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

This part, agedman....is the kind of statement I'm keying in on in other words. This is what I am asking about and grossly over-simplifying so that I can understand what you guys, in part, are arguing.

 

No, you missed a vital point.

PSA basically assigns that Justice demands God's wrath be extinguished by being poured out. Yet, that is not the presentation of Scripture.

The wrath of God does not extinguish the need for justice or none would go to the eternal lake of fire which leads some to conclude that PSA is actually universalism and/or that it has the teaching of a purgatorial thinking of the lake of fire in which eventually everyone ends up in heaven.

Forgiveness is not to be tied to a demand for justice, but to satisfaction of a pleasing sacrifice.

For example, in all the sacrifices and offerings in the OT temple/tabernacle the single emphasis was upon the satisfaction. Without the satisfaction no amount of blood, grain, drink or whatever was acceptable.

We see in Colossians 2 how God was satisfied, and in Hebrews 9 the steps Christ took to accomplish that task.

Now, what if one does not believe?

Then there remains no forgiveness, but after death comes the judgement.

What if one believes.

Then there is no condemnation, but we have passed from death to life.

Where is the wrath of God?
See Rev. 16.

 

What does Colossians 2 declare concerning this matter?

What was God's justice at the crucifixion?

He forgave us all our trespasses, 14having canceled the debt ascribed to us in the decrees that stood against us.
He took it away, nailing it to the cross!
15And having disarmed the powers and authorities, He made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross.
​

There was no wrath upon the Son at the crucifixion from God.

The sacrifice was pleasing to God, and were there is pleasing there is no retribution and no demand for justice.

 

O.K....I think you guys are confusing me a little. I'm asking only one simple question, and you guys are giving me more than I'm asking for (at the moment).
It seems to me that punishing sin simply isn't forgiving sin.
If God truly forgives us, than he didn't punish another in our place. In other words, whatever Christ accomplished on the cross he wasn't enduring punishment. But it was necessary for God to be able to forgive. If it were the 18th Century and you owed me $100 but cannot pay it, I can throw you in debtors prison. If someone pays that $100 on your behalf, and you escape debtors prison because it was paid I "forgave" nothing. If no one else offers to pay your $100 and because I rather like you and refuse to see you in debtors prison I can simply "forgive" the debt.....it's now a gift. It's let's say a year of Jubilee!!!! Debts are not repaid, they are forgiven....wiped out....period. What I am asking is quite simple.
Is it fair to say that PSA does not account for this, and where am I wrong?

 

I'm not asking about "wrath". I get that "wrath" is not the same as justice.
I think of justice as impassionate. Wrath is not, by definition.
I can easily accept that even if God's disposition towards man is wrathful, nonetheless, he didn't need to vent rage upon the Son so that his disposition towards humanity can change. That would be wrath.

But justice is dispassionate and (in theory, if perfect) requires that there be an accounting.

My question is.....Would you argue (only in part and in short) that Christ's death is not to be explained in either of these ways, and that PSA suggests both ideas?

 

That.....That's what I'm asking.
I'm not trying to be difficult, I'm trying to understand.
God doesn't "forgive" given PSA......He bloodies the nose of someone else.

 

So there are no wages to be paid to sin. No ransom to be paid? Paul misspoke?
Romans 6:23
For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

1 Timothy 2:5-6
For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony given at the proper time.

Is this just philosophical?

 

Thanks, Jon....Lots to think about.
I have often had the idea that the New Testament use of the word "law" for "Torah" automatically puts us Westerners at a disadvantage when understanding atonement.
Your observation that Calvin was a lawyer and predisposed to read the word "law" a million times a year in the N.T. would predispose him to thinking a certain way about what the Torah actually IS.

The Torah is not just a legal code, and certainly not a Western European one.

We, the post-modern westerner grow up reading the word "law" in both the Old and New Testaments and possibly are at disadvantage in understanding what the Torah is. The Torah includes history, geneology and the promise of redemption and forgiveness and a messiah......it isn't a code of rules.

 

First of all it is not only accurate, it is precise. To trespass against someone is to damage him, and in the Trespass offering damages are assessed, not only in principal but with the addition of a punitive amount as well. If it was God that was robbed, then money was paid to the priests. If it was a man, then whatever was lost due to the offerer's sin was restored.

And this had to be done on the same day of his offering Leviticus 6:5 because this was part of the offering, not a matter of civil law.

 

Right, and condemning Christ to be "punished" for sin (perfectly righteous and without sin) is unjust by definition, and God does not do that....Is that part of the argument?

 

Purchased from whom? What was the cost?
Jon, you keep side stepping around the elephant in the room.

 

Is Deuteronomy 21:22-23 part of the 'atonement sacrifices'? Paul appealed directly to this in illuminating the Atonement of Christ.