Atonemet (Not PSA....my position)

[JonC]

that view doers NOT still explain just how and why the very wrath of God has been propiated?

Yes, it does.

God set forth Jesus as a propitiation through His blood to be received by faith; He is the Propitiation for the sins of the whole world, and He now propitiates on behalf of those who who believe. Jesus is the Firstborn of many brethren. This is necessary because God will not... He will never... clear the guilty.

You just disagree because you believe a specific philosophy should be applied to Scripture.

 

[JonC]

You are thinking of the Mosaic covenant. Abel, Noah and Abraham did not have the luxury of a priest.

I am. Prior to the Law Scripture does not describe sacrifices being offered in order that atonement be made with the animal's blood. And Jesus speaks of the New Covenantin His blood in relation to the Old Covenant.

Adam, Abel, Abraham and Noah did not offer sacrifices to cleans them of sin. They offered sacrifices more akin to the burnt offerings (thanksgiving, praise, etc.).

 

[JonC]

So far the only complaint about my view is that it does not address the concerns Penal Substitution theorists have (like "where does God's wrath go").

That is fair, as I believe PSA theorists are approaching Scripture from an errant philosophy (I find their questions nonsensical in the light of Scripture).

 

[Ben1445]

No. It is not (literally) "instead of".

God did not tell them to break the animal's neck or break their child's neck.

You are arguing the example instead of the true sacrifice.

It really doesn’t matter what happens to the animal if you learned nothing. Are you saying that if Christ had not died we could go on living? Or is it necessary that a life be laid down to save life?

You are talking about Pidyon Haben. The idea was one of buying back the child. Because of the Passover the child os consecrated for God's service. The child is bought back.


Provide an authority source on PSA?? I have. I have provided multiple theologians (many Calvinists), several academic and popular systematic theologies, and several pastors who hold the position.

I don’t care if they are Calvinist or not. Penal substitution is not Calvinist and neither am I.

Can you provide an authority who denies PSA includes Jesus e periencing punishment for God instead of us being punished??

I don’t have a problem with Jesus taking my place. I don’t have to find sources to prove your point. That is your job in the discussion.

All I am saying is that you have failed to provide good reason to throw out penal substitution.

 

[Ben1445]

No one asked the animals if they were suffering!

The animals are all okay. Nothing happened to them. They didn’t lose their lives?!?!?

I don’t understand the direction this is going. Is not the main idea that Christ gave his life and the life is in the blood. The picture (and PICTURE ONLY) of animal sacrifice is that life is the payment for sin and Jesus provided His life as payment to give eternal life, to restore life to fallen men.

Sometimes I don’t know if everyone is talking about the same thing through the entire thread. But I can’t get any good clarification, just denial and vague statements that don’t make any difference to the discussion.
Have I missed something? Is there something significant that I am overlooking?

 

[Ben1445]

Ummm..... yes. PSA holds that Jesus experienced God's punishment for our sins instead of us.

And it does prevent the necessity of my punishment so there is no stretch to say the chastisement Jesus experienced was instead of what I would.

 

[Ben1445]

@JonC

I am still waiting for an answer for the example of Isaac when an animal was literally sacrificed instead of Isaac.