A Biblical Based view of Penal Substitutionary Atonement

[The Biblicist]

Can anyone that denies penal substitutionary atonement, deny that the Great White seat judgement is divine administration of retritbutive penal justice?

If it is (and it is) then how can anyone deny that the design of the atonement is to satisfy precisely what God will administer upon sinners because of their sin at the Great White Seat Judgement????? If you deny this, then you are claiming God has a two teir judicial system and you need to join the democratic party.

 

[JonC]

Any sunday school kid knows that "death" is the punishment for sin.

This is a part of the problem. We are so indoctrinated in a way of thinking that we read it into Scripture.

Every Sunday School kid knows that God punished Jesus for our sins instead of us and that there were three wise men that came to visit baby Jesus.

What we have to do is lean on Scripture and not tradition. Does that mean I am opposed to you believing that God punished Jesus and separated from Him while He hung on the Cross? No. I am not opposed to you at all.

But that does mean that I have the right to reject what is not actually in Scripture.

 

[JonC]

Can anyone that denies penal substitutionary atonement, deny that the Great White seat judgement is divine administration of retritbutive penal justice?

Absolutely.

Scripture tells us that all judgment has been given to Christ, and that all things will be reconciled to God through Him.

The Great White seat judgment is not retributive justice at all. It is not a punishment inflicted on sin as a principle without regard to the sinner. It is a judgment against those who are not saved (who are not "in Christ", i.e., "reborn"). This is where we get the imagery of God separating the "goats" from the "sheep".

 

[The Biblicist]

Absolutely.

Scripture tells us that all judgment has been given to Christ, and that all things will be reconciled to God through Him.

Nothing here to disagree about

The Great White seat judgment is not retributive justice at all.

Are you kidding us???? What do the words "according to their works" mean if that does not mean retributive justice? Do you know the meaning of "retribution"?

It is not a punishment inflicted on sin as a principle without regard to the sinner.

What??? Sin is NEVER the object of punishment because "sin" is not an entity! Punishment cannot be inflicted on a non-entity! Punishment is inflicted on sinners because of sin and thatis precisely what occurs at the Great White Judgement seat.

12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

 

[JonC]

Do you know the meaning of "retribution"?

I never said "retribution". I said "retributive justice". Just because someone is judged and condemned because of their words does not make it "retributive justice".

The difference is that even the Judgment is Christ centered and a reconciliation. Does this mean that those who are not "in Christ" are "reconciled to God"? No, of course not. The world is reconciled to God through Christ. This means those who are not reconciled will remain condemned.

I suggest you study opposing views before you try to tackle them.

 

[The Biblicist]

I never said "retribution". I said "retributive justice".

So, what is the difference between the noun and adjective form? Answer - NOTHING! Retributive justice is getting punishment according to your crime.

The difference is that even the Judgment is Christ centered and a reconciliation. Does this mean that those who are not "in Christ" are "reconciled to God"? No, of course not. The world is reconciled to God through Christ. This means those who are not reconciled will remain condemned..

You stick to your philosophy and I will take the Bible's clear retributive justice "judged....according to their works"

 

[JonC]

So, what is the difference between the noun and adjective form? Answer - NOTHING! Retributive justice is getting punishment according to your crime.




You stick to your philosophy and I will take the Bible's clear retributive justice "judged....according to their works"

If you are serious regarding "retributive justice" and retribution, perhaps you need to study more about the terms you are using.

The point is not all people hold your philosophy of justice much less ascribe it to God. You need to prove it true before simply condemning those who disagree with the assumption.

This is a place where you could have engaged at least one opposing view. Instead you pretend all other interpretations ignore Scripture (you can't seem to grasp others do not see what you see clearly implied beneath the text of Scripture).

An author once complained of a “writer [that] could not deal with the substance provided in the exegetical based exposition and so his only tool left as a debater was ridicule and ignore the provided evidence.” (Mark W Fenison, in a book concerning Church Authorized Constitution, page 4).

That is what you are doing here. I do not believe that you have evidenced the basis of your interpretation (your presupposition). It appears you cannot, so the only tool you have left as a debater is to ridicule and ignore the provided evidence. That should not even be in a Christian's tool bag.

 

[JonC]

Let's keep this simple....step by step, @The Biblicist .

You have adopted a philosophy through which you interpret Scripture. But is it valid?

Defend the belief that it is just for an innocent person to be punished instead of the guilty person.

Defend the belief that justice demands punishment be rendered for an act even if the actual perpetrator is not punished.

 

[The Biblicist]

Let's keep this simple....step by step, @The Biblicist .

You have adopted a philosophy through which you interpret Scripture. But is it valid?

You keep repeating this absolutely false charge. I have adapted no philosophy, but I just adopt the plain and simple meaning of the Biblical language. "judged according to your works" is a very simple phrase with a very simple and clear meaning. You don't need a doctors degree to understand simple plain English. It means the judgement does not exceed or fall short of what you justly deserve. The Great White Seat judgement is a legal backdrop that reflects the judicial system established by God in the nation of Israel and is penal in nature, and that is retributive justice in the sense of punishment that the crime deserves or just treatment under law. The crime is sin, the penalty is first the "second death" which is general in nature as all are equally cast into Gehenna but there is appropriate punishment in Gehenna in keeping with the degree of atrocities committed "according to their works" just as there are degrees of reward in heaven "according to our works." Sin gets you into Gehenna but sins get you degree of punishment in Gehenna, just like grace gets you into heaven but your works get you degrees of rewards in heaven.

Defend the belief that it is just for an innocent person to be punished instead of the guilty person.

In one breath you repudiate the whole sacrificial system! The sacrificial animal did not deserve "death" and it is "death" that was meted out "for the people" and "because of their sins." You can't deal with this clear and obvious repudiation of your philosophical system. The typology is extraordinarily clear that the animal symbolizes Christ (Jn. 1:29), the "without spot or blemish" (1 Pet. ) symbolizes Christ's sinless condition, the "death" by shedding of blood symbolizes Christ's atonement "for the people" and "because of THEIR sins."

Jesus was not forced to leave heaven! Jesus was not forced to represent sinners with regard to the just penalty of sin. The answer to your challenge is simple - he willinging took upon himself the penalty as the legal representative for his people. It is no more unjust than Adam standing in the legal position for representation for his people. This is why you can't understand Romans 5:12-19 because your Philosophical poistion denies the obvious simple meaning of the text.

The answer is that as the qualified representative he willingly took the LEGAL POSITION in behalf of his people and thereby was "made to be sin" LEGALLY (NOT PERSONALLY) and as that legal representative satisfied the penalty of sin against his people in their behalf. The levitical system shouts penal substitionary atonement over and over again in clear applied symbolisms that do not need speculative human philosophy to understand, define or defend.

Defend the belief that justice demands punishment be rendered for an act even if the actual perpetrator is not punished.

I can't defend what you have already refused to even attempt to understand. Your question begs the very meaning of "substitute." He willingly took "upon himself" our "condemnation" which is Legalese for PENALTY and was "MADE TO BE SIN" in the only sense it is possible for him to be "made" sin and that is LEGALLY with regard to a Judicial POSITION as substitute. Just that simple, and the Levitical system spells this out over and over and over and over and over and over again, which you refuse to accept the plain easy languague and choose to falsely claim that I use philosophy when the Biblical language and clear Biblical types spell it out in plain languague.

 

[The Biblicist]

If you are serious regarding "retributive justice" and retribution, perhaps you need to study more about the terms you are using.

Are you saying Webster lies? Or is this an admission on your part that I do not apply speculative philosophy according to human traditions?

The point is not all people hold your philosophy of justice much less ascribe it to God. You need to prove it true before simply condemning those who disagree with the assumption.

The only one in this discussion that is overconcerned with "philosophy" is YOU! I quote and simply apply Biblical language according to its simplest and obvious meaning.

This is a place where you could have engaged at least one opposing view. Instead you pretend all other interpretations ignore Scripture (you can't seem to grasp others do not see what you see clearly implied beneath the text of Scripture).

I pretend nothing as I plainly repudiate all speculative philsophical systems that depend on explaining away, ignoring or redefining simple Biblical langauge that clearly condemns their specualtive views.

An author once complained of a “writer [that] could not deal with the substance provided in the exegetical based exposition and so his only tool left as a debater was ridicule and ignore the provided evidence.” (Mark W Fenison, in a book concerning Church Authorized Constitution, page 4).

Again, "projection" as the only one in this debate that refuses to deal with the "substance" of clear and unambiguous typology and clear and unambiguous simple Bible langauge is YOU not I. You run from Leviticus like a cat that has its tail on fire. You talk about presuppositions, your interpretations deny the plain sense of the Biblical terms.

Either the sinner must pay for his own sins or there must be a legal option where another person can willingly qualify to bear those sins in their behalf. The condemnation must be satisfied either by you or by Christ if justice prevails. The Levitical system defends the view of legal substitution for the sins of others and that is precisely why you run as fast as you can from the Legal system established by God in the sacrificial system for atonement.

 

[JonC]

Are you saying Webster lies? Or is this an admission on your part that I do not apply speculative philosophy according to human traditions?.

I never met Webster. But I have studied the theories of justice in a course called contemporary moral issues. Granted, this was not a theology class (it was at a secular university), but at least at an undergraduate level I was able to grasp the basics of differing views of justice.

That you are unable to work with these varying ideas is not my problem, it is yours. Far too often people obtain a type of indoctrination when it comes to religious education that they never fully understand anything apart from their narrow interpretation or tradition. That is why I have offered that you legitimately see your philosophical approach beneath every word of Scripture, not out there but under the surface and implied. It is why you lean so hard on what you believe necessarily implied even though you are unable to prove its necessity.

Have you ever considered that just maybe Scripture can stand on its own?

 

[JonC]

You keep repeating this absolutely false charge. I have adapted no philosophy, but I just adopt the plain and simple meaning of the Biblical language. "judged according to your works" is a very simple phrase with a very simple and clear meaning. You don't need a doctors degree to understand simple plain English. It means the judgement does not exceed or fall short of what you justly deserve. The Great White Seat judgement is a legal backdrop that reflects the judicial system established by God in the nation of Israel and is penal in nature, and that is retributive justice in the sense of punishment that the crime deserves or just treatment under law. The crime is sin, the penalty is first the "second death" which is general in nature as all are equally cast into Gehenna but there is appropriate punishment in Gehenna in keeping with the degree of atrocities committed "according to their works" just as there are degrees of reward in heaven "according to our works." Sin gets you into Gehenna but sins get you degree of punishment in Gehenna, just like grace gets you into heaven but your works get you degrees of rewards in heaven.



In one breath you repudiate the whole sacrificial system! The sacrificial animal did not deserve "death" and it is "death" that was meted out "for the people" and "because of their sins." You can't deal with this clear and obvious repudiation of your philosophical system. The typology is extraordinarily clear that the animal symbolizes Christ (Jn. 1:29), the "without spot or blemish" (1 Pet. ) symbolizes Christ's sinless condition, the "death" by shedding of blood symbolizes Christ's atonement "for the people" and "because of THEIR sins."

Jesus was not forced to leave heaven! Jesus was not forced to represent sinners with regard to the just penalty of sin. The answer to your challenge is simple - he willinging took upon himself the penalty as the legal representative for his people. It is no more unjust than Adam standing in the legal position for representation for his people. This is why you can't understand Romans 5:12-19 because your Philosophical poistion denies the obvious simple meaning of the text.

The answer is that as the qualified representative he willingly took the LEGAL POSITION in behalf of his people and thereby was "made to be sin" LEGALLY (NOT PERSONALLY) and as that legal representative satisfied the penalty of sin against his people in their behalf. The levitical system shouts penal substitionary atonement over and over again in clear applied symbolisms that do not need speculative human philosophy to understand, define or defend.





I can't defend what you have already refused to even attempt to understand. Your question begs the very meaning of "substitute." He willingly took "upon himself" our "condemnation" which is Legalese for PENALTY and was "MADE TO BE SIN" in the only sense it is possible for him to be "made" sin and that is LEGALLY with regard to a Judicial POSITION as substitute. Just that simple, and the Levitical system spells this out over and over and over and over and over and over again, which you refuse to accept the plain easy languague and choose to falsely claim that I use philosophy when the Biblical language and clear Biblical types spell it out in plain languague.

Not at all. I understand the whole sacrificial system as defined by Scripture. You seem to understand it as defined by the Pharisees (the blood of bulls rather than obedience).

And that is fine, but you still need to defend the reasons you choose that philosophy if you want to engage others of different views.

I know what I believe and why I believe it, as do you. The difference is that I can show my what I believe stated in Scripture (not just "necessarily implied"). Does that make my view superior? I believe so (that is why I abandoned Penal Substitution Theory). But I understand that you disagree, and that is fine.

Just do not pretend those, like me, who reject the "necessarily implied" in favor of "really there" dismiss Scripture because we reject your view. Learn about us of you are interested. Don't if you are not. But stop pretending a rejection of what you feel Scripture necessarily implies is a rejection of Scripture itself.

Some of us can read Scripture without those "implied" thoughts very plainly. False narratives can be useful (we see this often when teaching children). If you need them, I would suggest you take care they do not obstruct your view of what is actually recorded in the biblical text. Scripture itself really is sufficient.

 

[The Biblicist]

You seem to understand it as defined by the Pharisees (the blood of bulls rather than obedience).

I take personal offence to such a slanderous accusation as you know very well the Pharisees did not undertand the symbolism but applied it literally. You know very well I dont apply it literally as I clearly and repeatedly stated it is the symbolism and that Christ is the antitype. You dismiss the clear and unmistakable symbolism that cries out in the strongest terms penal substitutionary atonement!

And that is fine, but you still need to defend the reasons you choose that philosophy if you want to engage others of different views.

Absurd!! No philosophy at all, just plain simple Biblical types expressed in plain simple symbols.

I know what I believe and why I believe it, as do you.

If so, then why do you repeatedly misrepresent my words? Why do repeatedly make charges (pharisees belief) that do not represent what I believe. I don't think you have a clue.

The difference is that I can show my what I believe stated in Scripture (not just "necessarily implied").

This is absolutely hilarious!!! And where is this supposed "stated in scripture" evidence? I have never seen it yet? However, I have placed before the clearest stated scriptural evidence. The New Testament clearly and explicitly identifies Christ as the sacrificial lamb under the Levitical system. Leviticus plain states in the clearest possible language that there is no remission of sins apart from the shedding of blood and that this Messianic typology is directly applied "for the people" and "because of their sins" as an atonement. Don't have to read between lines, don't have to speculate, all you have to do is believe what is clearly and explicitly stated in black and white. However, you run as fast as you can from this clear and explicit language.

 

[The Biblicist]

I never met Webster. But I have studied the theories of justice in a course called contemporary moral issues.

So you are the one steeped in philosophy rather than me! Confession is good for the soul!

Granted, this was not a theology class (it was at a secular university), but at least at an undergraduate level I was able to grasp the basics of differing views of justice.

So you are steeped in SECULAR philosophy and not me! Confession is good for the soul!

That you are unable to work with these varying ideas

So you are the one steeped and reading into scripture secular specualtive ideas and not me? Confession is good for the soul!!

Have you ever considered that just maybe Scripture can stand on its own?

Unbelievable!!! I have placed NOTHING BUT scripture in front of you while you run from it, and come back with speculative philosophical ideas!!!! Look in the mirror because that is the guy that needs to answer your question.

 

[JonC]

I take personal offence to such a slanderous accusation as you know very well the Pharisees did not undertand the symbolism but applied it literally. You know very well I dont apply it literally as I clearly and repeatedly stated it is the symbolism and that Christ is the antitype. You dismiss the clear and unmistakable symbolism that cries out in the strongest terms penal substitutionary atonement!



Absurd!! No philosophy at all, just plain simple Biblical types expressed in plain simple symbols.



If so, then why do you repeatedly misrepresent my words? Why do repeatedly make charges (pharisees belief) that do not represent what I believe. I don't think you have a clue.





This is absolutely hilarious!!! And where is this supposed "stated in scripture" evidence? I have never seen it yet? However, I have placed before the clearest stated scriptural evidence. The New Testament clearly and explicitly identifies Christ as the sacrificial lamb under the Levitical system. Leviticus plain states in the clearest possible language that there is no remission of sins apart from the shedding of blood and that this Messianic typology is directly applied "for the people" and "because of their sins" as an atonement. Don't have to read between lines, don't have to speculate, all you have to do is believe what is clearly and explicitly stated in black and white. However, you run as fast as you can from this clear and explicit language.

I am definitely not accusing you of taking Scripture literally. Sorry if it appeared otherwise.

I learned long ago that those who use terms like "clearly and explicitly stated" for ideas that are not actually present in a text itself are conditioned to see what they desire to see. They cannot help it. This is why you have to work around any request to highlight in bold where your claim is stated in Scripture. You can provide a verse but not without including an interpretation foregin to what is actually stated.

It is very interesting, when you think of it. It is like you cannot admit that your ideas are based on what you feel is necessarily implied in Scripture, but at the same time you cannot provide even one proof except through what you feel is necessary implied.

I think this is what some have referred to as viewing Scripture through a theological lens. You actually see your ideas in the text, but they disappear when you try to highlight the words. Perhaps this is a common malady.

 

[JonC]

So you are the one steeped in philosophy rather than me! Confession is good for the soul!




So you are steeped in SECULAR philosophy and not me! Confession is good for the soul!

So you are the one steeped and reading into scripture secular specualtive ideas and not me? Confession is good for the soul!!




Unbelievable!!! I have placed NOTHING BUT scripture in front of you while you run from it, and come back with speculative philosophical ideas!!!! Look in the mirror because that is the guy that needs to answer your question.

No. There is a difference between understanding philosophical principles and leaning on them.

If you want me to provide a passage affirming my view, I can and will. I have never denied any of the passages you have offered. I rejected the ideas you believed inplied in those passages. That is an important distinction.

 

[The Biblicist]

FACT #1: Scriptures clearly and explicitly state that Jesus Christ is the antitype of the levitical sacrificial offering. No philosophical speculation here just plain and simple explicit scripture:

The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world. - Jn. 1:29

Isa 53:7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.

Ac 8:32 The place of the scripture which he read was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth:

1Pe 1:19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:

Re 5:6 ¶ And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth.

Re 5:8 And when he had taken the book, the four beasts and four and twenty elders fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of saints.

No philosophic speculation, just plain clear scriptures - Jesus is the antitype of the Levitical sacrificial lamb. Indeed, he is the antitype for all five Levitical offerings in Leviticus 1-10.

FACT#2 - The Legal basis for atonement is by the shedding of blood in the Sacrificial offering was unto death and it is that blood that is for the atonement. No philosophic speculations just plain clear scriptures.

Heb 9:22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.



FACT #3 - The book of Leviticus provides the LEGAL BASIS (the law) for atonement by substitution by a what symbolizes a righteous party (animal without spot or blemish - righteousness). The figure behind the day of atonement sacrifice is representative of Christ and the death of Christ. In this figure the animal(christ) is not being put to death due to any fault found in the animal (christ) but the animal (christ) is being offered as an atonement in the place "for the people" and "because of the uncleaness of teh children of Israel and because of their transgressions in ALL THEIR SINS." No philosophical sepculation but simple clear and explicit scriptures:

Leviticus 16:15 ¶ Then shall he kill the goat of the sin offering, that is for the people, and bring his blood within the vail, and do with that blood as he did with the blood of the bullock, and sprinkle it upon the mercy seat, and before the mercy seat:
16 And he shall make an atonement for the holy place, because of the uncleanness of the children of Israel, and because of their transgressions in all their sins: and so shall he do for the tabernacle of the congregation, that remaineth among them in the midst of their uncleanness.
17 And there shall be no man in the tabernacle of the congregation when he goeth in to make an atonement in the holy place, until he come out, and have made an atonement for himself, and for his household, and for all the congregation of Israel........

Take note that this animal (christ) is not merely put to death for sins but for the people committing those sins. Hence, death of Christ is penal satisfication for the people and their sins. (prove penal satisfaction later).


FACT #4 - A clear and explicit symbolic act of the animal (Christ) being "made sin for us" as a legal act as a SUBSTITUTE:

Lev.16: 21 And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins, putting them upon the head of the goat, and shall send him away by the hand of a fit man into the wilderness:

2 Cor. 5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

Isa 53:4 ¶ Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.

Isa 53:9 And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth. Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.

Isa 53:12 Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

Isaiah is referring to the LEGAL BASIS for substitionary atonement as established by God's LAW in Leviticus where a righteous person (symbolized as a lamb) can LEGALLY BEAR the sins of others and make atonement for them and their sins by his own death. Leviticus is THE LAW AND THUS THE LEGAL BASIS FOR AN INNOCENT MAN (symbolized as a animal) STANDING IN THE LEGAL POSITION OF SINNERS AND BEARING THEIR SINS IN HIS OWN BODY.

FACT #5 - Sin is the violation of God's Law

FACT #6 - There is legal condemnation for violating God's Law

FACT #7 - That LEGAL CONDEMNATION OR PENALIZATION for sin IS DEATH AND THEREFORE THE ATONEMENT MUST INVOVLE DEATH AS SATISFACTION OF THE LEGAL PENALTY FOR SIN:

Gen. 2:17 - death is the penalty of sin
Rom. 5:12 - death is due to sin
Heb. 9:22 - there is no remission/atonement for sin except by shedding of blood unto death.

No philosophial speculation above, just plain simple clear and explicit scripture that actually states penal substitionary atonement in synonmous language.

 

[The Biblicist]

I rejected the ideas you believed inplied in those passages. That is an important distinction.

The implications are demanded by the kind of language employed by the writer of the text. For example, the LEGAL BASIS for using a righteous substitute in legal position of the unrighteous is established by LAW - God's Law which is the book of Leviticus.

1. It is beyond reasonable dispute that atonement is the subject of Leviticus sacrifices.

2. It is beyond reasonable dispute that shedding of blood unto death, thus death is demanded to satisfy God's view of atonement with regard to sinners with sins.

3. It is beyond reasonable dispute that the animal that dies to satisfies God's view of atonement represents Jesus Christ.

4. It is beyond reasonable dispute that substitonary language and actions are employed by the Biblical writers to characterize this atonement when the animal is distinctly and clearly said to be put to death "for the people" and "because of their sins" "bear our iniquity" "laid on him the iniquity of us all" etc.

5. It is beyond reasonable dispute that death is the PENALTY for sin (Gen. 2:17; Rom.5:12) as sin is the VIOLATION OF LAW (1 Jn. 3:6) and violation of any law bring the violator under "condemnation" and there can be no condemnation where there is no PENALTY for violating Law. To say the same thing another way violating law has consquences or else Law is meaningless.

 

[MB]

The implications are demanded by the kind of language employed by the writer of the text. For example, the LEGAL BASIS for using a righteous substitute in legal position of the unrighteous is established by LAW - God's Law which is the book of Leviticus.

1. It is beyond reasonable dispute that atonement is the subject of Leviticus sacrifices.

2. It is beyond reasonable dispute that shedding of blood unto death, thus death is demanded to satisfy God's view of atonement with regard to sinners with sins.

3. It is beyond reasonable dispute that the animal that dies to satisfies God's view of atonement represents Jesus Christ.

4. It is beyond reasonable dispute that substitonary language and actions are employed by the Biblical writers to characterize this atonement when the animal is distinctly and clearly said to be put to death "for the people" and "because of their sins" "bear our iniquity" "laid on him the iniquity of us all" etc.

5. It is beyond reasonable dispute that death is the PENALTY for sin (Gen. 2:17; Rom.5:12) as sin is the VIOLATION OF LAW (1 Jn. 3:6) and violation of any law bring the violator under "condemnation" and there can be no condemnation where there is no PENALTY for violating Law. To say the same thing another way violating law has consquences or else Law is meaningless.

Confessing the sin before the spiritual consequences eliminates them because we are forgiven..However there is still an effect in the flesh. This because often the effect can come as soon as the sin is commited.
MB

 

[The Biblicist]

Defend the belief that it is just for an innocent person to be punished instead of the guilty person.

Defend the belief that justice demands punishment be rendered for an act even if the actual perpetrator is not punished.

We are not dealing with American Jurisprudence or Roman Jurisprodence, but with DIVINE JURISPRUDENCE. Agreed?

The atonement is based and defined by DIVINE JURISPRUDENCE. Agreed?

The Levitical Law is God's Law. Agreed?

The book of Leviticus is God's Law concerning atonement? Agreed?

The sacrificial animals in the first five offerings, the daily offering, the day of atonement all symbolize a HUMAN BEING whose name is Jesus Christ. Agreed?

These sacrificial animals are qualified by physical characteristics (without spot and blemish) that symbolically represent the sinless character of Jesus Christ. Agreed?

Atonement must be by shedding of blood unto death. Agreed?

Condemnation for violating God's law is the penalty of death (Gen. 2:17; Rom. 5:12; 1 Jn. 3;6) and thus is the "condemnation" under the law. Agreed?

The death of the animal sacrifice represents the death of Jesus Christ. Agreed?

Levitial law - thus DIVINE LAW establishes that a qualified man symbolized by qualified animals, thus an innocent sinless man can be put to death to atone "for" or in behalf of sinners "because of their...sins". Agreed?

Case closed!