Atonement

[Reformed1689]

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.

Actually I can. You say things that contradict yourself.

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).

No, that is giving my honest observations. That is not a sin and I am highly offended by the statement and honestly you should have action taken against you.

When we sin we make the choice to sin. You can choose to be honest, or you can choose to be dishonest. I told you what I believe. You claim I do not believe what I say I believe. I say that is neither true (because it is false) or fair (because you cannot prescribe the belief of another). You say that is my opinion to which you disagree.

I am being very honest. You have made contradicting statements. What I said is absolutely true. 1. Your logic is nonsense. 2. You have to do gymnastics to make it work in biblical interpretation. 3. You define justice on your own terms. Which part of that is not true? You are the one bearing false witness against me.

When someone prescribes a belief to another person, foreign to what that person actually believes, it could be a mistake. But when the other person corrects the misguided, and the misguided continues to insist he is correct then it is no longer a mistake. It is an intentional sin.

You didn't correct anything that I actually said. No it is not intentional sin. You are way out of line.

 

[Reformed1689]

The bully pulpit of the moderator @JonC .... wow...

 

[JonC]

No, that is giving my honest observations.

No, unfortunately it is not honest. An honest observation would be that you believed I viewed moral justice to be attributed to something or someone other than God. From there I would have corrected and you would have apologized and taken my correction as legitimate.

But that is not what happened. You stated that I believed something that I never affirmed. When I corrected you, your response was that it was my opinion. That is not honest.

This is why I did not want to engage the topic. There are too many people who seem to believe that it is alright to misrepresent and mistreat people if they disagree with something they hold true and important. What happens is one person will make a false accusation, another will give the post a positive rating, and yet another will push the accusations even further and start insulting the Christian who holds the different view. This is a "Christian forum", yet this happens all the time here.

We see Calvinists ganging up on non-Calvinists, non-Calvinists ganging up on Calvinists....the sole purpose is to "shut down" any conversation they find disagreeable.

 

[JonC]

You didn't correct anything that I actually said.

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.

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).

 

[Reformed1689]

An honest observation would be that you believed I viewed moral justice to be attributed to something or someone other than God.

When did I say that? Who is being dishonest now?

You stated that I believed something that I never affirmed.

Name the specific thing I said you believed that you did not affirm? This is the true false accusation. What did I say you actually believe?

You are going on these diatribes, calling me a liar, saying I am INTENTIONALLY SINNING with zero evidence to back up your claim. Point to the thing I said you believe that you don't.

 

[JonC]

When did I say that? Who is being dishonest now?



Name the specific thing I said you believed that you did not affirm? This is the true false accusation. What did I say you actually believe?

You are going on these diatribes, calling me a liar, saying I am INTENTIONALLY SINNING with zero evidence to back up your claim. Point to the thing I said you believe that you don't.

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.

If you are now saying that you agree with me that only God defines what is just then I accept your apology. Perhaps your fingers got ahead of your mind.

I had repeatedly claimed that what is just is defined by God. Sin is an immoral act because it is against God's moral law (God Himself being that standard). You ignored my previous statements and said the quote above. When I objected you said that was just my opinion.

We cannot dictate to other people what that other person believes. I have been open and honest about my view. For someone to state I believe something other than I have claimed is offensive.

 

[Reformed1689]

If you are now saying that you agree with me that only God defines what is just then I accept your apology.

I said that from the very post that you are arguing about. Good grief. I'm not apologizing for anything, if anything you should apologize to me for the false accusations that you just disproved yourself. I did not ascribe to you a belief you did not hold.

I had repeatedly claimed that what is just is defined by God.

Claiming something is one thing, but your theology shows otherwise.

We cannot dictate to other people what that other person believes. I have been open and honest about my view. For someone to state I believe something other than I have claimed is offensive.

I'm going by what you have said. I'm not dictating anything. If you are offended, I'm not sure what I can do for you. You talk about the justice of God being God's but then refuse to see it as it is laid out in Scripture. Justice is that sin must be punished. Period. That is clear throughout Scripture.

You talk about propitiation and atonement but then say that doesn't go far enough? How do you define those words Jon? What do they actually mean?

This is where the gymnastics come in. You see Penal Substitution but you find ways to "reason" out of it.

 

[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

I'm hoping that we can keep this thread on topic because I believe there are things worth discussing. But we have to take it slow for two reasons - first we have not justified not looking at sin beyond its moral aspect (or proved that there is no aspect other than a moral aspect to sin). Even if we do not agree I think we need to make sure we are clear on where we stand before moving on.

The fundamental question is what the atonement addresses in terms of the problem of sin. I agree it address sin as a moral problem, and that it addresses divine wrath. Christ is the Propitiation, which by definition has wrath in view.

Where I think that we may disagree is that I believe the Atonement extends far beyond the concept of sin as an immoral act. From an ontological aspect there is the matter of the sinner. There is the issue of relationship, both between man and God and between fellow men. There is the issue of the Kingdom. I think that sin is a systemic issue. But where you indicate at the root it is an immoral act, I believe at the core it is a power that came into the world through Adam's transgression.

So while I view the atonement as a propitiation, I believe that narrowing it down to this one aspect skews our view.

I'm head to the beech for the weekend. I've been stuck at home looking at five computer screens for the government these past three weeks and need a break (1 Apr I'm back in the field). When I get bored, and I will, I'll check out the conversation via phone and hit it in earnest Monday.

 

[The Biblicist]

Where I think that we may disagree is that I believe the Atonement extends far beyond the concept of sin as an immoral act.

I don't think anyone limits sin to the "act."

From an ontological aspect there is the matter of the sinner.

Is this not simply the moral "condition" or "being" evil? How can "being" evil be divorced from a "moral" condition?

There is the issue of relationship, both between man and God and between fellow men.

But again, does this not have its root in a "moral" condition and "moral" acts toward both God and men?

There is the issue of the Kingdom.

How are you associating the "kingdom" (I assume the kingdom of God) with sin? I can associate sin with progressive santification within the kingdom. I can associate a moral act by Adam that devestates the physical kingdom wherein we live as God plainly stated that the "ground" is cursed due to his act of sin.

I think that sin is a systemic issue.

I think the only "systemic" issue is the pervasiveness that the moral nature of sin has in its consequential effects upon man, relationships and the world in which he lives.

But where you indicate at the root it is an immoral act, I believe at the core it is a power that came into the world through Adam's transgression.

Are you saying the "power" of sin preceded that "act" of sin? It is true that sin has "power" but from whence does that power orignate if not from spiritual submission to Satan?

Eph. 2:2....according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:

Does not the "power" originate with demonic forces (1 Tim. 4:1; 2 Cor.4:1-3) that operate freely within their own kingdom?

 

[JonC]

How are you associating the "kingdom" (I assume the kingdom of God) with sin? I can associate sin with progressive santification within the kingdom. I can associate a moral act by Adam that devestates the physical kingdom wherein we live as God plainly stated that the "ground" is cursed due to his act of sin.


Are you saying the "power" of sin preceded that "act" of sin? It is true that sin has "power" but from whence does that power orignate if not from spiritual submission to Satan?

Eph. 2:2....according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:

I am associating the Kingdom of God as a purposed result of the Atonement.
Yes, I am saying that sin as a power is what was introduced into the world at Adam's transgression and that because of this sin all sin. The power entered through Adam's transgression. Men are mastered by sin (and this power does, I'd say< come from Satan). This was the focus on the "Christus Victor" theory - that Christ had victory over not just death put the powers of this world (a victory over Satan).

If I answer you before Monday please give me a little grace. I'll be at the beach and just checking things out when I'm not doing anything.

 

[The Biblicist]

I am associating the Kingdom of God as a purposed result of the Atonement.

Still I don't get your connection with regard to the moral question of sin unless you are simply referring to the progressive application of redemption from sin in the soul and body of man?

Yes, I am saying that sin as a power is what was introduced into the world at Adam's transgression and that because of this sin all sin. The power entered through Adam's transgression. Men are mastered by sin (and this power does, I'd say< come from Satan). This was the focus on the "Christus Victor" theory - that Christ had victory over not just death put the powers of this world (a victory over Satan).

Is not this merely consequential to the willful submission to Satan's revealed will over God's will, thus willfully subjugating yourself to his rule (power) and therefore not a matter of the nature of sin or even a matter of a question about "morality" but rather a question of initial submission by Adam to the kingdom/power of Satan providing him the right to enforce his rule over his own kingdom?

If I answer you before Monday please give me a little grace. I'll be at the beach and just checking things out when I'm not doing anything.

The doctor said I am lacking vitamin D. I take care of my precious but invalid wife and do not get much time outdoors to get that sunny D! We used to go to the beach at least once a month. Sounds like good therapy!

 

[JonC]

Still I don't get your connection with regard to the moral question of sin unless you are simply referring to the progressive application of redemption from sin in the soul and body of man?




Is not this merely consequential to the willful submission to Satan's revealed will over God's will, thus willfully subjugating yourself to his rule (power) and therefore not a matter of the nature of sin or even a matter of a question about "morality" but rather a question of initial submission by Adam to the kingdom/power of Satan providing him the right to enforce his rule over his own kingdom?



The doctor said I am lacking vitamin D. I take care of my precious but invalid wife and do not get much time outdoors to get that sunny D! We used to go to the beach at least once a month. Sounds like good therapy!

I'm not. When I have time I will discuss it with you (just stopped to fuel up).

They put me on vitamin D as well. It's the "in" thing

 

[Reformed]

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 understand laying the groundwork for your atonement view but if you are waiting for others to provide you a consensus before moving on, the wait will be interminable. Eventually, you should move on and just make your case. My intention is to "cross-examine" your position to make sure I understand it.

 

[JonC]

It bothers me when people go on tirades about theology but prove themselves unable to have an honest duscussion with people holding different positions about the Scriptures themselves.

That is why I posted #4. If any find it difficult to honestly engage the topic and deal with various interpretations without becoming hostile or misrepresenting the views of others then please refrain from posting on this thread.

 

[Reformed1689]

JonC said:
If you are now saying that you agree with me that only God defines what is just then I accept your apology.

My Response:
I said that from the very post that you are arguing about. Good grief. I'm not apologizing for anything, if anything you should apologize to me for the false accusations that you just disproved yourself. I did not ascribe to you a belief you did not hold.

JonC said:
I had repeatedly claimed that what is just is defined by God.

My Response:
Claiming something is one thing, but your theology shows otherwise.

JonC said:
We cannot dictate to other people what that other person believes. I have been open and honest about my view. For someone to state I believe something other than I have claimed is offensive.

My Response:
I'm going by what you have said. I'm not dictating anything. If you are offended, I'm not sure what I can do for you. You talk about the justice of God being God's but then refuse to see it as it is laid out in Scripture. Justice is that sin must be punished. Period. That is clear throughout Scripture.

You talk about propitiation and atonement but then say that doesn't go far enough? How do you define those words Jon? What do they actually mean?

This is where the gymnastics come in. You see Penal Substitution but you find ways to "reason" out of it.

 

[JonC]

I can understand laying the groundwork for your atonement view but if you are waiting for others to provide you a consensus before moving on, the wait will be interminable. Eventually, you should move on and just make your case. My intention is to "cross-examine" your position to make sure I understand it.

Sounds fair. But keep in mind that golf club analogy I borrowed from McKnight. I do not think that there is only one aspect to be considered.

If it is OK with you I will begin with the atonement addressing sin as a moral transgression. Since I held and taught the Penal Substitution Theory most of my life it is the one I am most comfortable with (it "comes natural").

I will post later on this aspect of my view.

 

[Reformed]

If it is OK with you

This is not about me. I am interested to hear from you and the position to which you ascribe.

 

[Reformed]

I do not think that there is only one aspect to be considered.

I understand. Still, you have a view on the Atonement, correct? While your view may have different aspects it still is a view distinct from the one I hold to.

 

[JonC]

I understand. Still, you have a view on the Atonement, correct? While your view may have different aspects it still is a view distinct from the one I hold to.

Yes.

 

[JonC]

As an overarching theme I believe the atonement has in view creating a people of God. So I think it focuses on the Kingdom.

On the cross God was reconciling the world to Himself, not counting men's sins against them. This speaks of forgiveness and Christ being put forward as a Propitiation for man's sins. Christ's work turns away or appeases God's wrath. Forgiveness deals with the "canceling" or mot holding liable for an offense. Here Scripture is speaking not of physical death as the wages of sin but of the Judgment to come "on that day". Those in Christ are not judged. Those not "in Christ" (who do not believe) are judged already because they have not believed in God's Son.

Those who perish at Judgment will ultimately experience Hell as sin and death are cast into the "lake of fire" (which is the second death). This is God's wrath from which the believer is delivered.