What is (or isn't) substitutionary atonement?

Started by Farlsborough, April 04, 2015, 04:39:59 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Print
Go Down Pages1
User actions

Farlsborough

April 04, 2015, 04:39:59 PM
Happy Easter, everyone! If you celebrate it, that is.

A seasonal question:
I've listened several times to a Ray's talks on "was Jesus made sin?", and have gained a great deal from them.  What I'd like to know is, does this refer to the church teaching of "substitutionary atonement" or is he rebuking a doctrine that goes beyond that, i.e. what is taught by this splinter group he keeps referring?

Looking at wikipedia, it gets a bit confusing, but if I had to nail it down it looks like Ray's view aligns with the "ransom theory of atonement"? I realise he possibly wouldn't appreciate an analysis of his teaching in the terms of theologians...  :-\

Dave in Tenn

#1
April 04, 2015, 09:28:28 PM
Quote from: Farlsborough on April 04, 2015, 04:39:59 PM
I've listened several times to a Ray's talks on "was Jesus made sin?", and have gained a great deal from them.  What I'd like to know is, does this refer to the church teaching of "substitutionary atonement" or is he rebuking a doctrine that goes beyond that, i.e. what is taught by this splinter group he keeps referring?

In those studies, primarily the latter I think.
Heb 10:32  But you must continue to remember those earlier days, how after you were enlightened you endured a hard and painful struggle.

Extol

#2
April 05, 2015, 05:52:54 AM
Quote from: Farlsborough on April 04, 2015, 04:39:59 PM
Happy Easter, everyone! If you celebrate it, that is.

A seasonal question:
I've listened several times to a Ray's talks on "was Jesus made sin?", and have gained a great deal from them.  What I'd like to know is, does this refer to the church teaching of "substitutionary atonement" or is he rebuking a doctrine that goes beyond that, i.e. what is taught by this splinter group he keeps referring?

Looking at wikipedia, it gets a bit confusing, but if I had to nail it down it looks like Ray's view aligns with the "ransom theory of atonement"? I realise he possibly wouldn't appreciate an analysis of his teaching in the terms of theologians...  :-\

Hi Farlsborough,

The studies were given to directly refute the splinter group's teaching that Christ became sin. He says at the beginning that he can't spend all his time refuting every false teaching,  but that one was important to him because there were people actively trying to dissuade folks from this fellowship and join the other side.
Print
Go Up Pages1
User actions