The Biblical Atonement (continued 3)

[JonC]

You need to explain the violence done unto the sacrifice, and the reason for its burning and exclusion from the altar.


Labels aren't Scripture. What does it mean to suffer for sins? Note: I didn't ask what it means to suffer for righteousness' sake. I asked, what does it mean to suffer for sins? The Just suffered for sins for the unjust.

The sacrifice is sacrificed. This is not wrath (the Jews were not punishing animals).

I don't get what you miss about suffering for sins. Jesus suffered for our sins. The Just did suffer for the unjust. But, as Scripture tells us, this was not God's wrath.

 

[JonC]

Fact, the notion of penal substitution is an understanding deduced from Scripture. Isaiah 53:6, Ezekiel 18:4, 1 Corinthians 15:3, Romans 5:8, Romans 6:23, etc.

No, it isn't. It is applied to those passages (as you can perhaps read, the Theory is foreign to biblical text).

The art you got wrong is a reliance on reformed RCC doctrine. But the RCC always approached Scripture from a pagan standpoint.

 

[JonC]

God sending His Son in Love as the Divine substitute for the elect is the core of the gospel.....not a pagan concept...but God's design.

It is pagan for several reasons.

The RCC is pagan (and, by default, so is your reformed RCC belief)

God's design is written in Scripture.

The sacrifice never appeased God's wrath. God is not a child that can be pacified by a toy.

The sacrificial system was God passing over sins committed until the time of our redemption.

You hold a pagan faith on this issue. But to be fair, your theology is very much Roman Catholic with a few major tweaks.

I am grateful that God saved you despite your error. As you continue to study and pray....if you are studying the Bible...perhaps you also will be led to a fuller understanding of the Cross.

As it stands, we are equally saved, you just do not grasp that salvation unto which you were called. You should abandon reformed RCC faith and stick to God's Word. Stop trying to connect dots and fill in blanks. Stop looking for progressive revelation via the Reformers. Stop replacing the Pope with teachers you choose to follow.

And then mature in Christ, gain spiritual understanding. You cannot reform RCC doctrine, for a little leaven leaves the whole.

 

[Iconoclast]

The Trespass offering.

In the Trespass offering we see repayment and restitution for the damages caused by sin. Not a mere forebearance, but a demand for payment, a making of amends, i.e. appeasement, without which, there is no forgiveness.

Leviticus 5:15-16 If a soul commit a trespass, and sin through ignorance, in the holy things of the LORD; then he shall bring for his trespass unto the LORD a ram without blemish out of the flocks, with thy estimation by shekels of silver, after the shekel of the sanctuary, for a trespass offering: And he shall make amends for the harm that he hath done in the holy thing, and shall add the fifth part thereto, and give it unto the priest: and the priest shall make an atonement for him with the ram of the trespass offering, and it shall be forgiven him.
​

The fifth part is a double tithe. The first tithe, the righteous requirement of the law, the second tithe, the debt incurred by sin.

Not only for the harm done unto the holy things of YHWH, but also unto the things of the penitent's neighbor; that is, to man.

Leviticus 6:5 Or all that about which he hath sworn falsely; he shall even restore it in the principal, and shall add the fifth part more thereto, and give it unto him to whom it appertaineth, in the day of his trespass offering.
​

Here it is revealed that in Christ's one offering, amends are made for the harm resulting from sin. To put it another way, the wages of sin are paid, the punitive damages are paid, and God's wrath, the just and righteous response to sin, is appeased.

Our sin, and its debt to God and to man, are paid for in the one offering of Christ.

You came to present these truths from scripture alone?
How did you do that with reading Roman Catholic Theology first?
You seem to believe the law of God means something and cannot just be dismissed.
It was not a mere forbearance....it was based upon the saving atonement to take place. That is the real cross

 

[JonC]

You came to present these truths from scripture alone?
How did you do that with reading Roman Catholic Theology first?
You seem to believe the law of God means something and cannot just be dismissed.
It was not a mere forbearance....it was based upon the saving atonement to take place. That is the real cross

Yes.

I once believed as you - held and taught Penal Substitution Theory. I was a Calvinist, but as I matured and grew I left the errors behind - moved on to the meat of the Word.

God led me to reexamine my understanding via Scripture (something we should continually do).

I realized quickly that Penal Substitution Theory is not actually in the text of Scripture. The next question was whether God's Word made sense....did Scripture need our theories. I have come to see it doesn't.

I knew of the theological development of the Theory for decades. It is not a secret how Calvin worked out Penal Substitution Theory via "reforming" the teachings of Augustine and Aquinas.

Scripture says that the OT period sacrifices was God passing over sins until the New Covenant. You don't have to believe it, but that is what the Bible says. The Bible also says that God will not condemn the Just and acquit the guilty. But you don't seem to believe that either.

The Law does mean something. It shows our sin and testifies to a "better covenant".

 

[Iconoclast]

It is pagan for several reasons.

The RCC is pagan (and, by default, so is your reformed RCC belief)

God's design is written in Scripture.

The sacrifice never appeased God's wrath. God is not a child that can be pacified by a toy.

The sacrificial system was God passing over sins committed until the time of our redemption.

You hold a pagan faith on this issue. But to be fair, your theology is very much Roman Catholic with a few major tweaks.

I am grateful that God saved you despite your error. As you continue to study and pray....if you are studying the Bible...perhaps you also will be led to a fuller understanding of the Cross.

As it stands, we are equally saved, you just do not grasp that salvation unto which you were called. You should abandon reformed RCC faith and stick to God's Word. Stop trying to connect dots and fill in blanks. Stop looking for progressive revelation via the Reformers. Stop replacing the Pope with teachers you choose to follow.

And then mature in Christ, gain spiritual understanding. You cannot reform RCC doctrine, for a little leaven leaves the whole.

Your RC excuse has grown thin.
No one is offering RC. Theology as you claim.
Aaron has posted how your theology is defective as well as others.
Your denigrating God's Divine Substitute as a "pagan" idea is profane as I see it.
The words mean things....which you seek to explain away as generalities.
You can obviously believe and explain away whatever you want to.
What you offer is not a full gospel as far as many of us are concerned.

 

[JonC]

Your RC excuse has grown thin.
No one is offering RC. Theology as you claim.
Aaron has posted how your theology is defective as well as others.
Your denigrating God's Divine Substitute as a "pagan" idea is profane as I see it.
The words mean things....which you seek to explain away as generalities.
You can obviously believe and explain away whatever you want to.
What you offer is not a full gospel as far as many of us are concerned.

I apologize for assuming you were aware of Thomas Aquinas.

The idea that Christ's death appeased God was so unChristian that Augustine declared it heresy. It is the adaptation of paganism into the Christian faith.

But what makes it wrong is not that it's neo-Christianity (reformed RCC doctrine). What makes it wrong is it fails the test of Scripture.

As you have demonstrated by your posts, Penal Substitution Theory is not in God's Word. So why do you believe it? Because you believe it is what Scripture teaches.

But what if Scripture actually means what it says? What if your idea that Scripture needs the help of the Reformers is entirely wrong?

All those here have said I and @agedman are wrong because we have restricted our understanding of the Cross to Scripture (we have rejected your additions to God's Word).

The difficulty in understanding Scripture belongs to those, like you, who reject what is written as foolishness without the addition of secular humanistic philosophy. The "wise" have been made "fools".

Just read the Bible and believe what it says. It is really perfect and complete....no need to fill in blanks, connect dots, or look for progressive revelation.

 

[Iconoclast]

What is written or taught in the bible was written before Aquinas, Augustine, or anyone else you deflect to.
I do not employ your substitute words and definitions.
I did not use the word appease.
I use the biblical term...propitiation.
Turning away the wrath of God.
PSA.is the scriptural teaching of the Covenant death Jesus accomplished.
You make claims of what you used to believe .
I and others see no evidence of your claims to holding one belief or another. You can save such posts as no one believes them to be true .
You advocate reading the bible....without understanding what you read. You could not help the Eunuch in Acts 8, so it is good God sent Philip in that day.
You would not cause the Eunuch to gain the sense of the words...you would just tell him keep reading...no need to connect the scriptural dots at all....just repeat partial sentences without explanation.

 

[Salty]

six hour warning
This thread will be closed no sooner than 2 pm EST / 11 am PST

This thread is closed