Hebrews 2:16-17 PSA.

[Iconoclast]

But it is more in harmony with Scripture to say that the good pleasure of God to save sinners by a substitutionary atonement was founded in the love and justice of God. It was the love of God that provided a way of escape for lost sinners, John 3:16.

And it was the justice of God which required that this way should be of such a nature as to meet the demands of the law, in order that God “might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus,” Rom. 3:26. In Rom. 3:24,25, we find both elements combined: “Being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: whom God set forth to be a propitiation through faith in His blood, to declare His righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God.” This representation guards against the idea of an arbitrary will.
3. IN LOVE AND JUSTICE COMBINED. It is necessary to avoid all one-sidedness in this respect. If we represent the atonement as founded only in the righteousness and justice of God, we fail to do justice to the love of God as a moving cause of the atonement, and afford a pretext to those enemies of the satisfaction theory of the atonement who like to represent it as implying that God is a vindictive being, who is concerned only about His own honour. If, on the other hand, we consider the atonement purely as an expression of the love of God, we fail to do justice to the righteousness and veracity of God, and we reduce the sufferings and the death of Christ to an unexplained enigma.

 

[Iconoclast]

B. HISTORICAL VIEWS RESPECTING THE NECESSITY OF THE ATONEMENT. On this subject there has been considerable difference of opinion. The following positions should be distinguished:

1. THAT THE ATONEMENT WAS NOT NECESSARY. The Nominalists of the Middle Ages generally regarded it as something purely arbitrary. According to Duns Scotus it was not inherently necessary, but was determined by the arbitrary will of God. He denied the infinite value of the sufferings of Christ, and regarded them as a mere equivalent for the satisfaction due, which God was pleased to accept as such. In his estimation God might have accepted any other substitute, and might even have carried on the work of redemption without demanding any satisfaction at all. Socinus also denied the necessity of the atonement. He removed the foundation pillar for such a necessity by the denial of such justice in God as required absolutely and inexorably that sin be punished. For him the justice of God meant only His moral equity and rectitude, by virtue of which there is no depravity or iniquity in any of His works.

Hugo Grotius followed his denial on the basis of the consideration that the law of God was a positive enactment of His will, which He could relax and could also set aside altogether.

The Arminians shared his views on this point. One and all denied that it was necessary for God to proceed in a judicial way in the manifestation of His grace, and maintained that He might have forgiven sin without demanding satisfaction.

Schleiermacher and Ritschl, who had a dominating influence on modern theology, broke completely with the judicial conception of the atonement. As advocates of the mystical and moral influence theories of the atonement, they deny the fact of an objective atonement, and therefore by implication also its necessity. With them and with modern liberal theology in general atonement becomes merely at-one-ment or reconciliation effected by changing the moral condition of the sinner. Some speak of a moral necessity, but refuse to recognize any legal necessity.

 

[Iconoclast]

1. It would seem to be the clear teaching of Scripture that God, in virtue of His divine righteousness and holiness, cannot simply overlook defiance to His infinite majesty, but must needs visit sin with punishment. We are told repeatedly that He will by no means clear the guilty, Ex. 34:7; Num. 14:18; Nah. 1:3.

He hates sin with a divine hatred; His whole being reacts against it, Ps. 5:4- 6; Nah. 1:2; Rom. 1:18. Paul argues in Rom. 3:25,26, that it was necessary that Christ should be offered as an atoning sacrifice for sin, in order that God might be just while justifying the sinner. The important thing was that the justice of God should be maintained. This clearly points to the fact that the necessity of the atonement follows from the divine nature.


2. This leads right on to the second argument. The majesty and absolute immutability of the divine law as inherent in the very nature of God made it necessary for Him to demand satisfaction of the sinner. The transgression of the law inevitably carries with it a penalty. It is inviolable exactly because it is grounded in the very nature of God and is not, as Socinus would have it, a product of His free will, Matt. 5:18. The general principle of the law is expressed in these words: “Cursed be he that confirmeth not the words of this law to do them,” Deut. 27:26. And if God wanted to save the sinner, in spite of the fact that the latter could not meet the demands of the law, He had to make provision for a vicarious satisfaction as a ground for the sinner’s justification.

 

[Iconoclast]

c. The Hebrew word kipper (piel) expresses the idea of atonement for sin by the covering of sin or of the sinner. The blood of the sacrifice is interposed between God and the sinner, and in view of it the wrath of God is turned aside. It has the effect, therefore, of warding off the wrath of God from the sinner.

In the Septuagint and in the New Testament the terms hilaskomai and hilasmos are used in a related sense. The verb means “to render propitious,” and the noun, “an appeasing” or “the means of appeasing.” They are terms of an objective character. In classical Greek they are often construed with the accusative of theos (God), though there is no example of this in the Bible. In the New Testament they are construed with the accusative of the thing (hamartias), Heb. 2:17, or with peri and the genitive of the thing (hamartion), I John 2:2; 4:10. The first passage is best interpreted in the light of the use of the Hebrew kipper; the last can be interpreted similarly, or with theon as the object understood.

There are so many passages of Scripture which speak of the wrath of God and of God as being angry with sinners, that we are perfectly justified in speaking of a propitiation of God, Rom. 1:18; Gal. 3:10; Eph. 2:3; Rom. 5:9. In Rom. 5:10 and 11:28 sinners are called “enemies of God” (echthroi) in a passive sense, indicating, not that they are hostile to God, but that they are the objects of God’s holy displeasure. In the former passage this sense is demanded by its connection with the previous verse; and in the latter by the fact that echtroi is contrasted with agapetoi, which does not mean “lovers of God,” but “beloved of God.

 

[Iconoclast]

b. The possibility of vicarious atonement. All those who advocate a subjective theory of the atonement raise a formidable objection to the idea of vicarious atonement.


They consider it unthinkable that a just God should transfer His wrath against moral offenders to a perfectly innocent party, and should treat the innocent judicially as if he were guilty. There is undoubtedly a real difficulty here, especially in view of the fact that this seems to be contrary to all human analogy. We cannot conclude from the possibility of the transfer of a pecuniary debt to that of the transfer of a penal debt. If some beneficent person offers to pay the pecuniary debt of another, the payment must be accepted, and the debtor is ipso facto freed from all obligation. But this is not the case when someone offers to atone vicariously for the transgression of another. To be legal, this must be expressly permitted and authorized by the lawgiver. In reference to the law this is called relaxation, and in relation to the sinner it is known as remission. The judge need not, but can permit this; yet he can permit it only under certain conditions, as

(1) that the guilty party himself is not in a position to bear the penalty through to the end, so that a righteous relation results;

(2) that the transfer does not encroach upon the rights and privileges of innocent third parties, nor cause them to suffer hardships and privations;

(3) that the person enduring the penalty is not himself already indebted to justice, and does not owe all his services to the government; and

(4) that the guilty party retains the consciousness of his guilt and of the fact that the substitute is suffering for him. In view of all this it will be understood that the transfer of penal debt is wellnigh, if not entirely, impossible among men. But in the case of Christ, which is altogether unique, because in it a situation obtained which has no parallel, all the conditions named were met. There was no injustice of any kind.

 

[Iconoclast]

John Owen ..commentary on Hebrews;
When our Lord Jesus says that he came to "give his life a ransom for many," Matt. 20:28, he had respect unto the sacrifice that he had to offer as a priest.

The same also is intimated where he is called "The Lamb of God," John 1:29; for he was himself both priest and sacrifice.

Our apostle also mentioneth his sacrifice and his offering of himself unto God, Eph. 5:2; on the account whereof he calleth him "a propitiation," Rom. 3:25; and mentioneth also his "intercession," with the benefits thereof, chap. 8:34.

The clearest testimony to this purpose is that of the apostle John, who puts together both the general acts of his sacerdotal office, and intimates withal their mutual relation, 1 John 2:1, 2; for his intercession as our "advocate" with his Father respects his oblation as he was a "propitiation for our sins." So the same apostle tells us to the same purpose, that he "washed us in his own blood," Rev. 1:5, when he expiated our sins by the sacrifice of himself. These are, if not all, yet the principal places in the New Testament wherein immediate respect is had to the priesthood or sacrifice of Christ.

 

[JonC]

Why the reliance on men? Why not God's Word?

 

[Iconoclast]

Why the reliance on men? Why not God's Word?

LOL.....Are you suggesting that John Owen did not rely on God's word?
Perhaps the Puritans did not read and study scripture either?
Do you see how foolish your objection is.
He does not just mention a verse, or part of a verse...he takes it apart and gives the sense of it..
Again...here is the word of God you say you believe;

8 So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly,

and gave the sense,

and caused them to understand the reading.

You two avoid this like the corona virus.I have no problem testing my understanding of scripture by persons more gifted and given by God.

 

[Iconoclast]

There may, then, be a double sense of these words;—

1st. To make atonement and reconciliation for sin, appeasing the anger and wrath of God against it;

2dly. To remove and take away sin, either by the cleansing and sanctifying of the sinner, or by any means prevailing with him not to continue in sin. Against the first sense, the construction of the word with τὰς ἁμαρτίας, "sins," is objected; against the latter, the constant sense of the word itself, which is not to be deserted. It is the former sense, therefore, which we do embrace, and shall confirm.

And when it hath the accusative case of the person joined with it, it can bear no other sense. So Plutarch, Ἵλασο θυσίαις ἥρωας: and Lucian, Ἱλάσατο τὸν Θεόν, "to appease God."

Sometimes it is used with a dative case, as Plutarch in Public, Ἱλασόμενος τῷ ᾅδῃ, and then it hath respect unto the sacrifice whereby atonement is made, and anger turned away; and is rendered "piaculare sacrum facere," "to offer up a piacular sacrifice." So that the word constantly hath regard unto the anger and wrath of some person, which is deprecated, turned away, appeased, by reconciliation made.

 

[Iconoclast]

(2dly.) The use of the word by the LXX. confirms it unto this sense. Commonly they render the Hebrew פרַכּ ,ָby it; which when regarding God always signifies "atonement," and "to atone."
So the noun, Ps. 49:8, "No man can redeem his brother, כּרוְֹבּ ָלאלֵ ל ִהים ֹ ֹ תּןֵא־י"—, nor can he give to God his ransom," or the price of his redemption, ἐξίλασμα. And unto the verb, where it respecteth the offence to be atoned for, they usually annex περί. Exod. 32:30, "You have sinned a great sin, and now I ἵνα, אוַּלי ֲאַכְפָּרה ְבַּעד ַחַטּאְתֶכם ,LORD the unto up go will ἐξιλάσωμαι περὶ τῆς ἁμαρτίας ὑμῶν,—"that I may atone for your sins." And it is God who is the object of the act of appeasing or atoning: 'to make atonement with God for your sin.' So Num. 28:22, 30, Neh. 10:33.

Once in the Old Testament it is used transitively, and sin placed as the object of it: Dan. 9:24, עוֹן ָפּרֵכַלְוּ ,καὶ τοῦ ἐξιλάσασθαι ἀδικίας,—"to atone sin," or "unrighteousness;" that is, ἐξιλάσασθαι τὸν Θεὸν περὶ τῆς ἀδικίας,—"to make atonement with God for sin."

 

[Iconoclast]

(3dly.) The Jews, to whom Paul wrote, knew that the principal work of the high priest was to make atonement with God for sin, whereof their expiation and freedom from it were a consequent; and therefore they understood this act and duty accordingly, it being the usual expression of it that the apostle applies unto it. They knew that the great work of their high priest was to make atonement for them, for their sins and transgressions, that they might not die, that the punishment threatened in the law might not come upon them, as is fully declared, Lev. 16:10, 21. And the apostle now instructs them in the substance of what they had before attended unto in types and shadows. Nor is there any mention in the Scripture of the expiation of sin but by atonement, nor doth this word ever in any place signify the real cleansing of sin inherent from the sinner; so that the latter sense proposed hath no consistency with it

 

[JonC]

LOL.....Are you suggesting that John Owen did not rely on God's word?
Perhaps the Puritans did not read and study scripture either?
Do you see how foolish your objection is.
He does not just mention a verse, or part of a verse...he takes it apart and gives the sense of it..
Again...here is the word of God you say you believe;

8 So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly,

and gave the sense,

and caused them to understand the reading.

You two avoid this like the corona virus.I have no problem testing my understanding of scripture by persons more gifted and given by God.

I am suggesting that John Owen did not die for our sins. John Owen is not our authority. John Owen was a fallible man. And yes, there are areas where John Owen relied on his tradition over Scripture.

Would you suggest John Wesley did not rely on God's Word in every area?

What about Augustine - who rejected the idea that Christ's death appeased God - did he rely on Hod's Word?

What about Justin Martyr? Did he rely on God's Word even though his view of the Cross contradicts your own?

There are issues of interpretation. But those are interpretations of Scripture. You are adding to Scripture what is not in its text.

That is why it is impossible for your tradition to pass the test of Scripture.

 

[JonC]

Again, @Iconoclast

All @agedman and I want is the best for you. We understand where you ate because we both once stood where you mow stand. I don't know about @agedman but I strongly defended Penal Substitution Theory. I was also a Calvinist.

But there came a point in my walk with Christ where I was able to set aside my own understanding and simply trust God.

Recognizing Penal Substitution Theory as a false doctrine is the easy part (it is just a matter of trusting in God's Word....in "what is written").

The more difficult part is having patience, trusting God. Study, pray, and trust God. Don't add to the Bible.

 

[Iconoclast]

I. The principal work of the Lord Christ as our high priest, and from which all other actings of his in that office do flow, was to make reconciliation or atonement for sin.

This John declares, 1 Epist. 2:1, 2, "We have an advocate with the Father, … and he is the propitiation for our sins."

What he doth for us in heaven as our advocate, depends on what he did on earth when he was a propitiation for our sins. This work was that which was principally regarded in the first promise, Gen. 3:15, namely, that which he was to do by his sufferings. To shadow out and represent this unto the church of old, were all the sacrifices of the law and the typical priesthood itself instituted.

 

[Iconoclast]

"JonC,

I am suggesting that John Owen did not die for our sins.[/QUOTE

Did anyone say he did?
Did I say that he did?
Did any Calvinist say he did?

John Owen is not our authority.

No one said he was. Owen himself made no such claim.
Again....you make a monster straw man

John Owen was a fallible man. And yes, there are areas where John Owen relied on his tradition over Scripture.

No one said otherwise. Who are you to judge another mans servant?
You defended the error of Andy Stanley saying that, and go after Owen,

Would you suggest John Wesley did not rely on God's Word in every area?

What about Augustine - who rejected the idea that Christ's death appeased God - did he rely on Hod's Word?

What about Justin Martyr? Did he rely on God's Word even though his view of the Cross contradicts your own?

These are people I do not find reliable so I hardly read any of their ideas.
I stick with proven persons who see what I see, but say it better than I can

There are issues of interpretation. But those are interpretations of Scripture. You are adding to Scripture what is not in its text.

The issue is not adding to scripture, but this;
8 So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading.

That is why it is impossible for your tradition to pass the test of Scripture.

Your denial is noted. I think we have scripture examined and refined. I think you offer an outward appearance that you are offering just the husk, not the corn.

 

[Iconoclast]

JonC,

All [B]@agedman[/B] and I want is the best for you[/QUOTE].

That sounds nice, and I and all the others can say that to you.
I formally release you from any sense of obligation of offering your idea of help.

We understand where you ate because we both once stood where you mow stand. I don't know about @agedman but I strongly defended Penal Substitution Theory. I was also a Calvinist.

You of course can post anything and claim this, however I doubt both your claims, so it does weigh in on the scale at all.I think you believe what you say, but I do not.

But there came a point in my walk with Christ where I was able to set aside my own understanding and simply trust God.

Your subjective statement does not mean a thing to me as I have my own thoughts on these statements.
There is no need for me to post those, as you are not the topic of this post.

Recognizing Penal Substitution Theory as a false doctrine is the easy part (it is just a matter of trusting in God's Word....in "what is written").

I see what you post as false doctrine on many levels.

 

[JonC]

@Iconoclast

Another interesting thing about putting John Owen on such a pedestal that you shy away from considering he may not have understood Scrioture on some points is Owen's belief and defense of infant baptism.

Do you believe Owen correctly understood Scripture when he said it teaches infant baptism for the children of saved parents?

Or fo you believe Owen misunderstood Scripture and interpreted it according to his Reformed tradition?


note:

I actually like reading Owen. Eat the meat and spit out the bones.

Same with your theory. I take the parts that are Scripture and spiritual out the parts that you add.

 

[JonC]

"JonC,

I understand you see what I post as false doctrine. I once stood in your shoes.

The irony is I posted Scripture while denying what you feel Scripture "teaches" when "properly understood".

John Owen saw Scripture as teaching infant baptism. Do you agree with Owen or was he reading Reformed tradition into Scripture?



Stop following men. Follow God. Rely not on men but on every word written in the Scriptures. Lean not on your own understanding but on God's Word.

 

[Iconoclast]

I understand you see what I post as false doctrine. I once stood in your shoes.

The irony is I posted Scripture while denying what you feel Scripture "teaches" when "properly understood".

John Owen saw Scripture as teaching infant baptism. Do you agree with Owen or was he reading Reformed tradition into Scripture?



Stop following men. Follow God. Rely not on men but on every word written in the Scriptures. Lean not on your own understanding but on God's Word.

Another sanctimonious insult. No thanks JonC, I have both ,thanks...if I need your input I will ask for it, thanks, but no thanks.

 

[Iconoclast]

I like some things Luther wrote, but am not a Lutheran,
Liked some Calvin, but am not a Presbyterian,
Liked J.C. Ryle, Sinclair Ferguson, John Murray, Spurgeon, Pink,
I use trusted guides .....but not as you portray it with insulting language,