There are actually quite a few models for the Atonement. There's the Penal Substitution model, of course. There's Christus Victor (several versions), the Healing Model, Moral Influence Theory, and others. I think there's truth in all of them, except I think Anselm's ideas were greatly flawed.

Here's the definition of the Moral Influence Theory from Wiki:



Certainly Christ's death serves as an example, but I think is not nearly so important as it's revelation of the truth. If we look through the chapter, "It Is Written," we say this theme fully represented in its seven pages. Christ demonstrates the truth about God, about Satan, about sin, and about ourselves. The power of the enemy to deceive us, is his power over us. The truth sets us free.

God and Christ are "one"

The wrath of God
is the same as
the wrath of the Lamb.

Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;


The Love of God the Father
is the same quality as
The LOVE of Christ.

Rev. 6:16 And said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb:

We must be careful when dealing with the concept of "wrath", God's wrath is not like human wrath.

Thanks Teresa, for that very good question.

God is wrath against sin itself, not against sinful people. thus a Saviour from our sinful nature and its fate is viable: were God wrath against sinful people themselves - so, like you are asking, us ourselves, there's no scope for saving us by a Saviour substituting himself for us. Jesus didn't redeem that which suffered the wrath of God - sin and our sinful nature, but redeemed us from that which did suffer it.

Equally, Bibically, Jesus doesn't atone for our sin, but for us. Any reference in literature to God's gift of Jesus atoning for sin is at best a slip of the tongue, for it is unbiblical error.

It's sin and sinful nature itself which is condemned by God's love and law, and Jesus substituted our sinful nature that he took as his own in addition to his divine nature - producing salvation merits for us by "the faith of Jesus" - to save us from it, since it is due God's wrath, not sinners who accept it's substitution for them.

He took the judgement of God against sin and our sinfulness - condemned to eternal death by the law - for us, that we may be saved by his death and resurrection from the sinfulness of our nature. That's what Rom 7:1-6 says.


Interesting you quote from Wesley! His Methodism is the historical roots of salvation teaching our church is based on: we aren't Lutheran or Calvinist...

"Propitiation" is the word..., and it means God is wrath against sin, thus a propitiatory sacrifice he gives us for us.

Some theologians and indeed Bible translations interpret that word in that place and elsewhere in the NT as "expiation". I understand from Christian literature that "expiation" excludes divine wrath needing appeasement from the meaning and purpose of an expiatory sacrifice. It seems those who support this word instead dislike any possibility of the Greek religious world's idea of a god needing to be assuaged of wrath against men, and so cancel altogether the possibility for God. I've yet found - no time to find either, really - anything they themselves say about their selection of "expiation", but its definition speaks volumes already.

"Protitiation" is the right word, and the Bible does say God is wrath against sin, but loves sinners. Thus we are able to saved by Jesus from our sinfulness. Sorry to throw so much at you, but it has helped, hasn't it?

Amen, Sister Dedication: divine wrath is against sin of men, not against men. There is therefore no excuse for refusing grace, which has been revealed and given to all men.

Oh dear, Tom, for a moment I thought you hadn't stated your own position. Having already checked both sides - one of which you quoted a tit bit of - on Wiki, I did on 2nd reading recognise your own position.

Your Bible study of the Fall in Genesis is hardly disputed!!

Defeating the Devil's deceptions about God's truth is only dealing with the power of sin. That's surely not the limit of your version of the Christus Victor atonement theory??! How do you square overcoming the natural inclination to sin we have with there being no legal issues involved in our salvation?

eg. you avoid the requirement of obedience by dealing with character building in harmoney with God rather than obedience to God by the faith of Jesus. What's the basis of that character development?? What's the basis of Jesus' character, perfected by the Son of man, born under the law?

We know now you support the substitutionary death of Christ for us, but how does it constitute death to sin for us in any way? Oh, you avoid "death to sin" for Christ - he "died for sin", but we have to do it, don't we? How do we do it without physically dying? How do you interpret Rom 7:4?

That's good. I wasn't looking to produce something that would be disputed.



No, I didn't feel like writing a twenty page post. It was just a few thoughts.



I didn't say there were no legal issues involved in our salvation. I've never said that. I've said the reverse many times. I've said I don't agree with Anselm's or Calvin's formulations of these issues. I've also said I don't believe the law *added* any issues that weren't there already. Or, to put it another way, anything that can be stated in terms of the law can be stated in terms of God's character, as the law is a transcript of God's character.



The basis was faith. Regarding Jesus' being born under the law, as you know, I agree with you on this point, and have written many posts explaining that Gal. 4:4 is not saying Christ was born subject to the law, like a Jew, but under the law, as all fallen humans are, meaning He came in sinful flesh. But, again, there's only so much one can right in one post, so I chose to present a few ideas I feel are fundamental.



That's good! I've only had to say this for 5 years for you to "now know"!



Colin, you need to avoid casting things in terms of "avoiding." I'm not trying to "avoid" anything. If I wanted to avoid things, I wouldn't respond to posts. I always respond to posts (unless I simply overlook the post).

Putting things in terms of "avoiding" makes the posts confrontational. Why can't we look at our discussion as a mutual investigation of truth? While there are things I disagree with you on, I always read your posts with an open mind (and those of others as well) as just because I disagree with you on one point, doesn't mean you won't have insightful observations or questions on other points. That makes the experience a learning one, even in disagreement.

You and I agree regarding the corporate aspect (including Christ's taking sinful flesh) and that justification by faith involves being made righteous. I think we're the only two on this forum who do. It strikes me as odd that you take such a controversial approach to my posts, while taking a much friendlier one to others with whom you are theologically further apart. Why not be as friendly in tone with me as you are with the others?

Regarding Christ dying "for sin," did you have Romans 8:3 in mind? If so, it seems to me to mean the same thing as Romans 4:25, which is to say that Christ died on account of sin.

Regarding Christ dying to sin, I understand this to mean that Christ could not be tempted to sin even by a thought; that He was did to it in the sense that it had no power over Him. I understand for us to "die to sin" means the same thing, as in the following quote:



An interesting topic to pursue in this thread is how the death of Christ benefits us, even before we accept Him, and how Romans discusses this (viz. Romans 5).

so how do you prove that from the bible? the reason i ask, is because i know someone who "proved" from the bible that God will hate the lost for eternity.

so you see Gods wrath as vindictive justice? does God have a vindictive "bone in His body"?

Only if one has an odd idea of what "atone" means, I think. For example:



Ellen White is using the expression "atonement for sin" Biblically, I think. Note how she relates the "atonement for sin" to Christ's drawing ourself to Him. Our whole problem is that sin separates us from God. It does this by causing us to believe things about God which are not true. So God reveals the truth about Himself through Christ, drawing us near to Him, an atonement for sin.



"At-one-ment" is what the atonement is all about -- bringing us to God, as Peter puts it.



A "propitiation" is an offering of peace. It doesn't mean "God is wrath against sin." As Waggoner points out, God provides the propitiating sacrifice *for us*. We are the ones who need to be brought to Him.



I'm sure you're aware of Ellen White's wonderful endorsements regarding Waggoner's teaching on righteousness by faith. Waggoner is dead right here, Colin.



The word is "hil-as-mos" which, I believe, is actually "covering."



The word "hilasterion" refers to the mercy seat, a covering. The word "merciful" is hilaskomai, which has the same root.

The word has to do with mercy, not wrath.

Regarding God's wrath, it is against people. There are many examples of this usage of this in Scripture. Here's one:



The wrath of God against people is expressed by His giving them up to the results of their choice.

So are you saying, we are saved by our knowledge of truth about God, we are NOT saved in Christ through "whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;"?????