Biblical Atonement (Part 4....but who's counting)

[JonC]

View attachment 5948
The Biblical Atonement (continued 3)


To say "the sacrifice is sacrificed" is meaningless. What the animal was, was a substitute. Sins were born in the body of the offering. The body is excluded from the altar. It is carried by the priests outside the camp away from the abode of God where the sins are judged with fire.

You keep saying the just did suffer for the unjust (something you explicitly denied in the earlier thread), but what does it mean? What did the Just endure for the unjust?

The animal sacrificed was not a substitute. Where did you even get that idea? In the OT the sins were passed over until a specific time.

The Just for the unjust. Yes. But you change Scripture to read "the Just instead of the unjust".

Jesus endured suffering and death for the unjust. @agedman and I never said otherwise. We just did not change add "instead of" to Scripture.

 

[Aaron]

The animal sacrificed was not a substitute. Where did you even get that idea?

It will be accepted for him. Leviticus 1:4. It's fairly obvious. It will be accepted for him, not from him.

...it will be accepted on his behalf... NKJV

He is to lay his hand on the head of the burnt offering so it can be accepted on his behalf... CSB

...and it will be accepted on your behalf...NIV

Lay your hand on the animal’s head, and the LORD will accept its death in your place to purify you, making you right with him. NLT​

The Just for the unjust. Yes. But you change Scripture to read "the Just instead of the unjust".

'Changing Scripture.'

Jesus endured suffering and death for the unjust. @agedman and I never said otherwise. We just did not change add "instead of" to Scripture.

LOL. 'instead' of is what it means.

It's clear to see your arguments are getting more and more irrational.

 

[JonC]

It will be accepted for him. Leviticus 1:4. It's fairly obvious. It will be accepted for him, not from him.

...it will be accepted on his behalf... NKJV

He is to lay his hand on the head of the burnt offering so it can be accepted on his behalf... CSB

...and it will be accepted on your behalf...NIV

Lay your hand on the animal’s head, and the LORD will accept its death in your place to purify you, making you right with him. NLT​

'Changing Scripture.'

LOL. 'instead' of is what it means.

It's clear to see your arguments are getting more and more irrational.

Ok....OK.... are ADDING TO Scripture. But your additions change what Scripture actually says. "For" simply does not mean "instead of" (Christ shared our infirmity.....not suffered our infirmity instead of us). You need to brush up on the meaning of words.

Accepted for him does not mean accepted instead of him


There is a reason Penal Substitution Theory is relatively new to Christianity. It is not in the Bible.

 

[Aaron]

Ok....OK.... are ADDING TO Scripture.

You're nuts.

But your additions change what Scripture actually says. "For" simply does not mean "instead of" (Christ shared our infirmity.....not suffered our infirmity instead of us). You need to brush up on the meaning of words.

Try to follow along. It really is easy. Capitalizing 'Just,' when it is in reference to Christ, is not changing, adding or subtracting from the Scripture. I think you know that, you're just really desperate to win.

Also, ones offering being 'accepted for him,' and not merely 'accepted', or 'accepted from him', both of which would be mistranslations, absolutely means 'on his behalf.'

Also, you're confusing aspects of the Incarnation. Being touched with the feeling of our weaknesses has nothing to do with sin. It has to do with being flesh and bone. He didn't even stub a toe. Never had a broken bone, but He felt hunger and thirst, and had need of rest. That has nothing to do whatever with suffering for sin.

Accepted for him does not mean accepted instead of him.

The translators beg to differ with you.

There is a reason Penal Substitution Theory is relatively new to Christianity. It is not in the Bible.

It's not new. Peter preached it. The Just for the unjust, meaning in our place.

Anyway, you have yet to explain what it means to suffer for sins.

What does it mean He bare in His own body our sins on the Tree?

 

[Aaron]

Moving on with another eminent proof of that which is self-evident.

By Whose stripes, ye are healed. 1 Peter 2:24.

This is not a reference to the lash. Stripes are administered with a rod. Like the Tree, this is God's visitation on iniquity. Psalms 89:32 Then will I visit their transgression with the rod, and their iniquity with stripes.

Stripes are a sentence executed on the wicked. Deuteronomy 25:1-3

If there be a controversy between men, and they come unto judgment, that the judges may judge them; then they shall justify the righteous, and condemn the wicked. And it shall be, if the wicked man be worthy to be beaten, that the judge shall cause him to lie down, and to be beaten before his face, according to his fault, by a certain number. Forty stripes he may give him, and not exceed: lest, if he should exceed, and beat him above these with many stripes, then thy brother should seem vile unto thee.
​

That's what it means that He bare our sins in His own body on the Tree. He received our curse. He received our sentence. He endured our punishment.

He took our place.

 

[JonC]

You're nuts. Try to follow along. It really is easy. Capitalizing 'Just,' when it is in reference to Christ, is not changing, adding or subtracting from the Scripture. I think you know that, you're just really desperate to win.

Also, ones offering being 'accepted for him,' and not merely 'accepted', or 'accepted from him', both of which would be mistranslations, absolutely means 'on his behalf.'

Also, you're confusing aspects of the Incarnation. Being touched with the feeling of our weaknesses has nothing to do with sin. It has to do with being flesh and bone. He didn't even stub a toe. Never had a broken bone, but He felt hunger and thirst, and had need of rest. That has nothing to do whatever with suffering for sin.

The translators beg to differ with you.


It's not new. Peter preached it. The Just for the unjust, meaning in our place.

Anyway, you have yet to explain what it means to suffer for sins.

What does it mean He bare in His own body our sins on the Tree?

Peter did not preach Penal Substitution Theory, he preached the gospel of Jesus Christ.

The passages are clear. Jesus bore our sins bodily, Jesus became a curse for us, Jesus died for our sins.

The judges did judge Christ. They esteemed Him stricken by God. And God vindicated Him against their judgment.

Why do you feel the need to add that Jesus experienced God's wrath instead of us? That is not in the Bible.

 

[37818]

The Cross is prior to the Apostolic Church. But nobody believed Penal Substitution Theory until the Reformation.

The Apostolic churches were the churches when the apostles were yet living and the books that were to become the books that make up the New Testament were being written. Ephesians 2:20-21, ". . . are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: . . ." What became the "Reformation" was the restoration of Apostolic New Testament teachings in churches. This includes the understanding of the gospel of grace, the penal substitution that Christ actually did.

 

[DaveXR650]

When you read about penal substitution you find out that part of the reason it's important is to show that there is as aspect of our standing before God as sinners that goes beyond the technical violation of ordinances or being a governmental lawbreaker. There is a personal aspect of sin against God so wrath is an important term to use. The advocates of penal substitution I have read are careful to say God is not furious or out of control the way we can be and God was not personally mad at Jesus. But wrath is present because it is what God thinks of sin. We do that in our legal system where there are punitive laws where there is no restitution possible. You see that when after some heinous crime is committed a prosecutor will be on TV with his voice quivering in anger as he announces charges filed. Wrath is taught clearly in scripture as God's reaction to sin on a personal level also. Slain animals are also used to show wrath. God could easily have made a couple of cotton garments for Adam and Eve if he wanted to.

 

[JonC]

The Apostolic churches were the churches when the apostles were yet living and the books that were to become the books that make up the New Testament were being written. Ephesians 2:20-21, ". . . are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: . . ." What became the "Reformation" was the restoration of Apostolic New Testament teachings in churches. This includes the understanding of the gospel of grace, the penal substitution that Christ actually did.

No. Just like many movements throughout history the Reformation had its failures.

The Church was not apostate from the 1st to the 16th Century. Where the Reformers went wrong was in their Reformation of RCC doctrine. They should have just ditched it all and went back to Scripture.

They did contribute to an understanding of faith, but they dropped the ball by incorporating and reforming RCC doctrine, to include infant baptism, the Church State, and Penal Substitution Theory.

As it stands, you do hold Reformed doctrine, that part is true. But what ypu are blind to is the doctrine which is reformed. You hold a reformed RCC doctrine.

 

[Aaron]

The judges did judge Christ. They esteemed Him stricken by God. And God vindicated Him against their judgment.

This is a misapplication. The judgment of the Romans and the Jews was unjust. The judgment prescribed in Deuteronomy was just judgment. Christ received the just judgment of our sin.

 

[JonC]

This is a misapplication. The judgment of the Romans and the Jews was unjust. The judgment prescribed in Deuteronomy was just judgment. Christ received the just judgment of our sin.

No. Read Deuteronomy again. You are making assumptions based on your tradition rather than simply reading Scripture.

Christ did become a curse for us, He did die for our sins, He bore our sins bodily, He shared our infirmity.

But Scripture does not teach that Christ suffered God's wrath in our place. You can obscure this fact all you want, but your lack to provide Scripture to the contrary disproves your Theory. It is a pagan view of sacrifice and reformed RCC doctrine.

 

[JesusFan]

You are missing the point here.

The text of Scripture does not teach, present, or state Penal Substitution Theory. It is foreign to God's Word and foreign to the Christian faith until the Reformation.

I could help the Eunich by walking him through Scripture (through what is written) and explaining that it applies to Christ (which isin the NT Scripture).

What you would do is rely on reformed RCC doctrine that is not found in the Bible. You would rely on "progressive revelation" which would be post-Reformation teachers that tickle your ears.

How can you test Penal Substitution Theory against Scripture and still hold it? You can't...not any more than the RCC can.

What you have done is started with humanistic secular philosophy and then sought out Scripture for support. Your belief, here, is paganism read into the Bible.

Try reading Scripture without the Theory. Set it aside and at least pretend God gave His perfect and complete Word in the text of Scripture.

If you are able to set aside your own worldly wisdom it will be impossible for you to affirm Penal Substitution Theory. The question is whether you are able. You have a lot invested in the works of Calvininists. Are you even open to seek out God's Word?

Are the lost in hell under the wrath of God, does he have an active wrath towards those lost in their sins, not now found in Christ?

 

[JesusFan]

This is a misapplication. The judgment of the Romans and the Jews was unjust. The judgment prescribed in Deuteronomy was just judgment. Christ received the just judgment of our sin.

he is parroting NT Wrong here on this!

 

[JesusFan]

Scripture tells us of the OT sacrifice system under the Law and how during this time God, in His forbearance, passed over their sins.

Scripture tells us of the faith of the OT faithful that was counted as righteousness.

Scripture tells of Adam's transgression and how sin and death entered the world.

We are told of the bondage of sin and death that enslaved man.

Scripture tells us that it is appointed man once to die and then the Judgment.

Scripture tells us of the "Last Adam", Jesus Christ, who became flesh, shared our infirmity, became a curse for us, was made sin for us, bore our sins in His body, suffered and died under the evil of this world and by those to whom He came.

Scripture tells us this was the will of God, He was pleased to crush Him, that this was His predetermined plan.

Also, Christ lay down His own life in obedience and by His own accord.

Scripture tells us that God vindicated Christ, raised Him, gave Him a name above every name.

Scripture tells us all judgment has been given the Son.

Scripture tells us that it is an abomination to God to substitute the righteous for the guilty.

Scripture tells us that our salvation is the righteousness of God manifested apart from the law.

Scripture tells us that Christ is the Propitiation for not only our sins but the sins of the whole world.

The Cross was God reconciling man to Himself and now we have the ministry of reconciliation, urging men to be reconciled to God.

Through Christ's death man was reconciled, and through His life men are saved.

Scripture tells us that we can not earn our salvation, but that we must be reborn, made new creations in Christ, we must die to the flesh and all flesh must perish.

We must be born of the Spirit, in Christ, in Whom there is no condemnation.


I did not include references (they are not actually a part of Scripture, the chapter-verse divisions first appeared in William Whittingham's translation in 1557).

And I have often seen people reject Scripture when they don't realize it is actually Scripture....which helps make the point.

Which of the above do you reject? Which do you need to discuss?

Did the world and satan and Rome crush Jesus, or did the Father directly Himself do that>

 

[JesusFan]

It will be accepted for him. Leviticus 1:4. It's fairly obvious. It will be accepted for him, not from him.

...it will be accepted on his behalf... NKJV

He is to lay his hand on the head of the burnt offering so it can be accepted on his behalf... CSB

...and it will be accepted on your behalf...NIV

Lay your hand on the animal’s head, and the LORD will accept its death in your place to purify you, making you right with him. NLT​

'Changing Scripture.'

LOL. 'instead' of is what it means.

It's clear to see your arguments are getting more and more irrational.

The sins of ours were imputed unto Him, so that he bore in our stead that due wrath and curse form the father!

 

[JesusFan]

Ok....OK.... are ADDING TO Scripture. But your additions change what Scripture actually says. "For" simply does not mean "instead of" (Christ shared our infirmity.....not suffered our infirmity instead of us). You need to brush up on the meaning of words.

Accepted for him does not mean accepted instead of him


There is a reason Penal Substitution Theory is relatively new to Christianity. It is not in the Bible.

It is found throughout the scriptures, and the Reformers did NOT add new understanding, just brought back to light what Rome had almost buried!
And PSA was and is NOT Rome theology, as they deny Pauline Justification!

 

[JonC]

Are the lost in hell under the wrath of God, does he have an active wrath towards those lost in their sins, not now found in Christ?

Are the lost in Hell under the wrath of God? If you mean the Second death, no. I believe the Judgment and wrath to come is in the future.

Define "active wrath".

 

[JonC]

It is found throughout the scriptures, and the Reformers did NOT add new understanding, just brought back to light what Rome had almost buried!
And PSA was and is NOT Rome theology, as they deny Pauline Justification!

But you have been unable to provide even one passage!

You make claims and post Scripture that do not support your claims, and then repeat.

I suggest there os no "Pauline Justification". Paul justifies nobody. God justifies and the means is written in the Word of God.

 

[JonC]

The sins of ours were imputed unto Him, so that he bore in our stead that due wrath and curse form the father!

Then why is this not written in the Bible (your notes don't count)?

 

[JonC]

When you read about penal substitution you find out that part of the reason it's important is to show that there is as aspect of our standing before God as sinners that goes beyond the technical violation of ordinances or being a governmental lawbreaker. There is a personal aspect of sin against God so wrath is an important term to use. The advocates of penal substitution I have read are careful to say God is not furious or out of control the way we can be and God was not personally mad at Jesus. But wrath is present because it is what God thinks of sin. We do that in our legal system where there are punitive laws where there is no restitution possible. You see that when after some heinous crime is committed a prosecutor will be on TV with his voice quivering in anger as he announces charges filed. Wrath is taught clearly in scripture as God's reaction to sin on a personal level also. Slain animals are also used to show wrath. God could easily have made a couple of cotton garments for Adam and Eve if he wanted to.

But when you read Scripture for Scripture - for what is written. ..without Penal Substitution Theory - you get a fuller appreciation of God's love, even manifested as the wrath to come - than with Penal Substitution Theory.

Not only that, but you get unadulterated Scripture rather than doctrine corrupted by humanistic philosophy and paganism.

For me, Scripture is enough. I do not need man's theories as they take away from God's Word.