Atonemet (Not PSA....my position)

[JonC]

Yes. If one were to leave it at that as stated, that would be the argument of Socinus

No, not quite. It would be wrong, but Socinianism has a more nuanced view.

@jesusis making a strawman argument (saying Christ Himself is the Propitiation for sins, that God set Christ forth as a propitiation through His blood to be received by faith, that Christ Himself is the basis is NOT saying repentanceis the basis.

Faith is how atonement is applied or recieved. But Christ is the basis.

 

[DaveXR650]

No, not quite. It would be wrong, but Socinianism has a more nuanced view.

"God is our creditor and we are His debtors by virtue of our sins. But every creditor has the absolute right to forgive the debtor his debt - either in whole or in part - without receiving satisfaction." Socinus
From William Lane Craig's "Atonement and the Death of Christ"
"For Aquinas, as for Anselm and the Reformers, God satisfies the demands of retributive justice through Christ; but for Aquinas He does so contingently. By contrast, Socinus thinks that God's contingent choice to forgive sinners is independent of justice's demands. God gratuitously extends to repentant sinners forgiveness of their sins and reserves His punitive justice for the unrepentant. Just as Socinus opposed Anselm's view that satisfaction of divine justice is necessary, he would be equally oppose to Aquinas' view that God through Christ contingently satisfied divine justice."
Now, this is important. Craig goes on to say that "Socinus proceeds to argue that satisfaction is actually logically incompatible with the remission of sins,..."

In other words, where have we heard someone argue that where satisfaction is made already, there is therefore no need for forgiveness. Anyway, that is just a further exploration into Socinus nuanced view. Any similarities with any arguments made on this site are I'm sure, coincidental.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

If you are angry at your wife and she apologizes, do you exercise that wrath against her or do you forgive her.

"You" are not the Judge of all the earth. Sinful human beings will sometimes forgive and sometimes not, but God is the righteous Judge and will always judge justly.
Let us suppose for a moment a scene in court.
Judge: "Prisoner at the bar, you have been found guilty on the clearest evidence of murder, extortion, fraud, embezzlement and theft. Before I pass sentence, do you have anything to say in your defense?"
Prisoner: "Well, I'm terribly sorry and I promise not to do it again. And if you let me off I'll buy you lunch."
Judge: "Will it be a big lunch?"
Prisoner: "Oh yes! All you can eat! After all those crimes I'm really wealthy."
Judge: That's fine then; case dismissed in time for lunch!

What sort of judge is that? How can he just let guilty people off? God is the righteous Judge, and 'By no means clearing the guilty.' But at the same time, 'God... devises means so that His banished ones are not expelled from Him' (2 Sam. 14:14). Those means are Penal Substitution. God Himself, in the Person of Jesus Christ has taken those sins upon HImself and paid the penalty for them in full, satisfying His own justice, 'That He might be just and the justifier of the one who believes in Jesus.'

'Tis mystery all, the Immortal dies;
Who can explain His strange design?
In vain the first-born Seraph tries
To sound the depth of love divine.
'Tis mercy all! Immense and free,
For, O my God, it found out me! [Charles Wesley]

 

[JonC]

"God is our creditor and we are His debtors by virtue of our sins.

No. We are indebted to God for our creation, both the first and second.

My point is God is not indebted to us, to pay our wage. Sin itself produces death.

God judges the wicked. He will NEVER punish the Just. He will NEVER clear the wicked. Why? Because if He did He would be unjust and wicked.


The difference we dance around is in your judicial philosophy. You believe divine justice is of a type as to make demands of God. If a person sins then God's duty as Judge is to punish that sin - not necessarily the sinner, as long as that sin is punished.


PSA theorists often give the example of you standing before a judge and another taking your sentence.

You murdered a child. You are guilty. But Jesus stands before the Judge as the sentence of death is passed and on your behalf takes that punishment for you. Justice does not care who is punished as long as the deficiency in the law is paid. So you, the murderer, is released and an innocent person is killed in your place. Justice is served.

I do not believe your judicial philosophy is just. I believe it is, in fact, evil. Justice is not about - as Calvin said - avenging the law, punishing every crime.

Justice is about being about righteousness.

If the Judge could make you "not guilty" by killing the guilty man in you and making you a new creation in Christ then Justice is a accomolished. The Law is fulfilled, but the righteousness (the same righteousnes) is manifested apart from the law.


The benefit is this does not make God commit sin. God still does not punish the Just. He still does not clear the guilty.

 

[JonC]

@DaveXR650

In the Old Testament when was atonement actually made for sins? Was it with the necessary shedding of blood? Or was it when the priest "made atonementfor the sins of the people" by applying the blood?

In the Old Testament is there any examples of cleansing from iniquity occurring by offering a sacrifice of atonement OR was it always by the blood cleansing?

In the New Testament are people forgiven by God setting forth Christ as a propitiationin His blood. OR must this atonement be applied to the person, must it be received by faith?

In the New Testament is it God punishing Jesus that clears our sin debt OR is it Christ's blood that cleanses from all unrighteousness?

Does "the blood of Christ" represent (as PSA theoriest often claim) Jesus' death OR does it represent Life? Is death or life in the blood?


Are there any passages that state God punished Jesus to pay our sin debt? No

Are there any passages that state God punished Jesus? No.

Are there sny passages that state we even need somebody to pay our debt of sin as opposed to being cleansed from unrighteousness? No.


The danger of PSA is when people put it at the very center of their faith. That is the point they cease being Christian. That is the danger of these philosophies. They can carry people away.

 

[DaveXR650]

No. We are indebted to God for our creation, both the first and second.

Needless reply. This is why no real discussion is possible. Even Socinus was not putting up our responsibility as created beings as something opposed to our indebtedness for our sins. Two different things.

My point is God is not indebted to us, to pay our wage. Sin itself produces death.

Someone who steps in out of benevolence and pays something doesn't mean they were indebted to pay it.

God judges the wicked. He will NEVER punish the Just. He will NEVER clear the wicked. Why? Because if He did He would be unjust and wicked.

But to release the guilty and punish the innocent in their place "is not only completely opposed to any standard of justice: it is worse than inhuman and savage." That's Socinus again. Now, part of his objection came from his belief that Christ was not God and therefore I presume one could not argue to him that God was taking the penalty back upon Himself. But he also denied that Christ could do so no matter who he was because to even be a possible representative for justice "that person has also sinned and imitated the wickedness of the others". Besides all that, such a statement from you disconnect with Christ bearing our sin in his own body and the claim that we are just because we are made anew. We are, but the first part still needs to be explained.

In the Old Testament when was atonement actually made for sins? Was it with the necessary shedding of blood? Or was it when the priest "made atonementfor the sins of the people" by applying the blood?

It's all part of it. Why try to separate it out? It makes no sense. There was even a thing called the "Day of Atonement".

Are there sny passages that state we even need somebody to pay our debt of sin as opposed to being cleansed from unrighteousness? No.

None that I know of. Maybe that is why everything I have ever read from PSA advocates includes being cleansed from unrighteousness as part of what they are talking about. "As opposed" is what you like to do and it really messes up your theology.

The danger of PSA is when people put it at the very center of their faith. That is the point they cease being Christian. That is the danger of these philosophies. They can carry people away.

I agree that it's possible to believe that since your sins are forgiven you can sin all the more. Paul was concerned about that too. It's also possible to think you can be born anew and continue on in sin. Owen warned about that too. So what's the point? That indicates our proneness to error, not anything wrong with PSA.