Featured The Meanings of 'For'

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.

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.

 

And just who is this "Dr. Lee"?

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

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.

 

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

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 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?