It is Finished

[JonC]

I am going to try this again being very careful of my verbiage here:

Romans 8:3-4 - For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

1. First thing we see here is the inadequacy of the law and its inability to make anyone "righteous." The only thing the law could for a sinful person was reveal the fact that they were a lawbreaker. Paul makes the case throughout his epistle to the Romans that this is the very reason for the law

I agree.

2. In order to remedy this, God sent his Son in the LIKENESS of sinful flesh. Christ was the righteous lamb, born without the curse of Adam, fulfilled the law perfectly. Christ was blameless, spotless, etc.

I disagree. I do not believe the New Covenant is a remedy for the Old Covenant.

While the Law served to show the Isralites their sin (and we can certainly us it that way) sin itself existed and reigned even to those who did not fall under the Law (people from Adam to Moses and Gentiles).

Sin existed apart from the Law. I view God sending His Son to demonstrate His righteousness apart from the Law. The weakness was not the Law but the flesh.

I also disagree that Christ was born without the curse of Adam. Instead I believe He came under this curse, was made to be sin for us. The title He most often used was the Son of Man (Son of Adam). But He is without sin. This was our curse and our sin laid on Him.

3. In the likeness of sinful flesh, God made Jesus to be SIN FOR US (2 Cor 5:21). In other words, Jesus took upon himself that which DID NOT BELONG to him.

4. And for sin (what sin? Our sin!), CONDEMNEDsin in the flesh.
The underlying Greek word here is κατακρίνω (katakrino) (V-AIA-3S which according to the Thayer's Greek lexicon means "To give judgment against, to judge worthy of punishment, to condemn, condemn to death."

I agree.

5. For what reason was sin condemned in the flesh? That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us! Christ fulfilled the law on our behalf, took upon himself our sin, bore the penalty for this sin, that we might be found righteous in him!

I agree. It was "that we might become the righteousness of God".

I would say that second only to 2 Cor 5:21, this is perhaps the most clear, concise explanation of a substitutionary atonement one could find in the scriptures!

I agree. But substitutionary atonement is not PSA (penal substitution is a type of substitution). This is where I believe we will strongly disagree as I believe this was representative substitution (Jesus a representative of man, or the "Son of Man", a "second Adam" so to speak).

Faith in what? Paul said to the Philippian Jailor "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved." To what did he believe? Should be clear that he believed upon what Christ has done (tetelestai)

I agree.

I guess we could argue over semantics whether God actually "punished" Jesus for our sins but what exactly does "katakrino" mean here? What exactly happens to someone who has been condemned?

I disagree that the issue here is the word katakrino. It could mean discipline, chastisement, chastising, punishment, a penalty. I am not concerned which word is chosen because we see it exercized on the cross (we see it in Christ's suffering and death).

But here is where we disagree more. Who held the power of death? Satan. The argument goes to God holding the power over Satan (God used Satan to punish Christ), but Scripture does not go there.

We are talking about death, which is produced by sin as a penalty (an undesirable "wage") and which is a power of darkness under the power of him who holds the power of death, that is the devil.

It is appointed man once to die and then the judgment. It seems to me you may be combining the two (viewing Christ's death our sin produced as a power of Satan with God's judgment which comes after death).


So we do agree on a lot. I think this is natural because we have the same Scriptures.

What I disagree with are those things that are unique to PSA (the ideas that make PSA a distinct atonement theory, different from what all theories hold in common).

 

[Martin Marprelate]

No. They do not translate the word pay.

I did not say that they translate the word pay. What I have said is that they all (without exception SFAIK) translate the Greek word teleite in Romans 13:6 as 'pay,' because that it what it means. They also all translate telei (singular) as 'pay' in Matthew 17:24 because that is what it means. The context usually determines the meaning of a word rather than its etymology
I shall not make any further posts on this thread as I think you are becoming overwrought. However, I do have one more important point to make, so when I have time I will open a new thread.

 

[JonC]

@Armchair Apologist

What may help explore our differences is to look at those things that make PSA different.

By this I do not mean the differences themselves but the reasons for the differences.

For example, why view Christ's death as God's judgment?

Why view Christ as not bring born under the curse of man?

Why view Christ's death itself as the point where our sins are forgiven?

Why view God as unable to forgive sin itself?
Why center the atonement on justice?

Why is the judicial philosophy upon which PSA is based divine justice and how is it just?

How can justice be accomplished by punishing the just?

How can justice be accomplished if the guilty are cleared?

How can punishing Jesus for sins clear the guilty?


Those are just several questions (there are many more) that may be more productive because they are unique to that theory of atonement.



Another issue - and don't get me wrong here, I do not think antiquity equates to validity - is that PSA iss a relatively new theory of atonement.

I do not mean elements of PSA. These are shared by all believers. I mean PSA as this fully articulated theory of Atonement. This occurred in the 16th century.

While this fact does not by any means make PSA wrong, it does cause suspicion. This is primarily because of how PSA is held by many as central to the faith. It means that 1500 years of Christian doctrine missed the main and central point of the gospel.

Again... I am not talking about elements or "PSA in embryo". I am talking about the full theory, what separates it from other views. It is a relatively new form of Christianity just as Anselm's theory when it was introduced.

One explanation often given is theological development. But this could also be moving further away (we cannot assume one or another). We have Calvin's writings explaining how he reasoned out the theory. Maybe it would be good to take a look at how PSA actually came to be - look at their assumptions and see if they were correct or if they were viewing Scripture through a lens of their own worldview.

Again....NOT elements of PSA but the full theory as articulated today.

 

[JonC]

I did not say that they translate the word pay. What I have said is that they all (without exception SFAIK) translate the Greek word teleite in Romans 13:6 as 'pay,' because that it what it means. They also all translate telei (singular) as 'pay' in Matthew 17:24 because that is what it means. The context usually determines the meaning of a word rather than its etymology
I shall not make any further posts on this thread as I think you are becoming overwrought. However, I do have one more important point to make, so when I have time I will open a new thread.

Yes. But why? Because the word itself or because what was fulfilled is the debt?

It is not the word that means "pay" but the fact that what is fulfilled is a tax debt. It is the context.

For example, let's use English.

Does "fulfill" mean "pay". Look it up in a dictionary.

to put into effect
to meet the requirements of
to measure up to : satisfy
to bring to an end

No. "fulfill" does NOT mean "pay".

BUT... what does "fulfill" in "fulfill a financial debt" mean?

Debt fulfillment refers to the debtor's obligation to perform and deliver the agreed-upon obligation to the creditor .

"Fulfill" in context of "fulfill a financial debt" means a "payment".


The context determines the meaning. But it does not define the word itself.


The meaning depends on what is being fulfilled or completed in the context where the word appears. That does not change the definition of the word.

 

[John of Japan]

Another note you missed: in John 19:30, the form is the perfect tense: Τετέλεσται. The Greek perfect tense indicates an action accomplished with permanent results. So Jesus was saying the atonement has been finished forever, very obviously. I can't think of any other reason He would have said "Accomplished forever" at such a time. And yes, it could be legitimately translated "Paid forever," since Jesus does not say a direct object to the verb. though I would not translate it that way.

I have to correct my own grammar. Τετέλεσται is actually a passive, so there would be no direct object. However, there is no stated nominative noun (subject), so Christ's statement is ambiguous. This does not affect my interpretation. A translator may render whatever subject in English he or she believes fits the context, or just leave it at "It...," the most literal rendering. So, "It is paid" or "It is finished." Either way," once must interpret what is paid or finished, since that is not in the text.

 

[JonC]

A translator may render whatever subject in English he or she believes fits the context, or just leave it at "It...," the most literal rendering.

To make sure I understand correctly (hint...I probably don't):

If the translator is a Calvinist and views Christ's death as paying a sin debt then you would find it appropriate for him to translate it "the debt is paid".

If the translator believes verse 28-29 dictates the "it" in verse 30 then it would be appropriate to translate the words as "Scripture is fulfilled".

If the belief is Christ was speaking of His physical suffering then "the suffering is complete".


But since the "it" is ambiguous in the verse itself (if verse 30 is not connected to verses 28-29 in subject) the most literal translation would be to leave the words ambiguous.


If I understand you correctly (a big "if"...you know how I am) then I agree.


I prefer translations to leave ambiguity in the translation when ambiguity is in the source text.

I understand the desire to clarify, but it seems that clarifying can lead to error (I am assuming the translators are normal people who suffer in this lifetime from the condition of being human and fallible).

 

[Martin Marprelate]

To make sure I understand correctly (hint...I probably don't):

If the translator is a Calvinist and views Christ's death as paying a sin debt then you would find it appropriate for him to translate it "the debt is paid".

If the translator believes verse 28-29 dictates the "it" in verse 30 then it would be appropriate to translate the words as "Scripture is fulfilled".

If the belief is Christ was speaking of His physical suffering then "the suffering is complete".


But since the "it" is ambiguous in the verse itself (if verse 30 is not connected to verses 28-29 in subject) the most literal translation would be to leave the words ambiguous.


If I understand you correctly (a big "if"...you know how I am) then I agree.


I prefer translations to leave ambiguity in the translation when ambiguity is in the source text.

I understand the desire to clarify, but it seems that clarifying can lead to error (I am assuming the translators are normal people who suffer in this lifetime from the condition of being human and fallible).

Look back at post #24. @John of Japan said that teleo and its derivitives were 'polysemous.' I agree with him. The context must decide the meaning in such cases, as it does in the verses under discussion. To translate Matthew 17:24 as "Does your Teacher not fulfil the temple tax?" is at the best, unclear. Peter was being asked if our Lord paid it.
Please don't ask me any further questions. I am very busy at present.

 

[John of Japan]

To make sure I understand correctly (hint...I probably don't):

If the translator is a Calvinist and views Christ's death as paying a sin debt then you would find it appropriate for him to translate it "the debt is paid".

I have absolutely no desire to get into the Cal/Arm debates.

If the translator believes verse 28-29 dictates the "it" in verse 30 then it would be appropriate to translate the words as "Scripture is fulfilled".

That would be paraphrase, so no.

If the belief is Christ was speaking of His physical suffering then "the suffering is complete".

Nobody does that. There is no contextual basis for it.

But since the "it" is ambiguous in the verse itself (if verse 30 is not connected to verses 28-29 in subject) the most literal translation would be to leave the words ambiguous.

Yes, "It is finished."

If I understand you correctly (a big "if"...you know how I am) then I agree.


I prefer translations to leave ambiguity in the translation when ambiguity is in the source text.

That is required in Optimal Equivalence, which I follow.

I understand the desire to clarify, but it seems that clarifying can lead to error (I am assuming the translators are normal people who suffer in this lifetime from the condition of being human and fallible).

If by "clarify" you are talking about translation, I teach in my translation classes that we should avoid that, since it so easily veers into paraphrase.

 

[JonC]

Look back at post #24. @John of Japan said that teleo and its derivitives were 'polysemous.' I agree with him. The context must decide the meaning in such cases, as it does in the verses under discussion. To translate Matthew 17:24 as "Does your Teacher not fulfil the temple tax?" is at the best, unclear. Peter was being asked if our Lord paid it.
Please don't ask me any further questions. I am very busy at present.

I do not see how "does your teacher not fulfill the temple tax" can be unclear. Fulfilling an obligation, if it is a tax requiring payment, means to pay the tax.

My point is the context dictates how we would interpret the word.

In the Army I completed many missions. I would never say "Hey, guys, I paid the mission".

But having been alive for 57 years I have also fulfilled my tax obligation. I paid my taxes.


My point? The word alone (divorced from the tax) does not mean "pay". It is the association with "tax" that gives it that meaning as it is the tax that is fulfilled.


If the verses prior to "it is finished" mentioned a debt that needed to be paid, like a tax, then I would agree with you.

If verse 28 said "in order that our debt be paid" then verse 30 could be rightly rendered "it is paid".

But this is the context:

After this, Jesus, knowing that all things had already been accomplished, in order that the Scripture would be fulfilled, said, “I am thirsty.” A jar full of sour wine was standing there; so they put a sponge full of the sour wine on a branch of hyssop and brought it up to His mouth. Therefore when Jesus had received the sour wine, He said, “It is finished!” And He bowed His head and gave up His spirit.

1. Jesus, knowing all things had already been a accomplished

2. in order that the Scripture would be fulfilled (see Psalm 69:21)

3. said, “I am thirsty.”

4. A jar full of sour wine was standing there; so they put a sponge full of the sour wine on a branch of hyssop and brought it up to His mouth.

5. Therefore when Jesus had received the sour wine, He said, “It is finished!”



Now, from John 28-30 why did Jesus say He was thirsty?

In order that Scripture would be fulfilled

They gave Him the sour wine.

This did what? It fulfilled Scripture.

Then Jesus said "It is finished (or fulfilled)".


There is no mention of a debt in the entire passage. There is no mention of "making atonement". There is mention earlier of Christ giving Himself as an atoning sacrifice, and as a lamb led to the slaughter He obediently went to the cross.


My claim is that context matters. It is also that the OT establishes an image of both the atoning sacrifice being offered AND the atonement being made.

 

[JonC]

I have absolutely no desire to get into the Cal/Arm debates.

That would be paraphrase, so no.

Nobody does that. There is no contextual basis for it.

Yes, "It is finished."

That is required in Optimal Equivalence, which I follow.

If by "clarify" you are talking about translation, I teach in my translation classes that we should avoid that, since it so easily veers into paraphrase.

People have and do view "it is finished" as meaning the suffering. I do not.

I agree that "Scripture is fulfilled" would be a paraphrase. It is identifying the "it" with what had just been said (so that Scrioture woukd be fulfilled). I view this as the correct meaning given the context, but would not change the word to make that clarification.

That said, do you know of any insyance where Τετέλεσται means "paid" without being in the context of a debt or demand for payment? I don't.

Actually, I do not know of an instance where Τετέλεσται means "paid". But if there are any it seems the context would dictate some type of a debt.


In English I can say I fulfill my debts. This means I pay my debts. In that context "fulfill" means "pay".

But I am not sure that we can say "fulfill" means "pay"apart from that context.

I would argue that "it is paid" is a paraphrase because it makes an assumption that - regardless of its accuracy - is not in the text.

The only reason to render Τετέλεσται as "paid" is to remove any ambiguity that is in the actual text so as to exclude other interpretations that is just as, perhaps more, faithful to the passage as a whole.

 

[John of Japan]

People have and do view "it is finished" as meaning the suffering. I do not.

I don't believe it is the suffering, but the atonement.

I agree that "Scripture is fulfilled" would be a paraphrase. It is identifying the "it" with what had just been said (so that Scrioture woukd be fulfilled). I view this as the correct meaning given the context, but would not change the word to make that clarification.

That said, do you know of any insyance where Τετέλεσται means "paid" without being in the context of a debt or demand for payment? I don't.

Actually, I do not know of an instance where Τετέλεσται means "paid". But if there are any it seems the context would dictate some type of a debt.


In English I can say I fulfill my debts. This means I pay my debts. In that context "fulfill" means "pay".

But I am not sure that we can say "fulfill" means "pay"apart from that context.

Everything must be according to context, but there is not enough context to be adamant of the meaning of "It."

I would argue that "it is paid" is a paraphrase because it makes an assumption that - regardless of its accuracy - is not in the text.

The only reason to render Τετέλεσται as "paid" is to remove any ambiguity that is in the actual text so as to exclude other interpretations that is just as, perhaps more, faithful to the passage as a whole.

You don't know the Greek, do you? So don't speak authoritatively about it, please, as in "The only reason...."

 

[JonC]

I don't believe it is the suffering, but the atonement.

Everything must be according to context, but there is not enough context to be adamant of the meaning of "It."

You don't know the Greek, do you? So don't speak authoritatively about it, please, as in "The only reason...."

I also do not believe it is the suffering. But I also do not believe it is the atonement (both would be paraphrase, though).

I disagree about there not being enough context, as I think the verses 28-29 provide enough context for verse 30. But that is my subjective opinion.

I do not know the Greek you reference. I know a few but not many.

As far as the Greek language, I do know the Greek but not as well as you (and I am sure you not as well as others). I only studied the language for 2 years as a grad student....not enough to be proficient.

That is why I was asking you of instances where Τετέλεσται is used for paying a debt.

I am, however, more proficient in theology than Greek or German (I studied Spanish in High School but do not count that). Languages ain't my thing.

My comment was not about Greek or really even translations. It was more about the problem some have with reading theology into words.

For example, at what point is atonement made? Biblically it is not with the shedding of blood, the acceptance of the atoning sacrifice. But it seems we have created a type of shorthand in our speech that has led to shortcuts in out theology.

My point is that it would be very odd, given what is said of "making atonement" in the Bible if Jesus' words meant that the atonement was finished.

It seems more likely that Christ's work as an atoning sacrifice was finished. Obviously there is a distinct and important difference between the atoning sacrifice, the shedding of blood, and making of atonement.

 

[John of Japan]

I also do not believe it is the suffering. But I also do not believe it is the atonement (both would be paraphrase, though).

I disagree about there not being enough context, as I think the verses 28-29 provide enough context for verse 30. But that is my subjective opinion.

I do not know the Greek you reference. I know a few but not many.

As far as the Greek language, I do know the Greek but not as well as you (and I am sure you not as well as others). I only studied the language for 2 years as a grad student....not enough to be proficient.

That is why I was asking you of instances where Τετέλεσται is used for paying a debt.

I am, however, more proficient in theology than Greek or German (I studied Spanish in High School but do not count that). Languages ain't my thing.

My comment was not about Greek or really even translations. It was more about the problem some have with reading theology into words.

For example, at what point is atonement made? Biblically it is not with the shedding of blood, the acceptance of the atoning sacrifice. But it seems we have created a type of shorthand in our speech that has led to shortcuts in out theology.

My point is that it would be very odd, given what is said of "making atonement" in the Bible if Jesus' words meant that the atonement was finished.

It seems more likely that Christ's work as an atoning sacrifice was finished. Obviously there is a distinct and important difference between the atoning sacrifice, the shedding of blood, and making of atonement.

You apparently want me to join your many discussions about the atonement--or whatever. I have no interest in doing that at all. I've had my say here, so I'll move on.

 

[JonC]

You apparently want me to join your many discussions about the atonement--or whatever. I have no interest in doing that at all. I've had my say here, so I'll move on.

No, I don't. You are assuming.

You "puffed up" when I observed that your conclusion of what "it" meant is what you bring into the verse. I wss not saying that you would mistranslate the word (I believe that, to the best of your ability, you would be faithful to the text in any translation).

What I had asked you about was the word Τετέλεσται. I was asking if you knew of any instance where Τετέλεσται is used to speak of paying a debt. With the documents that are avaliable, especially dealing with taxes (Temple tax, Roman tax, tributes paid to the Seleucid Empire, etc.) I assumed you ran across Τετέλεσται being used to state a payment was made in full.

I said that I have not seen the word used in such a way, and to my knowledge it never was. But my experience is very limited (it is limited to the Bible and some Greek secular writings).

I studied Greek for only two years when I was in seminary. My focus was theology, especially historical theology, rather than language.

So I was asking an honest question. I took your response to be that having only a couple years of graduate level Greek (not enough to matter much, by my own admission) I do not have the right to know if Τετέλεσται has ever been used in the Greek language to mean "paid in full" and should just accept your authority.


I get that to a degree. Bible translators who are experts in ancient languages are rarely experts in theology. Theologians are rarely expert historians. Each discipline relies on another to a great degree. (I am not calling myself an expert, 6 yrs of theological education is nothing if the end result is to be a theologian.... just trying to stop another assumption I see coming).

But I do not believe a biblical linguist would merely accept a doctrine based on the authority of a theologian.

So I do not believe my question is out of line. Even if I had never studied Greek (if the language was Greek to me) I think it was a reasonable question to ask.

Are there any instances where Τετέλεσται is used to mean "paid in full"?

 

[37818]

I disagree. I do not believe the New Covenant is a remedy for the Old Covenant.

Hebrews 8:8-12, For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest. For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.

 

[JonC]

Hebrews 8:8-12, For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest. For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.

Thanks. I did not think about posting that passage. But yes, this is what I mean by the New Covenant is not a remedy for the Old Covenant.

The Old Covenant was perfect. The weakness was man. The New Covenant is the remedy for the problem of man.

 

[37818]

Hebrews 8:8-12, For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest. For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.

The Old Covenant was perfect. The weakness was man. The New Covenant is the remedy for the problem of man.

Hebrews 8:13, In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

 

[Armchair Apologist]

@Armchair Apologist

What may help explore our differences is to look at those things that make PSA different.

By this I do not mean the differences themselves but the reasons for the differences.

For example, why view Christ's death as God's judgment?

Why view Christ as not bring born under the curse of man?

Why view Christ's death itself as the point where our sins are forgiven?

Why view God as unable to forgive sin itself?
Why center the atonement on justice?

Why is the judicial philosophy upon which PSA is based divine justice and how is it just?

How can justice be accomplished by punishing the just?

How can justice be accomplished if the guilty are cleared?

How can punishing Jesus for sins clear the guilty?


Those are just several questions (there are many more) that may be more productive because they are unique to that theory of atonement.

Another issue - and don't get me wrong here, I do not think antiquity equates to validity - is that PSA iss a relatively new theory of atonement.

I do not mean elements of PSA. These are shared by all believers. I mean PSA as this fully articulated theory of Atonement. This occurred in the 16th century.

While this fact does not by any means make PSA wrong, it does cause suspicion. This is primarily because of how PSA is held by many as central to the faith. It means that 1500 years of Christian doctrine missed the main and central point of the gospel.

Again... I am not talking about elements or "PSA in embryo". I am talking about the full theory, what separates it from other views. It is a relatively new form of Christianity just as Anselm's theory when it was introduced.

One explanation often given is theological development. But this could also be moving further away (we cannot assume one or another). We have Calvin's writings explaining how he reasoned out the theory. Maybe it would be good to take a look at how PSA actually came to be - look at their assumptions and see if they were correct or if they were viewing Scripture through a lens of their own worldview.

Again....NOT elements of PSA but the full theory as articulated today.

What I am learning is that if we both stick to the scriptures, we actually agree more than we disagree. In order to address PSA in a more fair and academic sense, I would need to do better research to fully understand the position as articulated by Calvin and others and from there, evaluate everything in light of the scriptures. This would take some time and effort of which both are a precious commodity these days.

I would make the assertion that every so-called "Theory" has its limitations and none perfectly reflect the entirety of what the atonement is all about. Perhaps there is some flawed logic regarding some of the judicial aspects of PSA?

What I am saying is that I need to be more certain of what it is I am either defending or refuting or whether either is a productive use of my time.

 

[JonC]

Hebrews 8:13, In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

Amen!

 

[JonC]

What I am learning is that if we both stick to the scriptures, we actually agree more than we disagree. In order to address PSA in a more fair and academic sense, I would need to do better research to fully understand the position as articulated by Calvin and others and from there, evaluate everything in light of the scriptures. This would take some time and effort of which both are a precious commodity these days.

I would make the assertion that every so-called "Theory" has its limitations and none perfectly reflect the entirety of what the atonement is all about. Perhaps there is some flawed logic regarding some of the judicial aspects of PSA?

What I am saying is that I need to be more certain of what it is I am either defending or refuting or whether either is a productive use of my time.

I believe we would agree 99% of the time when it comes to Scripture. There are differences in interpretation but we both have the same Word of God at our fingertips.

My view is not that there are flawed judicial aspects of PSA but that the judicial philosophy it uses to build its doctrine itself is flawed. This is subjective, until it comes to the actual biblical text, because others may look at the philosophy and think it is perfect.

In terms of Scripture I have several concerns with PSA. I will name a few:

1. In the Old Testament Israel had a faith in the faithfulness of God. The prophets trusted the faithfulness of God. In Psalm 22 the Servant points to their faith and God's faithfulness as His own.

This can be summarized in God never punishing the just and never clearing the guilty. Scripture even states this. Israel trusted that God would not clear the guilt of their enemies when they arise against Israel, even in battles lost. They trusted that God would justify them if they were just. The prophets who were forsaken to suffer - and even died - looked to God because they knew their suffering was not punishment and somehow He would deliver them and punish the wicked. Job insisted His suffeting was not punishment from God because He had not done wrong. Jesus was forsaken to suffer and had this same faith, tevounting God's faithfulness to the forefathet's in Psalm 22.

But it really sounds like many who hold PSA believe that God punished Jesus in order to clear the guilty (a double heresy).

2. Scripture is full of promises that God will forgive sins. PSA has a twist on this. They hold it is impossible for God to literally forgive sins so He punishes sins on Christ so that the sinner is not punished.

3. In the Old Testament the priest made atonement for the sins of the people. The sacrifice of atonement was a matter of obedience. But the sacrifice of atonement - the shedding of blood- was not the "making of atonement".

Likewise, in the New Testament Christ gives Himself in obedience as an atoning sacrifice. God sets Him forth as a propitiation through His blood to be received by faith.

4. In the Old Testament atonement is not escaping the punishment for sins. It is a cleansing from sin.

This is shown to the fullest in the New Testament as it is Christ's blood that cleanses from all unrighteousness. Not a debt paid but an actual cleansing. The Bible even says this makes one new, the old goes away, the new comes, the believer is made a new creation. All of the New Testament language points to this atonement- this reconciliation- as being a true change in being.


Anyway, I look forward to continuing our discussion.