Featured Atonement

The book of Leviticus is God's divine law concerning the atonement and if there is one thing that is unmistakably clear is that the book of Leviticus, and thus the atonement is rooted in God's holiness as the beginning point for atonement rather than in the love of God. I am not saying the love of God is not included but it is not the beginning point provided in Leviticus which is God's divine law that establishes the doctrine of atonement.

Le 11:44 For I am the LORD your God: ye shall therefore sanctify yourselves, and ye shall be holy; for I am holy: neither shall ye defile yourselves with any manner of creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

Le 11:45 For I am the LORD that bringeth you up out of the land of Egypt, to be your God: ye shall therefore be holy, for I am holy.

Le 19:2 Speak unto all the congregation of the children of Israel, and say unto them, Ye shall be holy: for I the LORD your God am holy.

Le 20:7 Sanctify yourselves therefore, and be ye holy: for I am the LORD your God.

Le 20:26 And ye shall be holy unto me: for I the LORD am holy, and have severed you from other people, that ye should be mine.

The Priesthood and the temple was not primarily designed to teach the love of God but the holiness of God:

Lev. 10:10 And that ye may put difference between holy and unholy, and between unclean and clean;
11 And that ye may teach the children of Israel all the statutes which the LORD hath spoken unto them by the hand of Moses.

 

Psa. 22: 1 My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? why art thou so far from helping me, and from the words of my roaring?
2 O my God, I cry in the daytime, but thou hearest not; and in the night season, and am not silent.
3 But thou art holy, O thou that inhabitest the praises of Israel.

Jesus quoted Psalm 22:1 on the cross which was the divine altar for making atonement. The question is "why" and the answer is "But thou art holy". God's love is rooted in God's holiness not vice versa.

 

Why would it be wrong, from what you all have posted, to see the following verse; Rom 8:20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; In the following context?

BTW creation, as speaking of the creation as complete in Gen 2:2,3 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.
Considering Romans 8:21 and Gal 4:3-5
because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.
Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world. But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born[fn] of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption as sons.

For the creation was, sold under sin, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected, in the Atonement.

And why would God do this? Because of the serpent, who has the power of the death, hanging out around that tree.

just and the justifier

 

Notice that you say justice points to God "Himself" or God's "nature" thus is a reflection of his "character" as "God is the moral standard." Why can't you say the very same thing with regard to man "being evil" as it points to man "himself" and his "nature" and is a reflection of his "character" and is his "moral standard"?????? Thus the "law of sin" refers to his fallen character, nature to himself.

Moreover, does not the "law" of God have the same relationship to God "himself" to his "nature" and is a reflection of his "character" and thus is a reflection of his "moral standard"????

 

Do we all agree atonement is complete in the finished work of Christ?

 

Stop being a politician. The immediate context is dealing with saved persons not lost persons.

 

Sin never exceeds morality whether you speak of it as a spiritual state/condition or attitude or action as in all cases it is violation of God's character as revealed by God's law.

The apple is sin and fruit is morality and morality is a larger category than sin but sin never exceeds the boundaries of a moral issue whether it is a condition, law, attitude, action, because in all cases it violates God's character as revealed in God's law. Sin is a moral issue in all of its forms.

 

you can be moral and still sin

 

Gen. 3:17 .....cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;
18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;

Creation falls under the "curse" due to man's sin and is therefore a consequence of sin just as "death" is in all creation.

 

Since you now admit that there are not two Penal Substitution theories, do you admit that Packer and Dever are not dealing with two theories and can we now drop this nonsense?

I can agree that to an extent, but at least some of the ECFs were very much aware of what we now call the Doctrine of Penal Substitution, even if they didn't call it that. And although Anselm's Cur Deus Homo is flawed, it would be unfair to say that it is not an 'earnest study.'

 

Yes and God's nature is holiness first and foremost.

That is your opinion, I disagree on both points.

I am not accusing. I am listing exactly what I have observed from you both in public conversation and our private conversation on this topic.

I don't see your position as a threat to my position. I see your position as false teaching and unbiblical.

 

Jon, this thread has moved at hyper speed. Turn your head for a moment and you are fighting a losing battle to catch up.

The two Penal Substitution views came from something you posted in another thread a while back. I do not have the quote handy but you attributed Penal Substitution Theory to the Reformers and Penal Substitution to the ECF's (at least in some form). That gave the impression you saw two different Penal views. I think you corrected yourself recently and said there is only one Penal Substitution view, whether it is called Penal Substitution or Penal Substitution Theory.

BTW, one thing I have not seen in this thread is your scriptural warrant for your ransom theory of the atonement. You Said it was not Origen's. Can you take a moment to move on from the sin discussion and provide your exegetical proofs? Thank you.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

 

That has nothing to do with what I was talking about in my post. Therefore, it looks like you are the one making false accusations.

Gossip? It was made in public, that is hardly behind your back. I meant for you to read it. Again, you are wrong. You do hold, based on conversations we have had, that it is against God's nature to turn his punishment on an innocent man in place of another. Yet, you have not shown proof of this.

God's justice is God's justice. I would argue that it is not solely based on the moral law but it is based on His Holiness. Who said anything about rejecting God as our moral standard? Not me.