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

[JonC]

Not to derail....Just wanted to tell you (oddly enough, to encourage you) that I am far more "heretical" than you are, and trying to put "Sola-Scriptura" into practice will isolate you.
Yes, Stott held it and Bruce took the arguments quite seriously....I don't claim to buy your heretical views of the Atonement yet....I just wanted to take them seriously, and asked some questions for clarification.
Apparently, that's where I went wrong. lol!
Just to let you know that even those who "believe" in "Sola-Scriptura"...don't easily put it into practice.

Well ...one heretic to another....thanks for the civil conversation and for listening. I always point to Scripture, not only because God's Word is the standard but also because I'm not the most articulate fella God put on this green earth.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Well ...one heretic to another....thanks for the civil conversation and for listening. I always point to Scripture, not only because God's Word is the standard but also because I'm not the most articulate fella God put on this green earth.

Well, show forbearance.
This distinction between believing in Sola Scriptura and honestly living it is a hard one.
Some posters....are not gifted to be teachers of the text or ones who are exceptionally talented at grammar and Theology etc....
They are honest believers called to be sheep (not shepherds of sheep) who genuinely want to fight off the "wolves".

I won't name names...but many posters here are not called as shepherds, they are honest sheep.

In a way, their shepherds are responsible. We can't require of them that they take on the role of one to question all teachings and put them in the light of Scripture. It's neither their skill-set nor their calling. If I trusted say "my bookshelf" over your arguments (for instance) would I be wrong if God had never called me to be a discerner?

 

[Iconoclast]

Right, thanks....so, no, God hasn't "forgiven" the punch in the nose he's just assuaged his wrath against the offender by punching an innocent person instead (but one who volunteered, and they agreed collectively to resolve it that way).

No...they are saying the wrath revealed from heavenRom1:16 against all men.....does not need to be dealt with when it comes to believers.
God is just to unleash that wrath on the ungodly punishing everyone of their sins, but no wrath needs to be turned away, or propitiated by Jesus on behalf of those who believe They just believe Jesus rose from the grave and was victorious over death.
Then their sin vanishes mysteriously with no consequence.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

No...they are saying the wrath revealed from heavenRom1:16 against all men.....does not need to be dealt with when it comes to believers.
God is just to unleash that wrath on the ungodly punishing everyone of their sins, but no wrath needs to be turned away, or propitiated by Jesus on behalf of those who believe They just believe Jesus rose from the grave and was victorious over death.
Then their sin vanishes mysteriously with no consequence.

I appreciate that reply....
I'm not sure that is what they are saying, but, I leave it to them to elucidate what they ARE saying.
Somehow, I am doubtful that they would argue that "sin vanishes mysteriously with no consequence". If it is true that that is their claim, then, obviously they are truly unorthodox at best.
Something tells me that that is not their claim.

I'll let them respond.
Thank you for your post

 

[agedman]

One verse suffices to undo the corruption of Jon and aged.

The chastisement of our peace was upon Him.

Who chastised the Christ?

it was not God, for Christ has the fullness of God dwelling in Him.

 

[agedman]

No...they are saying the wrath revealed from heavenRom1:16 against all men.....does not need to be dealt with when it comes to believers.
God is just to unleash that wrath on the ungodly punishing everyone of their sins, but no wrath needs to be turned away, or propitiated by Jesus on behalf of those who believe They just believe Jesus rose from the grave and was victorious over death.
Then their sin vanishes mysteriously with no consequence.

What does Colossians 2 present?

I have posted it numerous times.
It answers your accusations, but will you accept the answer?


What does Colossians 2 reveal about the question of the sin?

What does Colossians 2 reveal concerning the decrees of the Law?


Either Colossians 2 is still in the Scriptures and PSA is error, or someone needs to study Colossians 2 and figure out where wrath from Gos is missing in that passage.

 

[agedman]

No...they are saying the wrath revealed from heavenRom1:16 against all men.....does not need to be dealt with when it comes to believers.
God is just to unleash that wrath on the ungodly punishing everyone of their sins, but no wrath needs to be turned away, or propitiated by Jesus on behalf of those who believe They just believe Jesus rose from the grave and was victorious over death.
Then their sin vanishes mysteriously with no consequence.

Finally!

You get it!

There is NO CONDEMNATION to those in Christ Jesus.

Now, Iconoclast.

Apply that to what Christ did on the cross for believers?

You do hold to particular redemption?

If there is no condemnation to those chosen in Christ from the foundation of the World, then why would God dump wrath upon the Son?

Propitiation is used in the NT to represent both the furniture and the blood, and it is used in the thinking of bringing reconciliation. Just as in the OT the sacrifice had to be pleasing, to be satisfactory or it was rejected by God.

The need for reconciliation was resolved by the crucifixion, and as such it applies only to believers, chosen before the foundation of the world, and All believers from Adam to the last have no condemnation, and therefore no wrath necessary from God.

PSA does not make good Calvinist thinking does it!

 

[Aaron]

I just know that asking honest questions (which should be able to stand up to some scrutiny) Is met, not with argument or reason, but with insult and immediate wholesale condemnation.

You haven't been reading these threads then.

 

[agedman]

You haven't been reading these threads then.

So, JonC and I have not stood up to Scrutiny?

We have not endured insults and wholesale condemnation?

I’m not complaining, nor innocent, however insults and condemnation have been regular feed throughout these threads.

Thankfully, there are, in all the mix, good solid points made in which Scriptures have been examined.

 

[Aaron]

@Aaron
In the now closed thread, in which I was about to reply when the message of closure came, I expressed the reasoning of Satisfaction over Substitution.

In much briefer form, this was the post.

The word Substitute as you use it does not apply to the Scriptures.

The animal gave noting in exchange to the person, had no choice in the matter, and therefore substitution doesn't fit.

When transferring took place, as you admitted, if the sacrifice was not acceptable it was rejected.

The focus of all sacrifice and offerings was upon satisfaction, not substitution.

Christ did not substitute my blood for His, my sufferings for His, nor my life for His.

Christ's sacrifice was pleasing and satisfying to God, therefore, God can, at His pleasure and for His purpose choose those to whom He redeems.

This is the most accurate application considering all that pertains to the tabernacle/temple and the sacrifices and offerings.

It was all about satisfaction, not substitution.

Perhaps I should not have been so temperate in my presentation early in the threads, now understanding how by clinging to the "substitution" thinking you are endorsing a scheme that obliges error.

You're making up a wholly arbitrary usage of language.

When a ransom is paid, it's called an exchange. The life of the animal is given in exchange for the life of the offerer. You can dance around it all you want. But that is what is going on.

What is exchanged in Christ's offering is His righteousness for our sin. He became our sin, that we might become His righteousness.

And no, I didn't say an offering was not accepted. The offering itself was spotless, but when offered for sin or trespass, it is rejected or banned FROM THE ALTAR as an unclean thing. That is, it is judged. It is that cast out of the abode of God and burned on the ground with its dung.

In Jesus's life, He is our righteousness. On the Cross, He is our sin. An unclean thing. Cursed of God FOR US. Receiving OUR sentence.

 

[agedman]

You're making up a wholly arbitrary usage of language.

When a ransom is paid, it's called an exchange. The life of the animal is given in exchange for the life of the offerer. You can dance around it all you want. But that is what is going on.

What is exchanged in Christ's offering is His righteousness for our sin. He became our sin, that we might become His righteousness.

And no, I didn't say an offering was not accepted. The offering itself was spotless, but when offered for sin or trespass, it is rejected or banned FROM THE ALTAR as an unclean thing. That is, it is judged. It is that cast out of the abode of God and burned on the ground with its dung.

In Jesus's life, He is our righteousness. On the Cross, He is our sin. An unclean thing. Cursed of God FOR US. Receiving OUR sentence.

You are placing focus upon the animal. The focus for the atonement sacrifice was the purity of the priest and the blood. Defect in either was met by the wrath ofGod.

in order for you to hold to PSA, then either the Christ or His blood had to be defective.

Colossians 2 disproves PSA.

 

[Salty]

Six hour warning:

This thread will be closed no sooner than 1230 AM EST (Thrs) / 930 PM PST (Wed)

This thread is closed