I mean?

Hmmm...I wonder if either way, "by proxy" or "through us", does that actually dispel or confirm "penal substitution"...   I may see it as parts of both, not either/or.  I would also be able to leave out some of the parameters, such as Father angry, Jesus nice, and God not being able to beat us now.  So maybe it's not that the only reason for penal substitution is that Father was angry, but rather, Father requires certain things.  For me, it goes down to things like, receiving Him makes us His child and saves us from the power of sin over our lives, and that can't occur without His gift.  I think of things, whatever label one calls it, like;  Without what He did by His death and resurrection, the Lamb slain, the perfect sacrifice;  which was paying the legal penalty (however that might be exactly scripturally explained - by His using the legal/business transaction term "it is finished", i.e., "paid in full) and then sealing us with His Holy Spirit of Promise (another legal transaction - assurance), I could not attain anything before Him.  So yes, He has to both give that to me, and, then He does work it through me.    Again, I'm examining this, but I think absolute statements should absolutely be scripturally sound (all relevant scrips, all scrips reconciling), otherwise we're "leaning, believing, wondering", etc... I'm looking at the wider issue, but sure won't say Christ's sacrifice for my sins, Him doing what I cannot do for myself, is unnecessary.  Even Him working through me, is Him, not me.  Not sure where A and Sapp. fit into this, except God works His will and good pleasure, and all fits His purpose.  Gotta go for right now, got some work things to do, but maybe someone else will weigh in.  Blessings.

[Seth]

Hmmm...I wonder if either way, "by proxy" or "through us", does that actually dispel or confirm "penal substitution"...   I may see it as parts of both, not either/or.  I would also be able to leave out some of the parameters, such as Father angry, Jesus nice, and God not being able to beat us now.  So maybe it's not that the only reason for penal substitution is that Father was angry, but rather, Father requires certain things. 

Right, and here is where I am making the distinction between ET and UR. The ET group is saying that LOVE is not needed to be saved, only faith. Saved from what? Hell. But if the paradigm of salvation has shifted from "Hell" to "death in Sin" we can see that Love is actually still required.  God has actually not changed that requirement. You cannot love someone if you do works of iniquity against them. That is why James says: "you see that man is justified by works and not by faith alone."

When God gave the Law he said "Choose life" Jesus died so that we could actually attain Life. Since the Law could not give it to us, Jesus satisfied it's requirement and gave his resurrected Life unto salvation. Reconciled by death, but how much more so, having been reconciled, shall we be saved though his Life.

[eaglesway]

I gues I would say I see it in a more organic way. Our righteousness is not by proxy, it is by transmission. To be cut out of one vine and grafted into another is an exchange of the nature of the life now flowing through the branch. For me the details of the transaction are less important.

But as I see it there is a substitutionary payment that allows for the transplant, initially. In my opinion, Jesus fulfilled the law in life, he did not have to die. The death He payed paved the way for my being grafted into the new vine. The righteousness that flows thru me is transmitted from the root of the new vine- rooted and grounded in love.

The transaction is that the one who owned me(the law) was payed in full by Jesus, so, as long as I am willing to die with Him, that which held me back from being grafted in is removed, and I can live with Him.

YES! Especially the bolded part. Jesus did not die so that we would not have to. He died so that we could pick up cross and follow him to death, so that we could be freed from death in sin.

Jesus did not become dead in Adam. He did not become a sinner so that he could save sinners because that is the true wrath of God, to be turned over to a wicked mind. He became a sin offering who knew no sin. He was spotless when we were not, so that he could experience a PHYSICAL death so as to save us from spiritual death.

It's not a mirror/mirror penal substitution. Not even ETers believe in a perfect mirror penal substitution when you really press them on it: did Jesus burn in hell forever to save people from burning in hell forever? Um, no.

2 Corinthians 5:21
New American Standard Bible (NASB)
21 He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

Not trying to put you on the spot, but how do you explain this verse?

[Seth]

I think in the Romans 6 sense that he died a literal death to put away sin in the flesh even though he was righteous in his mind. He became sin....who knew no sin. He did not literally become a sinner or have a carnal mind or have a mind that was at emnity with God in order to save those who did. in other words, he did not become dead in Adam in order to save those who are dead in Adam. It was a type and shadow of our salvation: physical cross equals dying to sin. Christ was without sin and therefore already dead to sin in his mind at his birth because he was born of God and not of man.

[Seth]

Eaglesway, think about the sheep in the OT who died for the sins of the Israelites. They knew no sin. They were animals. Neutral. But the Israelites transferred their sin ceremoniously to the sheep, then either sent them out to the wilderness, or killed them. In that way, the sheep became sin. Indeed, when you look at the many offering commandments in the OT, it does not say "bring a sin offering" it said "bring your sin." The word sin doubled for both sin and sin-offering.

All this was type/shadow. Christ in the flesh: we know him after the flesh no longer.

His death saved nobody, it reconciled by putting away the requirements of the Law to kill physical sheep. His LIVE saves. Nothing fleshy can save anyone from sin. Only the SPIRIT.

When Christ became sin, it was a type and shadow becoming clearer. Romans 6 explains the reality in the Spirit: physical cross = death to sin. Physical resurrection = newness of life.

[ed]

To say you are without sin, means you have already died.
Yet you get up every morning.

There is nothing that you do less today (sin) than you did the day before.
By which you can truly convince yourself, that you are innocent.

The battle is for your mind.
The battle to ignore, the observations of your mind as it battles sin and keeps score..
The battle is  to believe that the battle with sin is an illusion.

God no longer relates to you through your sin score (good or bad ).
Jesus declares us innocent the spirit invading or mind with a vision of our new innocence l 

May God grant this vision so the blind may see.

Did God ever relate to us through our sin?  Did God ever hold sin against us?  Perfection is always with us.  It always has been.  It never left us.  I like to call it omnipresence.  Omnipresence is always with us even in our sin.

God does not require a sacrifice for sin.  Man decided that a sacrifice for sin was in order.  This line of thinking is what makes me apostate. 

Though I know that I am apostate, I still have the perfection within.  I still renew my mind to that perfection, and no sacrifice is required.  How do I know that I am accepted?  The spirit bears witness.  The same spirit that was with me when I claimed the sacrifice has been with me since I renounced the need for a sacrifice.  Heal me.

.

[jabcat]

ed, I know from things you've said in the past that you currently don't care;  but I want to at least note that your thoughts are contrary to the scriptures as a whole.

Taking into account some things you've said;  God doesn't require blood;  you pay attention to the scriptures you've decided are true;  everyone's perfect, perfection never left; you're "agnostic" about Jesus, and there didn't need to be a sacrifice.

I understand in your own mind, you can just say "it doesn't matter what these scriptures say, I believe what I believe".  So I won't argue that point, although I trust you have read the bottom of this post  http://tentmaker.org/forum/lounge/saved-from-what/msg167065/#msg167065.    I will suggest your thoughts are based on your thoughts, rather than the Word of God, and I'd like to post the relevant scriptures;


Hebrews 10:19 Therefore, brethren, since we have confidence to enter the holy place by the blood of Jesus, 20 by a new and living way which He inaugurated for us through the veil, that is, His flesh,

I John 2:2  And he is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the whole world.

Romans 3:23  For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God

Romans 5:19  for by one man's disobedience all were made sinners."

Rom. 3:10-12: "As it is written: "There is none righteous, no, not one; There is none who understands; there is none who seeks after God. They have all turned aside; they have together become unprofitable; there is none who does good, no, not one."

2 Pet. 2:1; "But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves."

 

[eaglesway]

Respectfully Ed, I disagree. I believe Jesus was sacrificed. At the core of the creation(Alpha) He was sacrificed. His sacrifice is the door through which we enter the heart of God, whose way of showing us what love is, was sacrifice. This demonstration of love is the lighthouse to which every being who ever lived will eventually be gathered into one(Omega)- untill God is ALL IN ALL, or, until all are one in God.

Where I do agree with you is this. There is no longer any need for sacrifice. This is because Jesus, through whom God created all things, was sacrificed once, for all.

Everyone who was created through Him will one day rejoice over that sacrifice, made once for all.

"No greater love has a man than this, than to lay down his life for a friend."

Peace.

[Seth]

I just want to clarify on this thread that my purpose was not in any way to deny that Christ's death on the Cross did happen in a real, and literal way, and that it was sanctioned and planned by God that he shed his literal blood as a sacrifice for the sins of the World. I really don't want this thread to turn into that, so I respectfully submit to you that when you bring that to the table on this particular thread, it is essentially a hijack. No offense intended by that.

I want to note that Penal Substitution is actually an interpretation that originated with Calvinism. It wasn't the prevailing interpretation before that. This thread is all about whether or not the Doctrine of Penal Substitution is relevant if Hell does not exist. I will define the doctrine here:

Wikipedia entry on Penal Substitution (page link)
Penal substitution (sometimes, esp. in older writings, called forensic theory) is a theory of the atonement within Christian theology, developed with the Reformed tradition (Calvinism). It argues that Christ, by his own sacrificial choice, was punished (penalised) in the place of sinners (substitution), thus satisfying the demands of justice so God can justly forgive the sins.

I believe that Calvin's view still holds sway in UR to a large degree. I have a problem with the term "in the place of sinners." That's where the idea of PROXY righteousness comes from which causes mega confusion with the scripture. If we don't believe in Hell, as UR believers, then what place is he taking? As far as I know the Law did not demand physical death for EVERY precept broken, only some. But the result of breaking the Law is indeed SPIRITUAL death for all.

So Christ became the Lamb to die a literal death, in order to save us from our spiritual death (salvation) putting away the Law in the process (reconciliation).

For the above Wikipedia description to work, Christ would have to become a sinner in our place, literally a sinner, dead in Adam, carnal minded, wicked worker. Then, to follow through, with proxy righteousness God would see Jesus's righteousness in dying for our sin in our place so that he could consider us alive in Christ even though we are actually dead in Adam. It simply does not work in the scripture, the whole thing falls flat, to me anyway.

I guess the closest I would say to what I am saying was the idea held long before Calvin: The Moral Influence View (with the important caveat that Hell is not a factor):

The moral influence doctrine of atonement is typically taught within a paradigm of salvation which focuses on positive moral change as the core of Christianity. God is depicted as concerned with whether a person's inner character is good or evil (where 'good' refers primarily to unselfish love toward others). In this system, God works to bring positive moral change within the hearts of individuals and to transform societies to become more loving.

He acted to bring such change through the teachings of the Old Testament Law, the Jewish Prophets, and the teaching and example of Jesus. The inspiring power of Jesus' martyrdom and subsequent resurrection are also often cited as catalysts for moral change. Many holding a moral influence view also believe that the Holy Spirit works to help people toward moral change. In the moral influence view, it is generally believed that God will judge the souls of the dead in the afterlife based on their moral character, attested to by their conduct (a belief that many Evangelical Protestants reject).

Evangelicals reject that. Yet Christ says "Not everyone who says, Lord, Lord....and .... away from me you who work iniquity...."

[eaglesway]

I think in the Romans 6 sense that he died a literal death to put away sin in the flesh even though he was righteous in his mind. He became sin....who knew no sin. He did not literally become a sinner or have a carnal mind or have a mind that was at emnity with God in order to save those who did. in other words, he did not become dead in Adam in order to save those who are dead in Adam. It was a type and shadow of our salvation: physical cross equals dying to sin. Christ was without sin and therefore already dead to sin in his mind at his birth because he was born of God and not of man.

I agree with that.

[jabcat]

I just want to clarify on this thread that my purpose was not in any way to deny that Christ's death on the Cross did happen in a real, and literal way, and that it was sanctioned and planned by God that he shed his literal blood as a sacrifice for the sins of the World. I really don't want this thread to turn into that, so I respectfully submit to you that when you bring that to the table on this particular thread, it is essentially a hijack. No offense intended by that.

Thanks for the clarification.  I think the whole idea of "I don't believe in penal substitution" can, in some folks' mind (maybe even many just passing through who don't really dig into it) conjure up all sorts of ideas.    You just stressed above that you're not saying there's no need for the blood, that Jesus wasn't and isn't our sacrifice, the Lamb without spot and blemish slain from the foundation of the world.   You're not saying the cross wasn't necessary,  that we can make it on our own works or on our own righteousness, or that Jesus can be bypassed somehow.      I doubt if anyone at any time has every FULLY understood every reason and every outcome of all those things.  But you are still saying they're scriptural, however you're exploring that there are some differences in how you understand some of those reasons and outcomes, from what many in Christendom teach.  Close?

I'm personally looking at it, and though I think you and I still have some differing views on some details, I think we're pretty solid on the foundational things mentioned above.  Correct any of this if I'm mistaken.  Blessings.

[Seth]

Not just close: I would say exactly. I'm thing of changing the title of the thread to something less easily misunderstood. Thinking of what could be better

[jabcat]

Awesome.   :thumbsup: 

[Seth]

Done. I hope that makes a better title

[jabcat]

Really like it..should be able to explore things better now without too many undue assumptions.

[ed]

  I will suggest your thoughts are based on your thoughts, rather than the Word of God, and I'd like to post the relevant scriptures;

I am thankful for Tentmaker.org and really like that the Universalist perspective is shown to be completely Biblical.  I use the site to refresh myself on it, and share with those who have need of salvation from sectarian doctrine.

Christianity has need of it. 

I respect Christianity because it is my roots.  I gained what I could from it.  It is not my desire to trash it.  You guys are going deep in this thread without falling off the edge.  It is a fine line.  Thanks for letting me post here. I need to be more careful to not post from a place of pride or hurt.  Rock on!

[ed]

This thread is all about whether or not the Doctrine of Penal Substitution is relevant if Hell does not exist.

:thumbsup:

[micah7:9]

The entire doctrine of Jesus being a substitute is from hell[if there were such a thing/place]. But of course this is just an opinion :Peace2: I find that man's theologies take words from man's understanding and then use those words[and man's definition] to then create doctrines which give birth to denominations[which separate] then he is persuaded to join the one that gives him the most peace to his thinking.
The word substitute, like rapture, and trinity are not found in the Bible, for research,(we could ad the words hell and eternity as well) and so without man's speculation, assumption, definition, and his interpretation, we find that we miss the mark. Again  :Peace2:

[Seth]

I agree Micah7:9. John Calvin's whole idea for the "satisfy God's holy wrath" doctrine is because he thought that the idea behind the Gospel is to sneak people into Heaven by proxy righteousness. This is why Evangelicals have such a hard time with James: "You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone" ooops. Justified how? As he said in James 1, "from all moral filth."

James 1
19 This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; 20 for the anger of man does not achieve the righteousness of God. 21 Therefore, putting aside all filthiness and all that remains of wickedness, in humility receive the word implanted, which is able to save your souls.

That is what James was talking about with works that save your souls...from the remains of wickedness. Addicted to drugs? Stop doing it. Murdering people? Stop. Addicted to porn? Stop. Stopping is a work, and James is saying Faith must be completed by Works or there is no salvation...from the remains of wickedness.

But if you don't stop doing those things, don't think you are still justified before God because faith. Faith in the Hebrew Bible is a matter of belief+obedience.

None of this jibes with Calvin's substitution to appease an angry God to sneak us into Heaven doctrine. They have SUCH a hard time explaining the book of James. I have seen some wacky explanations, but all you have to do is look at the context.

I would say that if Jesus was a substitute it was for the lambs of the OT. Israelites were placing the wrath of the Law upon the lambs to atone for their sin. Jesus took their place to get rid of the Law and remove the dividing wall between man and God.

This covers laws also which did not require literal, physical death, and certainly death was not required for Gentiles, because they were not under the Law in the first place. So then I would ask, what place did Christ take for the Gentiles?

From what I see the kind of punishment that ALL men share alike, whether Jew or Gentile, is spiritual death. The judgment that Jesus says that all men are under is this one:

John 3
18"He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19"This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil. 20"For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed.

Anyone who rejects Christ remains in that judgment (judged already). And if that is the judgment, and Jesus "takes the place of sinners" that means Christ would have to literally be placed into that judgment. I don't believe that's what happened. THIS is the judgment that applies to ALL men, Jew or Gentile. This is what Christ died for, to take people out of this judgment. He was treated as a criminal without being one, so that he could save actual criminals through his Life.


And the solution for the "deeds were evil."

John 3
21"But he who practices the truth comes to the Light, so that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God."

That's the transmission that Eaglesway was talking about earlier. Worked in God....through his faithful.