The wiki article is interesting but I do not accept the concept of "Substitutionary Atonement" and cannot agree with those listed. I accept that Jesus died as our representative. God achieved the victory over sin and death in and through Jesus. Jesus benefited from his own death as it laid the foundation for his own resurrection to life and immortality. He did no sin, but he needed to be freed from his mortal human nature, as he was a descendant of Adam and an inheritor of Adam's nature through his mother Mary. He is the captain of our salvation. We share in the benefits of the sacrifice of Jesus, he died for us, not instead of us. When we believe in the Gospel of the Kingdom and Name Acts 8:5-6,12 and identify with the death and resurrection of Christ by baptism in water, then we are saved, and are sins are forgiven.
But you do agree it was vicarious ?
No, not in the normal sense of the word vicarious. He suffered for us, on our behalf, not instead of us. We still suffer and die, but if we unite with him by faith in his death and resurrection and by baptism in water and thereafter living the crucified / resurrected life, then we will be resurrected at his return and changed to immortality Roman 6:1-8, Galatians 2:20, Acts 8:5-6,12, 2 Timothy 4:1,6-8.
That's vicarious as I see it - it was for us he died
My understanding of the atonement has been learnt by me or developed in my mind over many years. I have not studied various theories, such as the list and description as contained on wiki. As such I cannot give my view a label except what we call it, BASF Central Fellowship, please refer to one of the cult sub-forums. My understanding is based upon what has been taught in my fellowship, and this in itself became more fully defined in the 1870s and 1880s and relevant to me discussions in the 1950s to 1970s, by discussing other extremes or ideas that were advocated at various times. Our view is very much dependant on such subjects as our belief that there is One God, the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ is the Son of God and our belief in the mortality of man and his return to the dust at death. Perhaps a few statements that I endorse that may be different to many: Jesus benefitted from his own death, and we need to participate in his death and resurrection, Jesus was mortal and partook of the fallen nature of Adam through Mary, in his death he reversed the sentence on Adam that Adam (and his descendants) would return to the dust, and the reasons for this is that Jesus never sinned, and because of Jesus' plea to be saved and because of the Father's great love and fellowship with His Son. That should be enough for starters, but the full appreciation of the subject is large and important.
So Christ with a fallen nature manages to live a sinless life?
Yes Isaiah 53:11, Isaiah 55:8-11, Matthew 3:15, John 1:29, Romans 1:16-17, Romans 3:19-31, Romans 8:3, Hebrews 2:14, James 1:12-16, 1 Peter 2:21-25.
Christ did live a sinless life but none of those verses state Christ had a fallen nature
Jesus was a descendant of Adam through Mary and as such he partook of human nature. Hebrews 2:14 is very emphatic that Jesus shared our same nature, and it is in the context of the exposition of Jesus as the Son of Man, the Son of Adam from Psalm 8 which speaks of the New Creation and Hebrews 2:10 speaks of the captain of our salvation. Also Romans 8:3 speaks of the condemnation of sin (metonymy) in the flesh. God through Jesus overcame the lusts of the flesh in the same nature which with all others have sinned.
A fallen nature indicates corruption
Interesting formula, logic, syllogism, but Jesus came to overcome sin and all its causes and effects. Jesus never sinned and he was holy, but he was tempted in all points, yet without sin. To claim that he was different, a God-man, or like the angels, or exactly the same as Adam before the fall would be insufficient to accomplish his role of overcoming sin and rescuing mankind.
I take condemning sin to be metonymy where the cause is replaced for the effect. He rendered of no effect the lusts that arose in his flesh because he overcame these lusts by the Word of God which dwelt in his heart. Consider the answers to the three temptations in the wilderness. Each one was answered by his understanding and meditation on the three scriptures that he quoted. How severe would he feel hunger after 40 days, and yet he meditated upon the trials and suffering of the children of Israel in their wilderness journeys, and while Israel continued to fail and sin during their trials, Jesus overcame this despite the severity of his trial, as stated after he had fasted forty days we read possibly a great understatement "he was hungry". Here is the possibility of sin and its real conquest, not some magical transference of our sins onto Jesus. This is only one step in understanding the struggle that Jesus had with sin, highlighted in his suffering the crucifixion at the hands of men.
There is much that could be commented upon here.
And that he did by living a sinless life and yes he was tempted but never gave into it. However I disagree if he was like Adam
Condemned sin in the flesh—The design and object of the incarnation and sacrifice of Christ was to condemn sin, to have it executed and destroyed; not to tolerate it as some think, or to render it subservient to the purposes of his grace, as others; but to annihilate its power, guilt, and being in the soul of a believer.
Initially Adam had one Law and he disobeyed. Jesus came to reverse all the effects of sin. If he had only one Law to obey, then his task would be simple. But it states that part of his experience was that he overcame with strong crying and tears. Consider his agony in the Garden. Adam and Jesus had completely different trials and Jesus had a great work to accomplish.
But he achieved this IN himself first, and as such he is our example.
Nothing much wrong with these two statements. He definitely met sin on its own ground as he struggled with sin within himself. There is a strong contrast between Romans 7 and Romans 8 where Paul as a representative of the Jewish world attempted to keep the commandments but Paul found that the Law "thou shalt not covet" did not have power to bring his obedience, but awakened in his flesh the very thing it was stated needed to be controlled, "coveting" or various aspects of lust. In contrast God through Christ in the very same environment not only overcame sin and its lusts, but opened the way for us to follow, to live the crucified / resurrected life motivated by the love of Christ, the love that he first bestowed upon us while we were yet sinners.
Late Saturday night here in Australia, and my thinking is slowing down before I sign off. Jesus was indeed a special vessel prepared by God, "the Son of man whom God made strong for himself", and the Son of God by birth, and developed character and wisdom, but nevertheless he was one of us, a human, not a God, not a God-man, not an angel, not the same as Adam before the fall. He is so like us that we can follow his example as Paul instructs us. If he was nearly altogether different then this would have no impact upon us. I noticed an extremely long running thread in this sub-forum. Did everyone resolve the question of the method or substance of the Atonement?
Down under eh
Yes, and I like many aspects of Australia by comparison to the US, politics, no or few guns here, other extremes that we witness about the US on TV, but I suppose there are some good areas in the US.
I affirm that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God John 20:30-31. Matt Slick and company allow discussion by those who believe that there is One God, Yahweh, God the Father and that our Lord Jesus Christ is the Son of God. They have even given my fellowship a "cult" sub-forum, but allowed me to post a thread on The Yahweh Name, and have allowed me to post for 17 years. This tolerance is different to what I experienced on another forum where I was eventually banned because I advocated my views on this particular subject.
If you are referring to the thread "Did Jesus bear Gods wrath and was He forsaken ?" where you are presently active, and is now 429 pages, the answer is "no thank you" as I do not like long running repetitious threads. I prefer one-on-one discussion, and a steady covering of the subject. I thought that the OP of this thread was possibly a good summary of those hundreds or thousands of posts. I do not know if any other member raised the concept of representation rather than substitution in that thread. At the end of a long running thread, someone should make an index of significant posts.
The problem is we will never agree because of our differences regarding the person of Christ
That is most probably correct, but some passages have their own meaning and context and I consider these are important.
Yes, I have participated in a few but I am fairly selective in what verses I discuss and sometimes selective with whom I discuss, especially if we do not progress and the other participant becomes repetitive and without much substance (which I label as flag waving). I am involved with a Trinity thread at the moment in another sub-forum, but the main Trinitarian advocate has moved on. I am now trying to resolve a few items with another member and part of the thread has moved off-topic.