The Biblical Atonement (continued 3)

[37818]

The issue is you are approaching Scripture as a type of science book.

The laws that govern the universe are the word of God. The same God who gave us He written word revealing the person of His Son who by creating creation reveals God.

Jesus taught the soul is mortal, but is not killed by the physical death of the body, Matthew 10:28.

What Jesus said was finished, in John 10:30, was finished before the event of John 19:28. What was it?

You cite, "People are more likely to be right in what they affirm than in what they deny." F.D. Maurice.

If the atonement is not any kind of penal substitution, what can you affirm regarding the atonement that can be understood and not mistaken for what you believe it is not?

 

[SavedByGrace]

The laws that govern the universe are the word of God. The same God who gave us He written word revealing the person of His Son who by creating creation reveals God.

Jesus taught the soul is mortal, but is not killed by the physical death of the body, Matthew 10:28.

What Jesus said was finished, in John 10:30, was finished before the event of John 19:28. What was it?

You cite, "People are more likely to be right in what they affirm than in what they deny." F.D. Maurice.

If the atonement is not any kind of penal substitution, what can you affirm regarding the atonement that can be understood and not mistaken for what you believe it is not?

Unless God the Holy Spirit opens the eyes of those like JonC, Agedman, etc, to show them that the Bible Teaches PSA, they will never change. It is a spiritual blindness.

 

[37818]

Unless God the Holy Spirit opens the eyes of those like JonC, Agedman, etc, to show them that the Bible Teaches PSA, they will never change. It is a spiritual blindness.

@JonC came from believing and teaching PSA. I do not yet know where brother @agedman is coming from.

If PSA is not what the Scripture means the problem is the same. Present the Biblical atonement in an understandable way where one cannot mistake it for a PS, without having to say in any way it is not PDA.

 

[agedman]

@JonC came from believing and teaching PSA. I do not yet know where brother @agedman is coming from.

If PSA is not what the Scripture means the problem is the same. Present the Biblical atonement in an understandable way where one cannot mistake it for a PS, without having to say in any way it is not PDA.

Centuries passed without PSA theory. Prior to the Christ, millennium passed without PSA theory.

In all the threads, both @JonC and I have given our views. We have not hidden them, but have openly declared them and how we came to our understanding.

I even established a thread on the Vicarious Atonement that no one doubt where I stand.


PSA theory is not doctrinally sound, but some cling to it as butter on toast.

 

[37818]

Centuries passed without PSA theory.

The New Testament is to the 1st century churches. The irregular churches do not count on this matter. What they wrote is not the word of God on the matter.

 

[JonC]

The New Testament is to the 1st century churches. The irregular churches do not count on this matter. What they wrote is not the word of God on the matter.

That is the issue. Penal Substitution Theory only came about because of the "irregular churches" as the Reformers sought to reform RCC doctrine.

Have you really never wondered why, in Reformed Theology, the early Christians look so much like Reformers and the Jewish leadership looks like the RCC?

 

[JonC]

@JonC came from believing and teaching PSA. I do not yet know where brother @agedman is coming from.

If PSA is not what the Scripture means the problem is the same. Present the Biblical atonement in an understandable way where one cannot mistake it for a PS, without having to say in any way it is not PDA.

If the atonement is not any kind of penal substitution, what can you affirm regarding the atonement that can be understood and not mistaken for what you believe it is not?

Sin and death entered the World through Adam's transgression. Death spread to all men for all have sinned. Men were enslaved, in bondage, to sin and death for the wages of sin is death.

It is appointed man once to die and then the judgment. The Word became flesh. Christ shared in our infirmity, became a curse for us, bore our sin. He is sinless (righteous). Christ died at tge hands the wicked, under the powers of this world, as was the predetermined will of God (this was God offering His Son as a sin offering).

Through Christ's death man (mankind) is reconciled to God (Christ shared our infirmity, died for our sins). He is the "Last Adam".

God vindicated the Son, raised Him on the 3rd day, and exalted Him. He became a "Life Giving Spirit". We are saved by His life.

It is that simple. No addition to Scripture needed.

 

[37818]

That is the issue. Penal Substitution Theory only came about because of the "irregular churches" as the Reformers sought to reform RCC doctrine.

Have you really never wondered why, in Reformed Theology, the early Christians look so much like Reformers and the Jewish leadership looks like the RCC?

What has not been done in our threads here is presenting the atonement in such a way where it cannot be mistake for any kind of penal substitution. So long as it is necessary to deny that the atonement is penal substitution it is a penal substitution being denied.

 

[37818]

Sin and death entered the World through Adam's transgression. Death spread to all men for all have sinned. Men were enslaved, in bondage, to sin and death for the wages of sin is death.

Adam and Eve were never created immortal. And sin did indeed become a cause of death. Genesis 3:22-24.

 

[agedman]

What has not been done in our threads here is presenting the atonement in such a way where it cannot be mistake for any kind of penal substitution. So long as it is necessary to deny that the atonement is penal substitution it is just that.

Neither @JonC nor I deny is that the Lord suffered. Such isn’t the issue.

Penal means physical, so certainly anyone who was interrogated and crucified by the Romans was physically tortured.

The second part is the word “substitution.”

@JonC may not go as far as me in this matter, for I find nothing in the Scriptures that present a substitution such as the PSA theory expresses.

What I find is the victorious presentation of the conquering King, who nailed the decrees that stood against believers to the cross therefore bringing eternal satisfaction and reconciliation of God to man. (Colossians 2)

Neither @JonC nor I hold to some unscriptural view that God’s wrath was poured out upon the Son. But that the Son did literally pour the blood upon the true temple in Heaven bringing propitiation as is stated in Hebrews.

 

[JonC]

Neither @JonC nor I deny is that the Lord suffered. Such isn’t the issue.

Penal means physical, so certainly anyone who was interrogated and crucified by the Romans was physically tortured.

The second part is the word “substitution.”

@JonC may not go as far as me in this matter, for I find nothing in the Scriptures that present a substitution such as the PSA theory expresses.

What I find is the victorious presentation of the conquering King, who nailed the decrees that stood against believers to the cross therefore bringing eternal satisfaction and reconciliation of God to man. (Colossians 2)

Neither @JonC nor I hold to some unscriptural view that God’s wrath was poured out upon the Son. But that the Son did literally pour the blood upon the true temple in Heaven bringing propitiation as is stated in Hebrews.

I am right there with you, Brother. The "substitution" in Scripture is representation in the sense Christ is the "Last Adam", not substitution as Penal Substitution Theory suggests.

Penal Substitution Theory was just a reworking of RCC doctrine. They viewed substitution with merit in mind. Calvin just replaced merit with wrath.

It is also vital to remember that the word "atonement" originally meant "at-one-ment" and referred to reconciliation. Penal Substitution Theory uses a pagan view of sacrificing to appease a deity.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Centuries passed without PSA theory. Prior to the Christ, millennium passed without PSA theory.

In all the threads, both @JonC and I have given our views. We have not hidden them, but have openly declared them and how we came to our understanding.

I even established a thread on the Vicarious Atonement that no one doubt where I stand.


PSA theory is not doctrinally sound, but some cling to it as butter on toast.

I am right there with you, Brother. The "substitution" in Scripture is representation in the sense Christ is the "Last Adam", not substitution as Penal Substitution Theory suggests.

Penal Substitution Theory was just a reworking of RCC doctrine. They viewed substitution with merit in mind. Calvin just replaced merit with wrath.

It is also vital to remember that the word "atonement" originally meant "at-one-ment" and referred to reconciliation. Penal Substitution Theory uses a pagan view of sacrificing to appease a deity.

I think it's interesting but unsurprising that JonC and Agedman have given up trying to oppose Penal Substitution biblically, but are instead opposing it on the (incorrect) grounds that it's 'only' 500 years old.

 

[agedman]

I think it's interesting but unsurprising that JonC and Agedman have given up trying to oppose Penal Substitution biblically, but are instead opposing it on the (incorrect) grounds that it's 'only' 500 years old.

@Martin Marprelate

We oppose PSA theory from the Scriptures. We also agree, as do nearly all credible scholarship I have encountered, that it is a few hundred years old. Such newness was not even debated until the last century, prior it was accepted as a factual development of the reformation.

I trust your preplanning for the messages is going well. Hard it is when we come to the well and find it dry. More often I think it better to engage folks in times like that in group discussion with everyone seeking and searching the Scriptures on a matter of importance.

 

[JonC]

I think it's interesting but unsurprising that JonC and Agedman have given up trying to oppose Penal Substitution biblically, but are instead opposing it on the (incorrect) grounds that it's 'only' 500 years old.

@agedman and I have stated what Scripture says. You and I disagree, but our disagreement is about what you add to Scripture.

We simply approach Scripture differently. Where you interpret Scripture through the lens of your tradition, I am a biblicist (I believe Scripture is literal....while it certainly uses literary devices, God communicated the truth of essential doctrines in the text of Scripture). Having taken this position, it is impossible for me to believe Penal Substitution Theory as it is not in God's Word.

I understand you believe that is what the Bible means or teaches. And I wish you well in your studies. But I have to stick with what is written.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

@agedman and I have stated what Scripture says. You and I disagree, but our disagreement is about what you add to Scripture.

We simply approach Scripture differently. Where you interpret Scripture through the lens of your tradition, I am a biblicist (I believe Scripture is literal....while it certainly uses literary devices, God communicated the truth of essential doctrines in the text of Scripture). Having taken this position, it is impossible for me to believe Penal Substitution Theory as it is not in God's Word.

I understand you believe that is what the Bible means or teaches. And I wish you well in your studies. But I have to stick with what is written.

I think you will find that it is you who are interpreting Scripture through the lens of the liberal tradition that you have adopted. That is what makes it impossible for you to believe in Penal Substitution. Liberal theology does not accept the 'whole counsel of God.'

 

[JonC]

I think you will find that it is you who are interpreting Scripture through the lens of the liberal tradition that you have adopted. That is what makes it impossible for you to believe in Penal Substitution. Liberal theology does not accept the 'whole counsel of God.'

That would not be out of the realm of possibility if it were not for one thing - what I believe is actually in the Word of God and what you believe is not.

I can say Jesus bore our sins in His body, waa made sin for us, and shared in our infirmity while allowing Scripture to interpret Scripture.

You cannot.. Instead you say Jesus bore our sins...and this is what it really means; Jesus was made sin for us....and this is what it really means; shared in our infirmity....and this is what it really means.

Do you not at least find ot odd that the core of your belief is not actually in God's Word....not in the text of Scripture?

Think about your post that God was not punishing Christ's but punishing our sins instead of punishing us by inflicting suffering and death on Christ. That, my friend, is pure humanistic philosophy...and poor philosophy at that.

@agedman and I have (obviously) accepted the full counsel of God. We disagree with you, and I'm sure there are areas we disagree with one another.

But I think he and I stand firm on how we differ from you on this topic - we hold that Scripture is the test of doctrine.....not tradition, not philosophy, and not a set of men, much less the Reformers you seem to include in the "full counsel of God".

 

[JesusFan]

Unless God the Holy Spirit opens the eyes of those like JonC, Agedman, etc, to show them that the Bible Teaches PSA, they will never change. It is a spiritual blindness.

Indeed, as the psa viewpoint is what launched the reformation, as Rome was close to killing off the true Gospel and Pauline Justification!

 

[JesusFan]

Centuries passed without PSA theory. Prior to the Christ, millennium passed without PSA theory.

In all the threads, both @JonC and I have given our views. We have not hidden them, but have openly declared them and how we came to our understanding.

I even established a thread on the Vicarious Atonement that no one doubt where I stand.


PSA theory is not doctrinally sound, but some cling to it as butter on toast.

Its the only way by which one can understand Pauline Justification!

 

[JesusFan]

I think you will find that it is you who are interpreting Scripture through the lens of the liberal tradition that you have adopted. That is what makes it impossible for you to believe in Penal Substitution. Liberal theology does not accept the 'whole counsel of God.'

seems to be heading towards outright denial of God having active wrath, and to accepting pretty much the NPP view of the Atonement!

 

[JesusFan]

That would not be out of the realm of possibility if it were not for one thing - what I believe is actually in the Word of God and what you believe is not.

I can say Jesus bore our sins in His body, waa made sin for us, and shared in our infirmity while allowing Scripture to interpret Scripture.

You cannot.. Instead you say Jesus bore our sins...and this is what it really means; Jesus was made sin for us....and this is what it really means; shared in our infirmity....and this is what it really means.

Do you not at least find ot odd that the core of your belief is not actually in God's Word....not in the text of Scripture?

Think about your post that God was not punishing Christ's but punishing our sins instead of punishing us by inflicting suffering and death on Christ. That, my friend, is pure humanistic philosophy...and poor philosophy at that.

@agedman and I have (obviously) accepted the full counsel of God. We disagree with you, and I'm sure there are areas we disagree with one another.

But I think he and I stand firm on how we differ from you on this topic - we hold that Scripture is the test of doctrine.....not tradition, not philosophy, and not a set of men, much less the Reformers ypu seem to include in the "full counsel of God".

Jesus endured the wrath and Judgement of the father for our sake, not as in God "Punishing" Him, but due to Him being our sin bearer!