The Meanings of 'For'

[JonC]

I have addressed this false dichotomy a number of times but most fully in a previous post. Your response as usual was just ignore the data simply because you had no answers to give. The law of God is grounded in the moral nature of God and is summarized in the principle of love. Romans 3:21-22 l makes it clear that God's righteousness, His own personal moral righteousness is revealed in the Law and prophets but most clearly reveal in the incarnate Son as defined by the principle of love.

It is obvious I am not going to get a fair hearing or fair dealing with you as long as you have a moderator position as you just arbritrarily delete posts that expose your own false ideas. If I had said some of things you said to me in a previous post (post you deleted) I would have been rebuked as unloving and unChristian. In the same post, for merely pointing that out and then suggesting you may not fully understand what you are teaching but that I might understand it better than you do, my post was deleted. No doubt you will do the same with this post as you simply play by a double standard.



This is absurd simply because it is a half truth and a half truth is perversion of the truth. The cross was necessary to satisfy the just and holy demands of God against sin.



No, I understand the half truths against my view perfectly. I posted a website by Dr. William Lane Craig that systematically repudiates your view. If you are not too fearful and if you can be objective, go take a look and listen to these short videos (about 5 min per video).

I did watch the videos. Nothing new to me. I still believe what you impose on Scripture false.

You accept Scripture but only after it is run through the context that you provide. When faced with God's Word, you accept it as only half of the truth (your theory being the other half). I simply don't share your presuppositions.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Then why are you so puzzled that you complain my view look too much like Scripture?
.

Because you don't know why( or if you do you haven't told us yet. Your view doesn't look like Scripture at all. Quoting Scripture is great and I'm glad you have started to do it, but you need to interpret the scriptures correctly.

 

[JonC]

Because you don't know why( or if you do you haven't told us yet. Your view doesn't look like Scripture at all. Quoting Scripture is great and I'm glad you have started to do it, but you need to interpret the scriptures correctly.

I have interpreted Scripture. What you are looking far goes beyond interpretation. You seem to reject my view as "not enough" because it does not satisfy the demands you place upon Scripture. The issue is not one of interpretation but simply that the context you supply is wrong. You are struggling with the fact that Scripture does not fit your theory and therefore you demand solutions be derived to conform to your ideas. It doesn't work because what your method itself is eisegesis.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I have interpreted Scripture. What you are looking far goes beyond interpretation. You seem to reject my view as "not enough" because it does not satisfy the demands you place upon Scripture. The issue is not one of interpretation but simply that the context you supply is wrong. You are struggling with the fact that Scripture does not fit your theory and therefore you demand solutions be derived to conform to your ideas. It doesn't work because what your method itself is eisegesis.

You have not interpreted Scripture. You have trotted out some verses and seem to think that's enough. Your problem, if I may say so, is that you are weak on Systematic Theology. You don't seem to have a proper conception of the holiness, immutability and justice of God. Until you have grasped these issues you will never understand fully Justification and the Atonement.

I recommend reading Pink's Attributes of God which has the twin virtues of being concise and available on line. Failing that you could try reading the first part of my O.P both here and on the' Penal Substitution' thread.

 

[JonC]

You have not interpreted Scripture. You have trotted out some verses and seem to think that's enough. Your problem, if I may say so, is that you are weak on Systematic Theology. You don't seem to have a proper conception of the holiness, immutability and justice of God. Until you have grasped these issues you will never understand fully Justification and the Atonement.

I recommend reading Pink's Attributes of God which has the twin virtues of being concise and available on line. Failing that you could try reading the first part of my O.P both here and on the' Penal Substitution' thread.

I think that we have in common the belief that the other is deficient (which is appropriate when two Christians disagree).

I believe that you have confused Systematic Theology with accepting theories as if they were Scripture. Systematic Theology is first and foremost dependent upon Biblical Theology as it gathers its products and reasons out doctrines. But if we ever get to the point that we are blind to the human components of Systematic Theology when what we hold to is not theology but anthropology. This is where I believe you have ended up as you seem to be unable to identify what is brought into your theory external to Scripture (you do not recognize the human component but rather truly believe Scripture has implied what you have imposed upon it).

This is, I believe, the strongest contention I have against your view. It is not the view itself but the inability to recognize exactly what you hold. When I've debated your position (when I held your position) I was able to at least recognize the components. This is very important because it is where theories differ (not in Scripture, and not necessarily in interpretation, but in the presuppositions leading to particular conclusions).

I suggest you study Scripture more before diving into Systematic Theology. It is important to have a good foundation in the Word before debating the development of doctrine. You have to know where Scripture ends and theory begins, and I do not believe you are at this point in your studies.

 

[The Biblicist]

I did watch the videos.

Really? All of the videos on that subject by Lane?????? I find it very difficult to believe you for several reasons. As one who has watched the videos I know he provided a plethora of historical, legal and Biblical evidences that totally obliterates the foundations of your position. For example, he demonstrates from direct quotations from early writers prior to the Reformation that penal substitutionary atonement had already been embraced contrary to your repeated claims to the contrary. He demonstrates from both American jurisprudence and Biblical law that the just can be condemned for the unjust legally or did you watch those videos with that evidence provided??? Again, I find it difficult to believe you actually the whole series of videos on that subject as anyone who holds your view could not respond the way you have responded if they really had watched the entire series.

I still believe what you impose on Scripture false.

You accept Scripture but only after it is run through the context that you provide. When faced with God's Word, you accept it as only half of the truth (your theory being the other half). I simply don't share your presuppositions.

Nothing could be said truer of your own view. Of course you are entitled to believe what you choose to believe but you are not entitled to your own facts. All that I have seen from your posts are philosophical reasons why you reject what I believe to be the Biblical position and philosophical reasons why you believe what you believe but I have not seen any exegetical based Biblical evidence to support your own position.

It would appear to me that your view stands or falls entirely upon your limited views of the obedience of Christ and your limited view of God's love in relationship to God's nature. Although you argue for the necessity of the cross based upon divine providence, it seems clear to me that the cross is not necessary to the very nature of your view of atonement. In other words, your view of the atonement does not require the cross to satisfy the holiness of God against sin and sinners, as it appear to me that your view of the atonement is wholly satisfied by the active and passive obedience of Christ regardless if providence included or excluded the cross. Hence, it appears that to you the cross is merely the providential attestation of man's hatred toward God in your scheme of the atonement rather than necessary to satisfy the holiness and wrath of God against sin and sinners. You argue that the cross manifests man's wrath against Christ rather than God's wrath against sin and sinners. Your view seems to convey that the obedience of Christ is totally sufficient as the atonement for sin regardless of any possible providential scheme of things whether that providential scheme included or excluded the cross. Hence, it would appear the only necessity for the cross in your view is due only to providential inclusion rather than necessary to satisfy God's holy nature and wrath against sin and sinners.

This brings me to believe that your view of God's own nature is flawed as you attempt to define such terms as "obedience" "love" and "holiness" apart from the very Biblical based standard provided by God to define those very terms - the Law of God. I can't see how any Biblical scholar can reasonably conclude the Law of God is not designed by God to reveal what love, holiness and obedience means in not only practical terms but also in spiritual terms.

You seem to reduce and then restrict the Law of God down to a list of do's and don'ts rather than to its true spiritual nature (Rom. 7:12) which is the living spiritual principle of love. Thus, you are guilty of defining the Law "by the letter" rather than "by the Spirit" (2 Cor. 5:6). If there is one attribute that supremely conveys the whole nature of God it is "love" as Paul says this is the "greatest" (1 Cor. 13). The apostle of Love demands that Obedience is linked inseparably to that greatest virtue (1 Jn. 5:3-4). Both Christ and Paul claim that when the Law of God is understood according to God's view it is nothing more or less than a revelation of God's own righteous and holy nature defined by that "greatest" principle of love (Mt. 7:12; Rom. 12:13-17).



Do you deny that the Law of God is the subject of Romans 3:9-20? I don't believe it is possible to define Biblical "obedience" or "righteousness" or "love" apart from God's Law because God's Law IN PRINCIPLE is the revelation of God's own holy nature (Rom. 3:21-22). Let's talk about context of Romans 3:21-22. Do you deny the context is defining "righteous" in direct connection with the Law of God in Romans 3:9-23? Are not those attributes listed in Romans 3:10-17 due to the Law of God being the definitional standard of those things in Romans 3:18-20? Is not the Law given by God to define and reveal righteousness (Rom. 3:20)? Is not Romans 3:23 a definition of sin as coming short of "the glory of God" which is His HOLININESS? Is not also "sin" equally the violation of God's Law (1 Jn. 3:6)? So, the context of Romans 3:9-23 revolves around righteousness as defined and revealed by the law of God. That brings us to the debated Romans 3:21-22 text.

I believe Paul is merely saying, that previously the "righteousness of God" had been previously defined and revealed/manifested by the law of God and by the Prophets but now it has been defined and revealed/manifested in the incarnation of God in its PRINCIPLE (spirit) form in addition to its WRITTEN (letter) form.

God's own righteousness nature is imperfectly revealed in the written form of God's Law but is perfectly revealed in the PRINCIPLE form of God's Law (love) which is manifested by the Spirit to us and in us and through us most clearly revealed perfectly in the life of Christ. Hence, the Law of God in its PRINCIPLE form (love) is one and the same with the righteous and holy nature of God. Therefore, sin is an assault on the very Person of God just as David confessed concerning his actions against Bathsheba and her husband.

God cannot allow Sin to go UNPUNISHED without being implicated himself in the participation of that sin as to do so would declare himself to be an unjust judge (as that is precisely God's own reaction to human judges when they fail to punish the law breakers) and thus make himself an accomplice in the attack upon his own holy nature.

Hence, your view of the atonement that denies just penal consequences be fully paid makes God part and party to sin.

 

[JonC]

Really? All of the videos on that subject by Lane?????? I find it very difficult to believe you for several reasons. As one who has watched the videos I know he provided a plethora of historical, legal and Biblical evidences that totally obliterates the foundations of your position. For example, he demonstrates from direct quotations from early writers prior to the Reformation that penal substitutionary atonement had already been embraced contrary to your repeated claims to the contrary. He demonstrates from both American jurisprudence and Biblical law that the just can be condemned for the unjust legally or did you watch those videos with that evidence provided??? Again, I find it difficult to believe you actually the whole series of videos on that subject as anyone who holds your view could not respond the way you have responded if they really had watched the entire series.

Your inability to understand that I watched the video without coming to believe in your theory through the arguments of Dr. Lewis highlights your misunderstanding. I know, and have known for decades, what he has argued so well in the videos. You misunderstand my view to reject the idea of substitution rather than your idea of substitution. You misunderstand my view to reject the idea of punishment rather than your idea of punishment. You misunderstand my view to reject the idea of justice rather than your idea of justice. You misunderstand, period.

Hence the difficulty. I know your position inside and out because I held it for so long. I studied it intently for years in seminary and years afterwards, writing and preaching to affirm the subject. Yet you have failed to grasp my objection, which is not related to Scripture but to the contextual framework PSA (as has been argued here) places upon Scripture.

Dr. Lee is right to point both to Scripture and philosophy, for PSA is an amalgamation of the two. This is something I appreciate about your stance - you have the ability to recognize theory for what it is and argue your reasoning.

But Dr. Lee misses this point entirely when he argues that Anselm believed Christ died to satisfy a debt owed to God. For an example of this error, read Aquinas' view of penal substitution (of substitution and punishment, as he also taught Christ died as a substitute and was punished for our sins, while rejecting PSA). Dr. Lee's argument is against those who have what are, IMHO, superficial objections to PSA. Of course Christ died on behalf of mankind, suffering the punishment that we (not He) deserve. No one here is arguing against this.

Another flaw is his argument regarding pardon. He offered an example of a woman who was sexually assaulted forgiving for her own healing yet the court proceedings continue. The flaw, of course, is the woman does not have the power of the judge to forgive the crime (she can forgive personally, but she cannot forgive on behalf of the judge). That said, illustrations break down at some point (this one just much too soon). He should have used David sinning against God, God forgiving Him, but consequences resulting for God's own glory (so that others would not blaspheme). This may, however, open more questions than answers for his position.

What Dr. Lee does is assume a context and argue out of that position. That is, ultimately, what I am pointing out.

Your inability to understand how I could have watched those videos without turning back to PSA proves you do not understand the view you are opposing here. And I do not have the patience nor the ability to explain to you what you simply will not understand.

All that I have seen from your posts are philosophical reasons why you reject what I believe to be the Biblical position and philosophical reasons why you believe what you believe but I have not seen any exegetical based Biblical evidence to support your own position.

Those "philosophical reasons" are called "Scripture". That has been the objection against my view - too much Scripture not enough philosophy.

It would appear to me that your view stands or falls entirely upon your limited views of the obedience of Christ and your limited view of God's love in relationship to God's nature. Although you argue for the necessity of the cross based upon divine providence, it seems clear to me that the cross is not necessary to the very nature of your view of atonement. In other words, your view of the atonement does not require the cross to satisfy the holiness of God against sin and sinners, as it appear to me that your view of the atonement is wholly satisfied by the active and passive obedience of Christ regardless if providence included or excluded the cross. Hence, it appears that to you the cross is merely the providential attestation of man's hatred toward God in your scheme of the atonement rather than necessary to satisfy the holiness and wrath of God against sin and sinners. You argue that the cross manifests man's wrath against Christ rather than God's wrath against sin and sinners.

Again, your comments illustrate that you have severely misunderstood my view. You have my apology if it is for my lack of clarity.

The cross, without which there is no forgiveness, was very necessary. I am not sure why you can't see this, except that perhaps you are blinded by your own presuppositions. Christ bore our sins, took upon Himself the wrath that was against mankind, took upon Himself the death due us. Until you understand this no legitimate conversation can be had.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Those "philosophical reasons" are called "Scripture". That has been the objection against my view - too much Scripture not enough philosophy

I feel I must interject here, because I fear you may be thinking of me as the 'objector.'
I would never accuse someone of using 'too much Scripture'-- I don't think there is any such thing. With reference to my own posts, you may accuse me of all sorts of things, but I don't think you will accuse me of not quoting Scripture in support of them.

My criticisms of your posts have been twofold in respect of Scripture. In reply to my posts, you have not engaged with the Bible verses I have quoted, and have not quoted any in response. In your O.P. in the Atonement thread, you have quoted Scripture, with which we all agree, without applying it to your arguments.

 

[The Biblicist]

Dr. Lee..... Dr. Lee..... Dr. Lee's

And just who is this "Dr. Lee"?

 

[The Biblicist]

This brings me to believe that your view of God's own nature is flawed as you attempt to define such terms as "obedience" "love" and "holiness" apart from the very Biblical based standard provided by God to define those very terms - the Law of God. I can't see how any Biblical scholar can reasonably conclude the Law of God is not designed by God to reveal what love, holiness and obedience means in not only practical terms but also in spiritual terms.

You seem to reduce and then restrict the Law of God down to a list of do's and don'ts rather than to its true spiritual nature (Rom. 7:12) which is the living spiritual principle of love. Thus, you are guilty of defining the Law "by the letter" rather than "by the Spirit" (2 Cor. 5:6). If there is one attribute that supremely conveys the whole nature of God it is "love" as Paul says this is the "greatest" (1 Cor. 13). The apostle of Love demands that Obedience is linked inseparably to that greatest virtue (1 Jn. 5:3-4). Both Christ and Paul claim that when the Law of God is understood according to God's view it is nothing more or less than a revelation of God's own righteous and holy nature defined by that "greatest" principle of love (Mt. 7:12; Rom. 12:13-17).



Do you deny that the Law of God is the subject of Romans 3:9-20? I don't believe it is possible to define Biblical "obedience" or "righteousness" or "love" apart from God's Law because God's Law IN PRINCIPLE is the revelation of God's own holy nature (Rom. 3:21-22). Let's talk about context of Romans 3:21-22. Do you deny the context is defining "righteous" in direct connection with the Law of God in Romans 3:9-23? Are not those attributes listed in Romans 3:10-17 due to the Law of God being the definitional standard of those things in Romans 3:18-20? Is not the Law given by God to define and reveal righteousness (Rom. 3:20)? Is not Romans 3:23 a definition of sin as coming short of "the glory of God" which is His HOLININESS? Is not also "sin" equally the violation of God's Law (1 Jn. 3:6)? So, the context of Romans 3:9-23 revolves around righteousness as defined and revealed by the law of God. That brings us to the debated Romans 3:21-22 text.

I believe Paul is merely saying, that previously the "righteousness of God" had been previously defined and revealed/manifested by the law of God and by the Prophets but now it has been defined and revealed/manifested in the incarnation of God in its PRINCIPLE (spirit) form in addition to its WRITTEN (letter) form.

God's own righteousness nature is imperfectly revealed in the written form of God's Law but is perfectly revealed in the PRINCIPLE form of God's Law (love) which is manifested by the Spirit to us and in us and through us most clearly revealed perfectly in the life of Christ. Hence, the Law of God in its PRINCIPLE form (love) is one and the same with the righteous and holy nature of God. Therefore, sin is an assault on the very Person of God just as David confessed concerning his actions against Bathsheba and her husband.

God cannot allow Sin to go UNPUNISHED without being implicated himself in the participation of that sin as to do so would declare himself to be an unjust judge (as that is precisely God's own reaction to human judges when they fail to punish the law breakers) and thus make himself an accomplice in the attack upon his own holy nature.

Hence, your view of the atonement that denies just penal consequences be fully paid makes God part and party to sin.

 

[JonC]

I feel I must interject here, because I fear you may be thinking of me as the 'objector.'
I would never accuse someone of using 'too much Scripture'-- I don't think there is any such thing. With reference to my own posts, you may accuse me of all sorts of things, but I don't think you will accuse me of not quoting Scripture in support of them.

My criticisms of your posts have been twofold in respect of Scripture. In reply to my posts, you have not engaged with the Bible verses I have quoted, and have not quoted any in response. In your O.P. in the Atonement thread, you have quoted Scripture, with which we all agree, without applying it to your arguments.

Your objection was that my posts seemed (to you) like a simple rewording of Scripture without interpretation. I understand how you thought that, but the passages themselves formed what I believe. They did not need any additions or commentary (from my perspective). But as we continued (had we continued) you could have asked me to explain things about that belief.

But no, I was not thinking of anyone as the "objector"...although now that I think of it, that might be your superhero name

 

[JonC]

This brings me to believe that your view of God's own nature is flawed as you attempt to define such terms as "obedience" "love" and "holiness" apart from the very Biblical based standard provided by God to define those very terms - the Law of God.

We can stop here (no need to go on into your reply). Again, you have misunderstood.

The biblical standard of the Law (per Scripture....that is) is not to define God but rather to define men in relation to God (to show us our sinfulness) and to testify (along with the prophets) to this righteousness of God apart from the Law. But yes, I do base God's nature on God Himself and not the Law.

To help you out, think of ontological substitution theory (not that I hold the theory but that it is a good start in understanding apart from your presuppositions). Why was the cross necessary under that theory? What was accomplished on the cross per that theory? How was justice satisfied under that theory?

 

[The Biblicist]

Your inability to understand that I watched the video without coming to believe in your theory through the arguments of Dr. Lewis highlights your misunderstanding.

That is not my point at all. I did not say I expected you to come to my position by viewing those videos. What I expect is a reasonable rational Biblical response to his plethora of arguments.

I know, and have known for decades, what he has argued so well in the videos. You misunderstand my view to reject the idea of substitution rather than your idea of substitution. You misunderstand my view to reject the idea of punishment rather than your idea of punishment. You misunderstand my view to reject the idea of justice rather than your idea of justice. You misunderstand, period.

Your idea of substitution, justice and punishment by your own admission has nothing to do with the Law of God which I find completely bewildering since none of these terms have any meaning in Scripture apart from the Law of God.

Hence the difficulty. I know your position inside and out because I held it for so long. I studied it intently for years in seminary and years afterwards, writing and preaching to affirm the subject.

It is the Biblical relationship to your theory that I question, not whether you know someone elses theory.

Yet you have failed to grasp my objection, which is not related to Scripture but to the contextual framework PSA (as has been argued here) places upon Scripturec

That is the very point I have challenged you. I do not believe the contextual framework of PSA opposes scripture at all but I do believe your objections to PSA are not rationally, legally or Biblical based as Dr. Lane points out so clearly so many times.

The cross, without which there is no forgiveness, was very necessary. I am not sure why you can't see this, except that perhaps you are blinded by your own presuppositions. Christ bore our sins, took upon Himself the wrath that was against mankind, took upon Himself the death due us. Until you understand this no legitimate conversation can be had.

We have no dispute on the wording here, but it is the meaning and explanation you give to this wording is where our dispute lies. So, to just rattle off the language and claim I don't acknowledge you give assent to the language is false.

 

[JonC]

And just who is this "Dr. Lee"?

Sorry....I meant Lewis. It's early. Not enough coffee. I liked his presentation and his reasoning, but I do not share his presuppositions. His video seemed aimed more at the neo-Christus Victor theory that is becoming popular (non-violent atonement).

 

[JonC]

That is not my point at all. I did not say I expected you to come to my position by viewing those videos. What I expect is a reasonable rational Biblical response to his plethora of arguments.




Your idea of substitution, justice and punishment by your own admission has nothing to do with the Law of God which I find completely bewildering since none of these terms have any meaning in Scripture apart from the Law of God.



It is the Biblical relationship to your theory that I question, not whether you know someone elses theory.



That is the very point I have challenged you. I do not believe the contextual framework of PSA opposes scripture at all but I do believe your objections to PSA are not rationally, legally or Biblical based as Dr. Lane points out so clearly so many times.







We have no dispute on the wording here, but it is the meaning and explanation you give to this wording is where our dispute lies. So, to just rattle off the language and claim I don't acknowledge you give assent to the language is false.

My idea of substitution does involve the Law (as the Law is a witness) but it is not based on the Law.

 

[The Biblicist]

We can stop here (no need to go on into your reply). Again, you have misunderstood.

No, it is necessary for you to reply because you are accusing me of misunderstanding your view of the law with relationship to God's nature, obedience, righteousness, holiness, etc. I have spelled out my view clearly and contextually. If you have no disagreement than plainly say you agree with what I have spelled out clearly. If you don't agree with my assessment then don't charge me with misunderstanding your view of the Law of God with regard to the holy nature of God, obedience, righteousness, punishment, sin, etc.

The biblical standard of the Law (per Scripture....that is) is not to define God

No one said it was! I certainly did not say that or imply that. What I said was that the Law of God reveals the MORAL nature of God and won't you agree with me that God is so much more than his moral nature (eternity, immutability, transcendence, omniscience, etc., etc.). If you don't think the Law of God reveals His own righteousness then you do need to deal with what I provided as I provided proof it does.

but rather to define men in relation to God (to show us our sinfulness) and to testify (along with the prophets) to this righteousness of God apart from the Lawu . But yes, I do base God's nature on God Himself and not the Law.

Clever, but you are perverting the meaning of that text. The meaning of the text is that the righteousness of God has been manifested in several ways but the clearest way is in the incarnate life of Christ. The written law manifest the righteousness of God, the prophets who interpret the law provide a further written revelation of the righteousness of God, but it is in the incarnation that the righteousness of God is best revealed in its PRINCIPLE form.

To help you out, think of ontological substitution theory (not that I hold the theory but that it is a good start in understanding apart from your presuppositions). Why was the cross necessary under that theory? What was accomplished on the cross per that theory? How was justice satisfied under that theory?

Thank you, but no thank you. I know precisely what objectives were accomplished in the cross by PSA - His righteousness was satisfied in the life of Christ for our entrance into heaven (Mt. 5:20; 48) as the sinless man; and his justice was satisfied against sin and sinners in the death of Christ so that we would be conformed to His image with complete victory over death, hell, and the grave to glorify him forever in a new world to come.

 

[The Biblicist]

My idea of substitution does involve the Law (as the Law is a witness) but it is not based on the Law.

Much more than mere witness. Sin, justice, mercy, righteousness have no meaning in Scripture apart from the law.

And I believe that is where your theory is completely flawed. You have never been able to respond to the Biblical evidence I have presented to you with regard to the Law - just as you completely dismissed and did not even attempt to respond to the Biblical evidence in my previous post.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Your objection was that my posts seemed (to you) like a simple rewording of Scripture without interpretation. I understand how you thought that, but the passages themselves formed what I believe. They did not need any additions or commentary (from my perspective). But as we continued (had we continued) you could have asked me to explain things about that belief.

The problem is that we both quote the same Scriptures in support of opposing positions, so one of us (i.e. you) must be interpreting them wrongly. However, it is hard to prove that when you do not show your reasoning; that may, of course be the very reason you do not do so.

But no, I was not thinking of anyone as the "objector"...although now that I think of it, that might be your superhero name

It is very kind, not to say surprising, to have you think of me as a superhero. Your autographed photo is in the post.

 

[The Biblicist]

I disagree with the idea that we can pit God's righteousness against His holiness in such a manner.

I am afraid I am missing your point here! As far as I am concerned God's righteousness is inseparable from His holiness

What you are doing is elevating the idea of a righteousness through the Law above God's own nature.

No, I am not doing that at all, not in the least bit. It seems you are not discerning between the "letter" (written form) and the "spirit" (principle form) of the Law and so you are basing your understanding of the Law and basing your arguments strictly upon the "letter" view.
The incarnation of Christ manifested the "spirit" (principle form) of the Law which is eternal and immutable as it manifests the very holy nature of God. The letter imperfectly reveals the righteousness of God due several things, external nature, indwelling law of sin and lack of Spirit leadership.

However, in the new birth it is written UPON TABLES OF THE HEART- 2 COR. 3:3 AND OPERATES BY PRINCIPLE (LOVE) UNDER THE LEADERSHIP OF THE SPIRIT. This law of God reveals the righteousness of God in the incarnate Christ perfectly.

 

[The Biblicist]

Sorry....I meant Lewis. It's early. Not enough coffee. I liked his presentation and his reasoning, but I do not share his presuppositions. His video seemed aimed more at the neo-Christus Victor theory that is becoming popular (non-violent atonement).

The series was dedicated to giving a Biblical and Philosohical defense of PSA. In doing so, he mentioned all the various views and their merits but pointed out where each one lacked in providing the full Biblical view. I really can't see how you got the idea it was aimed at the neo-Christus Victory is theory when he spells out repeatedly so clearly what his aim was. Perhaps you may have had that idea in view when viewing it?