Featured Theory of atonement, do you have one?

No.

NA. See above.

As I said, the fellowship.

 

So the nature is intact, the will is intact, the relationship is intact (the Trinity is unbroken) but the fellowship is broken.

How does this fellowship look? Does the Father no longer hear the prayers of His righteous? Was it no longer by the Spirit that Jesus was accomplishing the will of the Father? For that temporary moment on the Cross, was the Son out of the will of the Father (disobedient to the Father)?

 

I don't know. His ways are much higher than my ways.

I don't know.

Of course. Christ was impeccable.

Of course not. Again, the Impeccability of Christ.

 

Then perhaps we are saying the same thing differently. The Father withheld deliverance - not Himself.

 

Or in the perfect will of the Father not to abandon the righteous and convict the innocent.....that is if God is immutable and does not lie.

 

No one denies Christ was forsaken to suffer and die.

 

Y1 has not once provided a passage stating what he says scripture states. He said that Scripture plainly states that Jesus experienced what the lost will experience in He'll as God punished him with that punishment. That is not what Scripture states. It is important Christians understand what is stated and what is interpretation and what is theory.

When asked for Scripture plainly stating what Y1 claimed he simply says Calvin and Luther believed such and such and everyone else is siding with N.T. Wright.

 

Simply, Jesus was abandoned or left to suffer and die - NOT a separation but the Father offering Him as a guilt offering and not delivering Him from that suffering but through it.

The reason is consistency of Scripture and divine immutability. Our faith itself centers on God's faithfulness towards His Word as evidenced by the Cross and Resurrection. You have half of this truth right (the resurrection) but depart from Scripture in your theory of the Cross.


I believe that God loved the world by sending His Son. .

The Cross is the love of a Father offering His Son as a guilt offering; God laying our iniquities on His Beloved Son. The Cross is the Son setting aside His glory and becoming man, becoming a part of creation, becoming human and all it means to be human (experiencing trials, temptations, joys, heartbreak), bearing our sin, suffering the beating, the torment, the humiliation, the pain, and the agony of crucifixion and dying for us. And having taken on humanity in its fullness, freeing us from the bonds of sin and death, being raised form the dead and ascending to the Father.

This is how God loved the world. God, Almighty Creator, Holy Immutable God, sacrificially gave of Himself.

This is the love of the Father, that He spared not His own Son but delivered Him over for us. And this is His love, that He vindicated His Son by raising Him from the dead and crowing Him with glory gave Him a name that is above every name that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

We are purchased with a price. We are ransomed from sin and death. We are redeemed. And those who believe in Him will have eternal life.

The reason I argue so strongly against your version of PSA is that this isn’t enough for you guys unless God focuses on your individual sins and punishment. In so doing you allow tradition to shape your interpretation. There is a break or divide in Scripture, one I believe is traced back to a humanistic view of divine justice. Your fix is to have God look at Jesus not as His beloved Son but as sin itself. In other words, for a time God self imposes a delusion in order to expend his wrath and after doing so all is well and He raises Jesus up. I do not believe this theory adequately justifies the break in Scripture at the Cross.

 

Sorry, I mistook your intent because you had quoted my request of Y1.

To answer your question, what I was asking about involved how divine justice was defined. No member thus far has provided a passage proving the basis of PSA - that divine justice requires individual sins be punished (that it can be independent of the sinner in such a way as Christ could substitute himself and justice be satisfied).

The reason I continue to ask for Scripture proving this ONE point is that no Scripture has been offered towards which I could interact. All that has been provided assumes what I am asking to be proved.

IF the context you presuppose were correct then I would probably agree with your conclusions regarding the passages you have provided. BUT thus far you have not even provided one passage that justifies that context.

 

I did read your OP. They spelled out PSA very well and I appreciate the time you took in going through Scripture for each point. BUT what the OP did not provide was a passage proving the type of divine justice that PSA assumes. Although I find PSA problematic with other passages of Scripture (dealing with God's justice, divine immutability, the nature of forgiveness, the Father's work at the Cross, etc.), this one point is what keeps us from going forward.

But, if I have missed the proof, please point me to the passage that proves justice is satisfied based on the punishment inflicted regardless of the person - that punishment itself must be inflicted to satisfy the demands of justice even after repentance.

Insofar as the JW's comment, this was unnecessary. I could respond that you are arguing like a good Roman Catholic, which is true, but then that would just be stooping to the level of that comment, so I'll refrain.

And yes, there is a point of giving, once again, the passage proving that issue. The point is that if you have provided it I somehow missed the passage. What I see provided on that link assumes the system of justice Calvin imposed. God does not clear the guilty, nor does God punish the innocent. We know this. Consistency with your logic, of course, means that Jesus had to be an actual sinner (he could not be innocent) or God was unjust to consider him one. You suppose that not punishing a crime clears the guilty even when the guilty has repented (that forgiveness based on God's nature and man's repentance does not clear guilt).

This is a system of justice called "retributive justice", and you have not provided proof that we should interpret those verses you provided under this system.

 

Martin,

In all sincerity I cannot help but believe your comments here are to obfuscate the topic at hand. The references to the JW’s are insults, and I believe we both know that it was intended this way. I am not asking for one reference that proves the issue but instead have noted that you have yet to provide any Scripture that proves this one issue upon which your theory is built.

I commented that your logic, if consistent, dictates that Christ had to be a sinner, NOT that you hold that He was a sinner. I know that you do not hold Jesus as such, otherwise you would not be a member of this forum. My point is simply that you are inconsistent. You will say divine justice demands God exercise punishment against human sins, but that same logic means that Christ would have to either be a sinner or God be unjust in considering Him a sinner for to convict the righteous is an abomination to God. You use one method of logic to determine the type of justice (God will judge the guilty) yet are inconsistent when it comes to another (it is an abomination to condemn the righteous). Unfortunately you have missed this point all together.

I do not know what you mean about quoting Calvin. I did not author post # 98.

In the next post I will go through the verses you provided here (just for separation between addressing the post and addressing your insults towards me). Perhaps then you can see what I mean.

Your brother,

John