Atonement

[The Biblicist]

The book of Leviticus is God's divine law concerning the atonement and if there is one thing that is unmistakably clear is that the book of Leviticus, and thus the atonement is rooted in God's holiness as the beginning point for atonement rather than in the love of God. I am not saying the love of God is not included but it is not the beginning point provided in Leviticus which is God's divine law that establishes the doctrine of atonement.

Le 11:44 For I am the LORD your God: ye shall therefore sanctify yourselves, and ye shall be holy; for I am holy: neither shall ye defile yourselves with any manner of creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

Le 11:45 For I am the LORD that bringeth you up out of the land of Egypt, to be your God: ye shall therefore be holy, for I am holy.

Le 19:2 Speak unto all the congregation of the children of Israel, and say unto them, Ye shall be holy: for I the LORD your God am holy.

Le 20:7 Sanctify yourselves therefore, and be ye holy: for I am the LORD your God.

Le 20:26 And ye shall be holy unto me: for I the LORD am holy, and have severed you from other people, that ye should be mine.

The Priesthood and the temple was not primarily designed to teach the love of God but the holiness of God:

Lev. 10:10 And that ye may put difference between holy and unholy, and between unclean and clean;
11 And that ye may teach the children of Israel all the statutes which the LORD hath spoken unto them by the hand of Moses.

 

[The Biblicist]

Psa. 22: 1 My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? why art thou so far from helping me, and from the words of my roaring?
2 O my God, I cry in the daytime, but thou hearest not; and in the night season, and am not silent.
3 But thou art holy, O thou that inhabitest the praises of Israel.

Jesus quoted Psalm 22:1 on the cross which was the divine altar for making atonement. The question is "why" and the answer is "But thou art holy". God's love is rooted in God's holiness not vice versa.

 

[percho]

Why would it be wrong, from what you all have posted, to see the following verse; Rom 8:20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; In the following context?

BTW creation, as speaking of the creation as complete in Gen 2:2,3 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.
Considering Romans 8:21 and Gal 4:3-5
because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.
Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world. But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born[fn] of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption as sons.

For the creation was, sold under sin, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected, in the Atonement.

And why would God do this? Because of the serpent, who has the power of the death, hanging out around that tree.

just and the justifier

 

[JonC]

Oh I am fully aware of what he believes. It makes no sense though, it does gymnastics to get around certain things, such as God's justice. The problem with @JonC is that he tries to define what is just when the only one who does that is God.

That is neither a true nor a fair statement. We hold different views, but that should not lead you to make such remarks. This is one reason I was so hesitant to engage my view when @Reformed made the suggestion. Sooner or later it devolves into accusation (I'm surprised it lasted this long, and actually that you were the one to "go there").

Sometimes people get defensive to the point they make false accusations as a "counter-attack" to what they see as threats to their view. I am not arguing against Penal Substitution Theory or any other theory of the atonement. My request here is that we be honest to the discussion at hand as dishonesty in conversation is neither a Christian trait or "iron sharpening iron". If you had something to offer regarding my view the falseness of this statement may have been a barrier to my receiving your observations in a Christian spirit. This is the problem that plagues online forums such as this (I used to point out I think for some these types of forums are pastor's "secrete sin"- they can mistreat other people with a certain degree of anonymity).

Justice points us to God Himself, and is defined by God's nature. The Law (and what we know of God's broader moral law) is a reflection of God's moral character. As such, a sin is a transgression of God's moral law. There are no gymnastics to perform - Scripture is very clear. When God's character demands one thing and we do something else, it is a sin. God is the standard, period.

As an example - God commanded men not to murder. Even if this was not commanded it would be a sin because it is in opposition to God (God is the moral standard).

 

[The Biblicist]

T

Justice points us to God Himself, and is defined by God's nature. The Law (and what we know of God's broader moral law) is a reflection of God's moral character...... Even if this was not commanded it would be a sin because it is in opposition to God (God is the moral standard).

Notice that you say justice points to God "Himself" or God's "nature" thus is a reflection of his "character" as "God is the moral standard." Why can't you say the very same thing with regard to man "being evil" as it points to man "himself" and his "nature" and is a reflection of his "character" and is his "moral standard"?????? Thus the "law of sin" refers to his fallen character, nature to himself.

Moreover, does not the "law" of God have the same relationship to God "himself" to his "nature" and is a reflection of his "character" and thus is a reflection of his "moral standard"????

 

[JonC]

Like, Romans 7:14-25 Romans 6 is also dealing with regenerate persons and not lost persons.

I believe all of Paul's epistle to the Christians in Rome was written with a regenerate audience in mind.

 

[loDebar]

Do we all agree atonement is complete in the finished work of Christ?

 

[JonC]

Notice that you say justice points to God "Himself" or God's "nature" thus is a reflection of his "character" as "God is the moral standard." Why can't you say the very same thing with regard to man "being evil" as it points to man "himself" and his "nature" and is a reflection of his "character" and is his "moral standard"?????? Hence, does not the "law" of God have the same relationship to God "himself" to his "nature" and is a reflection of his "character" and thus is a reflection of his "moral standard"????

It does. Otherwise men would not need to be "reborn". This is the purpose of regeneration. I am not denying this. I am saying that sin exceeds our sinfulness and our sinful acts.

I am not sure what you mean by the law of God having the same relationship to God himself to his nature. If you are asking if God's law is a reflection of God's nature, then yes. But if you are asking if God's nature is contained in the law, then I would say no.

I gave the example before of an apple and fruit. An apple is fruit and if you hold it in your hand you are holding fruit in your hand. BUT fruit is not an apple. Fruit is a much larger category than all types of apples combined.

 

[JonC]

Do we all agree atonement is complete in the finished work of Christ?

I can't speak for others, but I do.

 

[The Biblicist]

I believe all of Paul's epistle to the Christians in Rome was written with a regenerate audience in mind.

Stop being a politician. The immediate context is dealing with saved persons not lost persons.

 

[The Biblicist]

I am saying that sin exceeds our sinfulness and our sinful acts.

Sin never exceeds morality whether you speak of it as a spiritual state/condition or attitude or action as in all cases it is violation of God's character as revealed by God's law.

I gave the example before of an apple and fruit. An apple is fruit and if you hold it in your hand you are holding fruit in your hand. BUT fruit is not an apple. Fruit is a much larger category than all types of apples combined.

The apple is sin and fruit is morality and morality is a larger category than sin but sin never exceeds the boundaries of a moral issue whether it is a condition, law, attitude, action, because in all cases it violates God's character as revealed in God's law. Sin is a moral issue in all of its forms.

 

[loDebar]

you can be moral and still sin

 

[The Biblicist]

And why would God do this?

Gen. 3:17 .....cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;
18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;

Creation falls under the "curse" due to man's sin and is therefore a consequence of sin just as "death" is in all creation.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I am not saying that there are two Penal Substitution Theories.

The book deals primarily with "Penal Substitution Theory" which is described as one "form" of the "Latin view".

Since you now admit that there are not two Penal Substitution theories, do you admit that Packer and Dever are not dealing with two theories and can we now drop this nonsense?

Like @Reformed suggested, the book agrees that the penal and substitution elements were there (in Scripture) but it was not until the Reformation that these things were first studied in earnest.

I can agree that to an extent, but at least some of the ECFs were very much aware of what we now call the Doctrine of Penal Substitution, even if they didn't call it that. And although Anselm's Cur Deus Homo is flawed, it would be unfair to say that it is not an 'earnest study.'

 

[Reformed1689]

Justice points us to God Himself, and is defined by God's nature. The Law (and what we know of God's broader moral law) is a reflection of God's moral character. As such, a sin is a transgression of God's moral law. There are no gymnastics to perform - Scripture is very clear. When God's character demands one thing and we do something else, it is a sin. God is the standard, period.

Yes and God's nature is holiness first and foremost.

That is neither a true nor a fair statement.

That is your opinion, I disagree on both points.

Sooner or later it devolves into accusation (I'm surprised it lasted this long, and actually that you were the one to "go there").

I am not accusing. I am listing exactly what I have observed from you both in public conversation and our private conversation on this topic.

Sometimes people get defensive to the point they make false accusations as a "counter-attack" to what they see as threats to their view.

I don't see your position as a threat to my position. I see your position as false teaching and unbiblical.

 

[JonC]

Since you now admit that there are no two Penal Substitution theories, do you admit that Packer and Dever are not dealing with two theories and can we now drop this nonsense?
Like @Reformed suggested, the book agrees that the penal and substitution elements were there (in Scripture) but it was not until the Reformation that these things were first studied in earnest.
I can agree that to an extent, but at least some of the ECFs were very much aware of what we now call the Doctrine of Penal Substitution, even if they didn't call it that. And although Anselm's Cur Deus Homo is flawed, it would be unfair to say that it is not an 'earnest study.'

I have never introduced or encountered the idea of two Penal Substitution Theories. That is a very strange idea, and since I have no reference as to how you believe they would differ I can offer no comment. We give different theories different names so we can speak of them in short form. Is there a particular book you have in mind that teaches these two Penal Substitution Theories? How do they differ?

I also see Anselm's view (and treatment of the "Latin" theories) as flawed. But I do not recall him writing of two Penal Substitution Theories.

 

[Reformed]

I have never introduced or encountered the idea if two Penal Substitution Theories. That is a very strange udea, and since I have no reference as to how you believe they would differ I can offer no comment. Is there a particular book you have in mind that teaches these two Penal Substitution Theories? How do they differ?

I also see Anselm's view (and treatment of the "Latin" theories) as flawed. But I do not recall him soeaking of these two theories.

Jon, this thread has moved at hyper speed. Turn your head for a moment and you are fighting a losing battle to catch up.

The two Penal Substitution views came from something you posted in another thread a while back. I do not have the quote handy but you attributed Penal Substitution Theory to the Reformers and Penal Substitution to the ECF's (at least in some form). That gave the impression you saw two different Penal views. I think you corrected yourself recently and said there is only one Penal Substitution view, whether it is called Penal Substitution or Penal Substitution Theory.

BTW, one thing I have not seen in this thread is your scriptural warrant for your ransom theory of the atonement. You Said it was not Origen's. Can you take a moment to move on from the sin discussion and provide your exegetical proofs? Thank you.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

 

[Reformed1689]

The above statement is a false accusation. I stated that what is just is defined by God's moral law which is based on God's moral nature.

That has nothing to do with what I was talking about in my post. Therefore, it looks like you are the one making false accusations.

You are free to reject my view, but you are not free to prescribe for me a belief I do not hold so you can gossip (as the "lie" was given to another member).

Gossip? It was made in public, that is hardly behind your back. I meant for you to read it. Again, you are wrong. You do hold, based on conversations we have had, that it is against God's nature to turn his punishment on an innocent man in place of another. Yet, you have not shown proof of this.

If you reject what is moral or just as being based on the moral law and that an outporing of God's own nature then how do you determine what is moral behavior? Your culture? Your perferences? The problem with rejecting God as our moral standard is ANYTHING you put in place of God is humanistic and subjective.

God's justice is God's justice. I would argue that it is not solely based on the moral law but it is based on His Holiness. Who said anything about rejecting God as our moral standard? Not me.

 

[JonC]

Jon, this thread has moved at hyper speed. Turn your head for a moment and you are fighting a losing battle to catch up.

The two Penal Substitution views came from something you posted in another thread a while back. I do not have the quote handy but you attributed Penal Substitution Theory to the Reformers and Penal Substitution to the ECF's (at least in some form). That gave the impression you saw two different Penal views. I think you corrected yourself recently and said there is only one Penal Substitution view, whether it is called Penal Substitution or Penal Substitution Theory.

BTW, one thing I have not seen in this thread is your scriptural warrant for your ransom theory of the atonement. You Said it was not Origen's. Can you take a moment to move on from the sin discussion and provide your exegetical proofs? Thank you.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

Yes, I think that this needs to be taken slow because it is important. We should not be beyond discussing the problem the atonement addresses. If we hit an impasse here there is no need to continue because where we start determines where we end. I believe we should have many "starting points" because the atonement addresses sin much more extensively than only its moral aspect.

I can clarify as to the difference between penal and substitution elements and the Penal Substitution Theory. In Scripture there are passages that speaks of penal and substitution elements of the Atonement. This is, in fact, implied when God gives Christ as a guilt offering. It is present when God puts His Spirit in us in such a way that it is not I but Christ in me that does the good. BUT Penal Substitution Theory is a product of the Reformation as these elements were articulated into the Theory.

Insofar as Ransom Theory, there have been several early ideas. Some argued that God paid a ransom to sin and death (I am not sure how that was to work). Others that God paid a ransom without one receiving the payment (the idea being the "ransom paid" or the sacrifice). Recently some have argued that Origen did not hold God as paying a ransom to Satan as we would view the idea, but that this was meant a ransom paid to sin and death to liberate mankind. Regardless, by the time Satisfaction Theory was developed the primary view was that God paid a ransom to Satan.

This is why I said it was questionable if the Ransom Theory as attributed to Origen was understood by him as we understand it today. I cannot provide a reference (I do not have it on hand). I collect peer reviewed articles (or did) and have them somewhere in a notebook. I moved about seven months ago and am not unpacking all my notebooks.

But like Penal Substitution Theory (which is dependent on Scripture) so also was Ransom Theory (even though it, I believe, misapplies "ransom" in Matthew 20 and 1 Timothy 2).

 

[JonC]

That has nothing to do with what I was talking about in my post. Therefore, it looks like you are the one making false accusations.



Gossip? It was made in public, that is hardly behind your back. I meant for you to read it. Again, you are wrong. You do hold, based on conversations we have had, that it is against God's nature to turn his punishment on an innocent man in place of another. Yet, you have not shown proof of this.



God's justice is God's justice. I would argue that it is not solely based on the moral law but it is based on His Holiness. Who said anything about rejecting God as our moral standard? Not me.

Oh I am fully aware of what he believes. It makes no sense though, it does gymnastics to get around certain things, such as God's justice. The problem with @JonC is that he tries to define what is just when the only one who does that is God.

My reply to that statement:

That is neither a true nor a fair statement.

Your reply to the above quote:

That is your opinion, I disagree on both points.

My statement is that you cannot dictate the belief of another person and when confronted about false representation declare that is the other’s opinion. That is called being a "false witness" because what you advocate something that you know to be false (you know it because I told you what I believe). It is a sin (an immoral act which is contrary to God’s moral law).

We can use your decision to prescribe to be, and continue to insist you did so correctly, a belief that is foreign to my actual belief as an illustration:

From the Penal Substitution Theory view, your sin here is an action that grew out of your sin nature. I agree with this, except I do not like the term "sin nature". Instead I like to use the term "sin" as a power or principle. You sinned against me and against God by bearing a false witness because of the flesh, which is still in bondage to sin and death. Your sin here manifested a deeper condition.

So we have three aspects of sin exampled by your post. You sinned against God through an action which was contrary to God's moral law. You also transgressed the law because it violated God's stated command. Sin has a moral aspect. Second, you sinned against me by attributing to me a belief I do not hold and insisting you were correct in the false accusation. Sin has an interpersonal aspect. Third, you sinned because there is some part of you that you allowed to continue to be mastered by sin and death. This is what the bible calls the "flesh". And it is a power from which the first two spring. Sin is a manifestation of the one who sins.