The Biblical Basis for Penal Substitution, part 2

[JonC]

It was dismissing you.

No. You need to speak plainly.

These are not "new" arguments. One of the oldest arguments against PSA is their mishandling of the OT (specifically the Passover and Levitical sacrifices) in order to make a "scripture" in their own image.


You were dismissing my statement that God's words themselves are applicable to the atonement.

My claims were as follows:

1. The OT sacrifice was to be a "gift" of obedience from the Isralites to God.

2. The elders "shed the blood", killed the sacrifice.

3. The priest took that blood and applied it to the altar (sprinkled the blood on the altar and poured what remained at the base).

4. Scripture calls what the priest did as "making atonement for the people".

5. The applied blood "cleansed" or "purified" the people of sins (as opposed to appeasing God's wrath).

6. In regard to the Passover God said when He sees the blood applied to the door post and above the door He would keep the destroyer from entering the house.

7. In regard to cleansing the Tabernacle and Temple entrance the priest applied the blood of a sacrifice he had not slain.

8. Christ's blood cleanses us from all unrighteousness.


I did not write those passages. If you believe we should ignore all of that because it does not support an atonement being made by the killing of sacrifices then make that argument.

But do not mock God because you fear making an argument. Be a man, not a child. Explain your own reasons for dismissing those passages.

1. Stop mocking God.
2. Stop acting as a child. "Man up".
3. Explain why those passages should be dismissed or do not apply to the atonement.

 

[DaveXR650]

1. Stop mocking God.

I'd rethink that. You are taking Socinian arguments on many of your points and it is you who are in grave danger.
The idea that we are naturally under the wrath of God and require satisfaction is considered the marrow of the gospel - and specifically this refers to the necessity of satisfaction by the surety Jesus Christ. These Old Testament rituals point to this, and the very nature of them, as bloody, and involving the death of the sacrifice point to appeasement of wrath and bearing of sin as part of the whole. You try everything to redirect and obscure this.
Look at point #5. Who but you would deliberately try to obscure appeasing God's wrath, in light of all that we have gone over regarding God's wrath, and the very nature of these sacrifices, not to mention the death of Christ, later. Then you will try to side step and say that somehow, the idea that the blood cleansed or purified the people of sins must (I don't know why) but must mean that our actual guilt, or God's actual wrath is therefore off limits now that it was expressed here in this way.

6. In regard to the Passover God said when He sees the blood applied to the door post and above the door He would keep the destroyer from entering the house.

Why was the destroyer entering houses? It was a judgement that was intended for the Egyptians who had provoked God by repeated sin - and the Israelites were able to avoid the wrath being poured out upon them by applying blood - from a slain lamb. The reference did not seem to escape John the Baptist but he never had a chance to sit at your feet.

7. In regard to cleansing the Tabernacle and Temple entrance the priest applied the blood of a sacrifice he had not slain.

There you are again, throwing up a distinction that is out of nowhere and didn't need to be made for any reason.

8. Christ's blood cleanses us from all unrighteousness.

This is indeed what it gets down to. And this is what you repeatedly do. You are 90% already in the Socinian camp, which is an apostate camp. So after attacking satisfaction as a necessity for all of us to avoid the wrath of God and punishment for sin - which is in reality what Christ had to do and is the core of the gospel, you tack this on at the end, with no explanation (because you have just spent all your posts trying to refute it with Socinian arguments that if God wants to forgive sin he can) but you are smart enough to know that without adding this on you are indeed moving outside the faith. Now don't get all huffy when I say that. You have just accused me of blasphemy.

 

[JonC]

I'd rethink that. You are taking Socinian arguments on many of your points and it is you who are in grave danger.

I see your misunderstanding. So let's look at your claim.

I said -

8. Christ's blood cleanses us from all unrighteousness.

You addressed that specific point -

This is indeed what it gets down to. And this is what you repeatedly do. You are 90% already in the Socinian camp, which is an apostate camp.

BUT the Socinian camp does not view Christ blood as cleansing us from all unrighteousness. They view this as an illustration with the Atonement as Christ - who they believe to be just a human prophet - as providing us a perfect moral example through which we essentially redeem ourselves.

I can also defend my claim.

This is where I get the belief you view as heresy - that Christ's blood vleanses us ftom all unrighteousness:

"But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin".

This is where I get the idea that God saw the blood applied to the door posts and preserved the lives of those in that home:

"When the Lord goes through the land to strike down the Egyptians, he will see the blood on the top and sides of the doorframe and will pass over that doorway, and he will not permit the destroyer to enter your houses and strike you down."

This is where I get the idea that the priest applied the blood to the altar to make atonement for the people:

"The elders of the community are to lay their hands on the bull’s head before the Lord, and the bull shall be slaughtered before the Lord. Then the anointed priest is to take some of the bull’s blood into the tent of meeting. He shall dip his finger into the blood and sprinkle it before the Lord seven times in front of the curtain. He is to put some of the blood on the horns of the altar that is before the Lord in the tent of meeting. The rest of the blood he shall pour out at the base of the altar of burnt offering at the entrance to the tent of meeting"


You need to act like a man rather than a child. It is far past time that you show some maturity on these boards.

This means you need to stop baseless claims of "heresy".

If I wanted to be childish I would point out that your understanding of the Atonement is the Mormon understanding. But I know you do not hold to Mormonism do that would just be a childish insult (like you have been doing).


So "man up". Reason like an adult.

I provided several passages that equates the atonement in the OT sacrifice as a cleansing by the application of blood by the priest on behalf of the people.

I provided God specifically speaking of death passing over the home when He sees the blood applied to the door posts.

I provided a passage (actually two) stating that Christ's blood cleanses us from unrighteousness.

I believe the OT sacrifices and the Passover foreshadow the Atonement. So these are important to me, even if you dismiss them as irrelevant.


You have provided no passage equating the killing of an animal in the OT with a punishment on their behalf to appease God's wrath.

Stop with the childish insults. Defend your theories like an adult. Go to God's words.

 

[JonC]

Thread is closed as a member questioned the salvation of another (me).

For future references, this is not allowed on the BB.

No ban was issued because they were ignorant of the meaning of the insult. But next time this will result in a ban.