20
02
2008
Posted by: carrie in Spring 2008
Summary of the Recapitulation Theory of the Atonement:
Play Now |
Play in Popup |
Download
Ransom to Satan Theory of the Atonement:
Play Now |
Play in Popup |
Download
Satisfaction Theory of the Atonement:
Play Now |
Play in Popup |
Download
Moral Example Theory of the Atonement:
Play Now |
Play in Popup |
Download
Online Video:
Play Now |
Play in Popup |
Download
Substitution Theory of the Atonement [21:42m]:
Play Now |
Play in Popup |
Download
This entry was posted on Wednesday, February 20th, 2008 at 12:00 am and is filed under Spring 2008. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Powered by FireStats
February 29th, 2008 at 8:23 pm
1. The Substitution Theory is a great example of the righteousness and love of God because it emphasizes what Christ accomplished on earth and what God was willing to do to redeem mankind. In a sense, it is the forerunner of the vicarious, penal substitutionary theory of redemption. It emphasizes how Christ made things right and how perfect God is and what God needed to do to redeem us, which was of course, the ultimate act of love.
2. To unbelievers, I am sure that the cross is an offensive and terrible thing. The concept that God would send someone to punish and die intentionally does not sound like a loving act on the surface. However, as these Scriptures clearly demonstartate, God’s ways are above man’s ways, and God did what He required to save us our of His great love for us.
3. Wow, there is more than a dozen references that I found that refer to Christ as a substitution.
4. How can anyone explain away the way this prophetic section of Scripture was carried out? To tremendous detail, Isaiah describes the purpose and method of the atonement. He vividly details what Christ went through and what He accomplished. No one could have intentionally fulfilled this passage of Scripture, it has to be a God-ordained prophecy and fulfillment.
5. As we discussed in class, Christ bore the penalty for our sin thereby making payment for the punishment of our sin and imputing His righteousness in us. Our sins are ultimately paid for. For those who do not believe, their unbelief keeps them from claiming this forgiveness and payment for the penalty of their sin. Hell is a place of unbelief. I am a sinner like an unbeliever, but as a believer I claim my sins paid for on the cross.
6. The Courtroom illustration is a good one. I have seen and heard it used effectively many times. However, it is still just an illustration. We are talking about more than a transaction here. We are talking about becoming a new creation, new birth, and new life in Christ. There is so much more to our faith than a transaction, it is a radical new life!!!! Unfortuanately, I think much of American evangelicalism focuses solely on the transaction of the cross and not the discipleship it also demands.
7. Although I am a Calvinist for the most part, this is the one point I struggle with most. I understand that not everyone will go to heaven. However, I believe it would be inconsistent with God’s character for Him not to make available a plan of redemption for everyone. Somehow, someway, I do believe Christ died for all of us, unfortunately, I do not believe that everyone will claim it. The difference seems semantic, but in the end, I really do not know how it all works exactly.
8. This lesson was, as all the others, very difficult. The mechanics of the atonement are by definition beyond us. How Christ was our perfect substitue and redeemer is beyond words. Again, I can not explain all of the mechanics of it, there is a certain amount of faith that carries us through and the Holy Spirit leads us into the truth of the cross.
February 29th, 2008 at 9:50 pm
1. The Substitutionary Theory of the Atonement emphasizes both the righteousness and love of God. Explain how this is true.
A. John 3:16 says it all doesn’t it? “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life”. Christ atoned for our sins and it was an exact penalty which satisfied God’s wrath because He loved us enough to do just that.
2. Some people object to the Substitutionary Theory of Atonement believing that foolishly promotes an evil God who vindictively punishesan innocent person for the sins of the guilty. Read 1 Cor. 1:21-25 and then 2:14. How do these passages help us to understand this objection?
A. Many an unbeliever will “reason” his way that Christ’s atoning death was man’s way of understanding things “back then” and today we know better. Not everyone believed back then or so it goes. Now, 2:14 says that natural man can’t receive the things of God and or more literally receive them willingly until God calls on them and they choose or not.
3. Read the entire passage of Is 53 and underline all the words and phrases that suggest that Christ was a substitution for sinners.
A. I could write pages on this but I’ll focus on one verse for now: 6 But the LORD has caused the iniquity of us all to fall on Him.
This means Christ took our sins upon himself.
4. Is 53 is the chapter the Jews don’t bring up at Sabbath services. When you read this chapter and consider it was clearly written some 700 years before Christ’s birth how can you not see the parallels? Well, Christ was God and was without sin and this chapter states Because He had done no violence, Nor was there any deceit in His mouth. 10 But the LORD was pleased to crush Him, putting Him to grief; If He would render Himself as a guilt offering”
Christ did offer Himself as guilt offering.
5. One objection to the Substitionary Theory of Atonement is that if Christ took our exact penalty why isnt’ He in Hell for all eternity. Discuss this objection.
A. Well, Christ was God and without sin EVER so why would He be in hell? Makes no sense to me.
March 1st, 2008 at 4:21 pm
Session 5 Discussion Questions
1. The Substitution Theory of the Atonement emphasizes both the righteousness and love of God. Explain how this is true.
Reply: Adam’s rebellion and the subsequent plight of the human race was a profound affront to God’s attribute of righteousness (holiness). God’s love for His creatures and desire for reconciliation must be exercised in a fashion congruent with the balance of His attributes, and most particularly, His attribute of justice which demanded punishment. This is not an external constraint imposed upon God, but is rather a constraint from within – God cannot deny Himself, nor can He dismiss any aspect of His being without ceasing to be God. Therefore, God demonstrated His infinite love for us by exacting our punishment from His very own Son, permitting us to be reconciled to Him in a manner compatible with his character as a righteous (just) Judge.
2. Some people object to the Substitution Theory of the Atonement believing that it foolishly promotes an evil God who vindictively punishes an innocent person for the sins of the guilty. Read 1 Cor. 1:21-25 and 2:14. How do these passages help us to understand this objection?
Reply: This objection illustrates how man’s finite wisdom dares to bring God’s wisdom - as demonstrated in the atonement - under his own critical scrutiny. Man’s mind cannot intellectually embrace the truth of the Gospel so long as his mental faculties remain in their natural, corrupted condition. Unless God enlightens and illumines him through the power of His Holy Spirit the preaching of the cross is foolishness to him. See 1 Corinthians 1:18.
1 Corinthians 1:18 ESV
(18) For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
1 Corinthians 2:14 ESV
(14) The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.
3. Read the entire passage of Isa. 53 and underline all the words and phrases that suggest that Christ was a substitution for sinners.
Reply: Unfortunately, my underlining did not paste in this format. However, I discovered 13 words or phrases referring to the concept of substitution in the Isaiah passage below.
Isaiah 53:1-12 ESV
(1) Who has believed what he has heard from us? And to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed?
(2) For he grew up before him like a young plant, and like a root out of dry ground; he had no form or majesty that we should look at him, and no beauty that we should desire him.
(3) He was despised and rejected by men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief; and as one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
(4) Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted.
(5) But he was wounded for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his stripes we are healed.
(6) All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned–every one–to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all.
(7) He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth; like a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and like a sheep that before its shearers is silent, so he opened not his mouth.
(8) By oppression and judgment he was taken away; and as for his generation, who considered that he was cut off out of the land of the living, stricken for the transgression of my people?
(9) And they made his grave with the wicked and with a rich man in his death, although he had done no violence, and there was no deceit in his mouth.
(10) Yet it was the will of the LORD to crush him; he has put him to grief; when his soul makes an offering for guilt, he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days; the will of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.
(11) Out of the anguish of his soul he shall see and be satisfied; by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant, make many to be accounted righteous, and he shall bear their iniquities.
(12) Therefore I will divide him a portion with the many, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong, because he poured out his soul to death and was numbered with the transgressors; yet he bore the sin of many, and makes intercession for the transgressors.
4. The book of Isaiah was written 700 years before Christ’s birth. We have extant copies of Isaiah among the Dead Sea Scrolls that date back 150 years before Christ. Therefore, no one can claim that this passage (Isa. 53) was written after the fact. How can you use the detailed description of the Atonement given here by Isaiah as a defense for the Christian message?
Reply: In the video Michael mentioned Isaiah 53 as the single most important passage in the Bible in support of the doctrine of substitutionary atonement because the concept of substitution pervades the entire passage. The implication is clear and inescapable. The Suffering Servant in this passage bore the punishment for the transgressions of His people. He was the sacrificial Lamb who took their place.
The existence of the book of Isaiah among the copies of the Dead Sea Scrolls proves that the concept of substitutionary atonement was not a notion that evolved many years after Christ died, but rather preceded His coming by many years.
5. One objection to the Substitution Theory of the Atonement is that if Christ took our exact penalty, why isn’t He in Hell for all eternity. Discuss this objection.
Reply: I am not sure I completely understand or identify with the rationale underlying this objection. The objection seems to stem from the fact that those who go to their graves in an unrepentant state continue to suffer in Hell for all eternity. However, C.S. Lewis contends that those in Hell remain in an unrepentant and defiant state throughout eternity and therefore, they deserve to suffer everlasting punishment because their impenitence is ongoing and never ending.
Furthermore, if the intentionality of the atonement was directed at only those who would believe, and Christ did not bear the sins of those unbelievers who are ultimately destined for hell, then He only suffered for the sins of the elect. And, of course, the elect do not remain in the sin of rebellion and unbelief for an indefinite period of time such as those in hell. If this is indeed the case, then the objection loses even more of its punch…
However, lets assume that the sins of all mankind – including those individuals ultimately finding themselves in hell – were borne by Christ on the cross. If I understand the reasoning behind the question as to why Christ is not in Hell for all eternity, it seems to stem from an observation of the intensity (qualitative aspect) and the duration (quantitative aspect) of His physical suffering during the final hours of His passion, thus giving rise to a misplaced concern as to whether Christ’s punishment is in some way proportional to the torment of those individuals damned for all eternity in hell.
Now, if I am correct so far in understanding the underlying basis behind the objection, then I believe this reasoning wholly fails to take into consideration the nature and substance of the Person undergoing the suffering on the cross. This is not strictly an apple to apple comparison, nor is there strictly (in my thinking) any sort of equivalent correspondence between the humiliation of the Individual on the cross and those persons punished in hell. Granted, He was 100% human, but He was also the SECOND PERSON of the Holy Trinity, the God/Man! Think about this when attempting comparisons! The magnifying power of the looking glass used in observing Christ’s suffering needs to be directly proportional to the infinite nature of the Savior hanging on the cross. If that be the case, the suffering is incalculable…
Furthermore, if the objection centers upon the physical suffering of Christ, then I think the emphasis may be misplaced. I truly wonder if Christ’s physical suffering, horrendous as it was, did not pale in comparison to the mystery of what took place in the Godhead when God turned His back on God. How can we develop any sort of human formula that can qualify or quantify this phenomena in human terms???
6. While the presentation of the Gospel called “The Offer” accurately illustrates the Substitution Theory of the Atonement in many ways, it also falls short in many ways—as all illustrations eventually do. Discuss how the courtroom illustration breaks down.
Reply: The most obvious way the analogy breaks down is in the characterization of God as One who finds Himself to be the victim of unforeseen circumstances arising from the Fall of man. Hence, He finds Himself on the horns of a dilemma. How is He to reconcile His love for mankind with His attributes of righteousness and justice? The implication of the term “dilemma” is that God was surprised by the turn of events. However, man’s fall as well as the plan of redemption were most assuredly encompassed by God’s eternal counsels and decrees and known by Him in eternity past. They were known by Him because these events were part of His plan.
7. Do you believe that Christ died only for the elect, or for all people? Explain.
Reply: The Calvinistic line of reasoning is compelling and would seem to dictate that Christ paid the penalty for the elect only. I, for one, am not prepared to allege that Christ died to render all men savable yet wasted His blood on those who ultimately rejected Him and landed in hell. If Christ paid the penalty for the sins of all mankind, including the sin of unbelief, then those who are sentenced to hell for failing to trust in Christ are being punished for a crime for which Christ already paid the penalty. This is double jeopardy (as the student notebook pointed out). The Bible seems to point to the understanding that Christ died to secure a people for Himself – not just render them potentially savable.
Some might say that Christ died for all men but only paid for the sins of the elect. But, this seems to defy logic. To assert that “Christ’s death is sufficient for all but efficient only for the elect” seems to be a slick way of skirting the issue and playing mind games with the atonement. I am wondering if this statement really solves anything.
8. How was your thinking challenged the most by the lesson? Explain.
Reply: I was most challenged by the treatment of particular redemption in the student notebook and by the discussion in the video lecture. As I indicated in my reply to question 7, both the logic and the biblical support for particular redemption is compelling. But, the question remains as to how to properly reconcile the passages seeming to support unlimited atonement with those passages clearly indicating intentionality in the atonement. Should “all” and “world” be qualified in their breadth of meaning? It seems that once again we have doctrinal tension…
___________________
Greg Eby
March 1st, 2008 at 5:21 pm
1. The Substitution Theory of the Atonement emphasaizes both the righteousness and the love of God. Explain how this is true.
A righteous, unchanging God cannot cease to be righteous just to let us slide by, so He must exact a penalty for our sins. But, God loves us so much He sent His son to pay the penalty for us. In this way, God’s righteousness is maintained and His love for us is demonstrated.
2. Some people object to the Substitution Theory of the Atonement believing that it foolishly promotes an evil God who vindictively punishes an innocent person for the sins of the guilty. How do 1 Cor. 1:21-25 and 2:14 help us to understand this objection?
In 1 Cor. 1:21-25 and 2:14, Paul seems to be telling the church in Corinth that this idea will only make sense to the elect and will sound foolish to those not called. It is the Holy Spirit that gives us the understanding of this doctrine.
3. Read the entire passage of Isaiah 53 and underline all the words and phrases that suggest that Christ was a substitution for sinners:
Took up our infirmities, carried our sorrows, pierced for our transgressions, crushed for our iniquities, punishment that brought us peace was on him, by his wounds we are healed, the LORD laid on him the iniquity of us all, for the transgression of my people he was stricken, the LORD makes his life a guilt offering, my righteous servant will justify many, he will bear their iniquities, he bore the sin of many and made intercession for the transgressors.
4. Isaiah 53 was written 700 yeas before Christ’s birth and an extant copy was found in the Dead Sea Scrolls dating back to 150 BC, therefore no one can claim this passage was written after the fact. How can you use the detailed description of the Atonement given here by Isaiah as a defense for the Christian message?
One can take the extant copy of Isaiah, scientifically dating to 150 BC, and present it as an independent, unbiased piece of evidence. Isaiah’s prophecy can then be shown to match the Christian doctrine of the Atonement, whereby Christ dies for our sins. Finally, one can read the Gospels and see the history of Jesus’ death as evidence that the prophecy was fulfilled, concluding that Jesus is the Christ who died for our sins as prophesied centuries before it happened.
5. One objection to the Substitution Theory of the Atonement is that if Christ took our exact penalty, why isn’t He in Hell for all eternity. Discuss this objection.
Christ paid the penalty for our exact sins, but our exact sins do not include eternal unbelief, so Christ did not have to spend eternity in Hell. Those whose sins include eternal unbelief are paying for their own sins, eternally in Hell.
6. Discuss how the courtroom illustration of the Substitution Theory of the Atonement, call “The Offer”, breaks down.
The courtroom illustration of the Substitution Theory of the Atonement seems like a good one to me and I’m having a hard time finding big problems with it, at least from a broad perspective. I will be interested to see what others post here because, based on the discussion question, I feel like I’m missing something obvious. If we are to get into details, I suppose we could say that in the courtroom the judge represents God the Father and the defendant is us; all of sinful mankind, but there is no Christ figure in a typical courtroom. We don’t see anybody willing to die in place of criminals who receive the death penalty in today’s courtrooms.
7. Do you believe that Christ died only for the elect, or for all people?
There is compelling Scriptural support on both sides of the argument here, pitting words like “all”, “world”, “whole world” against “the church”, “His people”, “whom You have given me”. This leads me to believe that God intends for us to experience some tension on this issue. Still, it seems that any theory that leaves the decision in the hands of man, diminishes the omniscience and omnipotence of God. If Christ died for all, leaving it up to individuals to decide to accept the gift or deny it, it implies that God does not have complete control over His creation. The Compromise position explained in the lesson makes a lot of sense in that the death of Christ was a for all but God knew it would only be effective for His elect. “Christ died for all but paid for the sins of only the elect.”, or, put another way, “Christ’s death was sufficient for everyone but efficient only for the elect.”.
8. How was your thinking challenged most by the lesson?
Question #7 in this lesson, posted above, was the most challenging. Trying to come to terms with these issues that produce a tension in our understanding is always challenging. However, when I get bogged down in these areas it is somewhat comforting to reflect on whether they are essential elements of what I believe. Not knowing the exact details of how the Atonement works is less important than knowing that the Atonement is real, that God did send His Son do die for our sins and whoever believes in Christ will have eternal life with Him in paradise. That knowledge is the best medicine for a theology induced tension headache!
March 4th, 2008 at 12:32 pm
Group Discussion Questions:
The Extent of the Atonement
1. The Substitution Theory of the Atonement emphasizes both the righteousness and love of God. Explain how this is true.
God is pure and holy and cannot tolerate sin to be in His presence. In Is. 6 the cry of the seraphim was “Holy, Holy, Holy…” His holiness demands a perfect sacrifice. The sacrificial system of the Old Testament, the requirement was that it be “perfect to be accepted; there shall be no defect in it” (Lev. 22:21). Only God could supply the necessary sacrifice and John 3:16 says “God so loved the world that He gave…” From The Cross of Christ by Stott, page 131: “…The cross of Christ is the event in which God makes known His holiness and His love simultaneously in one event, in an absolute manner.” The cross is the only place where the loving, forgiving, merciful God is revealed in such a way that we perceive that His holiness and His love are equally infinite”. From that great hymn, “And can it be; He left His Father’s throne above, so free, so infinite His grace! Emptied Himself of all but love, and bled for Adam’s helpless race.”
2. Some people object to the Substitution Theory of the Atonement believing that foolishly promotes an evil God who vindictively punishes an innocent person for the sins of the guilty. Read 1 Cor. 1:21-25 and 2:14. How do these passages help us to understand this objection?
At our church, we offer a time of public response. This morning during our second service, a lady came forward stating she wanted to be a better “witness” where she works and asked me to pray for her. I have been in the home many times and shared with her and her husband what it means to know Christ as Savior. She has never come to understand salvation; she is lost, as is her husband. She has this idea of a loving, forgiving Jesus who makes no demands. For her, repentance and Lordship are foolishness. She seeks to serve the God she has developed in her mind that fits with her spiritual concepts. She is natural and does not understand the things of the spirit. We will again be in that home, but until she puts off the wisdom of this world and puts on the mind of Christ, she will remain lost. If a “natural” man cannot understand the elementary things of the spirit, little wonder that substitutionary atonement would be beyond their comprehension.
3. Read the entire passage of Isa. 53 and underline all the words and phrases that suggest that Christ was a substitution for sinners.
He bore our greif
Our sorrows He carried
Smitten of God
Pierced for our transgressions
Crushed for our iniquities
Chastening for our wellbeing fell upon Him
By His scourging we are healed
The Lord laid on Him the iniquity of us all
For the transgression of my people
The Lord was pleased to crush Him; putting Him to grief
Rendered Himself a guilt offering
He will bear their iniquities
He poured out Himself
Bore the sins of many
Intercede for the transgressor
4. The book of Isaiah was written 700 years before Christ’s birth. We have extant copies of Isaiah among the Dead Sea Scrolls that date back 150 years before Christ. Therefore, no one can claim that this passage (Isa. 53) was written after the fact. How can you use the detailed description of the Atonement given here by Isaiah as a defense for the Christian message?
The wording of Isaiah 53 graphically portrays the crucifixion story: pierced, scourged, opened not His mouth, by oppression and judgment He was taken away; His grave was assigned with wicked men; but He was with a rich man in His death, no deceit in His mouth, poured out, numbered with transgressors. It is difficult for anyone, atheist included, not to see the obvious description of the trial and crucifixion of Christ. In fact, it is so accurate that until the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, liberal scholars were convinced that there were at least 2 and possibly 3 Isaiah’s. In the 1920’s it was speculated that some of the messianic portions of Isaiah were written after Christ’s death.
5. One objection to the Substitution Theory of the Atonement is that if Christ took our exact penalty, why isn’t He in Hell for all eternity. Discuss this objection.
Holy God who knew no sin; tasted sin, became sin for us, bore our sin. The cup could not pass from Him and He drained every drop. We can’t measure with a clock or a calendar that suffering, even as we can’t conceive of the sinless ones disgust of sin. His cry, “It is finished” signaled the debt was paid, the Father satisfied. I Peter 3:18 states “For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God,…” I’ll accept that “Once for all”.
6. While the presentation of the Gospel called “The Offer” accurately illustrates the Substitution Theory of the Atonement in many ways, it also falls short in many ways – as all illustrations eventually do. Discuss how the courtroom illustration breaks down.
I like the presentation. I John 2:1 “…and if anyone sins we have an advocate with the Father, Christ Jesus the righteous” v.2 goes on “and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins.” Scripture says “the Good Shepherd lays down His life for the sheep” and also, “Like a lamb that is led to the slaughter.” One illustration cannot adequately depict Jesus as a lamb and a shepherd, nor can one illustration show Christ as advocate and propitiation. Remember the parable of the unrighteous judge as an illustration of persistent prayer. “The offer” is a great tool but is incomplete without additional scripture and explanations. That does not lessen its effectiveness.
7. Do you believe that Christ died only for the elect, or for all people? Explain.
For all people: John 3:16; I John 2:2; II Corinthians 5:18; II Peter 3:9; Hebrews 2:9. From The Cross and Salvation by Demarest: “Christ died not merely for the elect, but for all sinners in all times and places. The non-elect had their sins paid for on the cross, even though through unbelief they do not personally appropriate the benefits of His work. Scripture leads us to conclude that God loves all people he created and that Christ died to provide salvation for all.” These excerpts are from the end of section 3 in Demarest’s exhaustive exposition under the heading “Christ Died For Sins, Once For All” I Peter 3:18. Apologists for limited atonement and unlimited atonement have scriptures they quote to defend their point of view. Matthew 28:19-20 both command us to be witnesses. Both passages speak of “All people” and the “ends of the earth.”
8. How was your thinking challenged the most by the lesson? Explain.
I absolutely love this course. It is challenging and demands that I relook at long held beliefs and re-evaluate in light of scriptural truth. Reading the books from the reading list has also been quite enjoyable. As is obvious from my answers, Demarest has influenced my thinking. Although not on the reading list for this chapter, I found pages 798-855 in Millard Erickson’s Christian Theology compelling. James M. Boice gives a great defense for limited atonement in The Doctrine of Grace (co-authored by Philip Gl. Ryken); pages 113-134. I especially liked the Calvinistic viewpoint on evangelism presented in The Doctrine of Grace. The question asked on page 118 “…did Jesus’ death actually save anyone, or did it only make the gift of salvation possible?” To which I would answer: Rom. 6:23 and John 1:12.
March 15th, 2008 at 3:59 pm
Session 5 Discussion Questions
1. The Substitution Theory of the Atonement emphasizes both the righteousness
and love of God. Explain how this is true.
Response: For God to not deal w/ sin would go against His nature and therefore He would not be God. Yet, thru Christ death on the cross, we see the love of God as He made it possible for man to have a righteous standing before God. This is solely accomplished through the work of God.
2. Some people object to the Substitution Theory of the Atonement believing
that foolishly promotes an evil God who vindictively punishes an innocent
person for the sins of the guilty. Read 1 Cor. 1:21-25 and 2:14. How do these
passages help us to understand this objection?
Response: Paul is suggesting that this will only be understood by the elect and that those outside the body of Christ will not understand. This is similar to some of Christ teachings in the Gospels. Ultimately, our understanding of these things comes through the work of the Holy Spirit.
3. Read the entire passage of Isa. 53 and underline all the words and phrases that
suggest that Christ was a substitution for sinners.
Response: “despised…, rejected…, familiar with suffering…, took up our iniquities…, carried our sorrows…, stricken by God…, smitten by Him…, afflicted…, pierced for our transgressions…, crushed for our iniquities…, punishment that brought us peace was upon Him…, by His wounds we are healed…, the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all…, for the transgression of my people he was stricken,… Yet it was the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer…, and though the Lord makes his life a guilt offering…, my righteous servant will justify many and he will bear their iniquities…, For he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.”
4. The book of Isaiah was written 700 years before Christ’s birth. We have
extant copies of Isaiah among the Dead Sea Scrolls that date back 150 years
before Christ. Therefore, no one can claim that this passage (Isa. 53) was
written after the fact. How can you use the detailed description of the
Atonement given here by Isaiah as a defense for the Christian message?
Response: These facts give significant credibility to the text itself as to it’s historicity and validity. Also, it makes it clear that God’s intention to reconcile sinful man to himself was presented by God himself, speaking through the Holy Spirit inspiring Isaiah to pen this text hundreds of years before Christ ever walked the earth.
5. One objection to the Substitution Theory of the Atonement is that if Christ
took our exact penalty, why isn’t He in Hell for all eternity. Discuss this
objection.
Response: Christ paid the price for our sins. However, our sins do not include an eternal disbelief and thus those that did not believe are paying for their sin in eternity.
6. While the presentation of the Gospel called “The Offer” accurately illustrates
the Substitution Theory of the Atonement in many ways, it also falls short in
many ways—as all illustrations eventually do. Discuss how the courtroom
illustration breaks down.
Response: I would agree with gregeby’s response regarding use of the word dilemma. I would also add that the sections that says “The Bible tells us there are only two options: You can bear your own punishment or You can allow Christ to bear it” seems to put more of an emphasis on man’s ability to choose salvation vs. salvation being solely the work of God reconciling his people to himself.
7. Do you believe that Christ died only for the elect, or for all people? Explain.
Response: I lean more toward a Calvinistic view here, however, I would agree that there is definitely strong arguments for both viewpoints.
8. How was your thinking challenged the most by the lesson? Explain.
Response: This session and even this class as a whole is helping me significantly with coming to terms with the tension between the Calvinist and Arminian viewpoints. It seems that these two viewpoints are usually seen as more divisive than anything, however, the affect on me has been that I now have a much better understanding of how someone who has a different view than mine actually came to that view.