Divine Law that justifies condemning just for unjust

[The Biblicist]

Levitical Sacrificial Law is a Public Symbolic Expression of Faith in Christ

The sacificial laws were symbolic expressions of gospel faith just as baptism is a symbolic public expression of gospel faith.

1. Just as in baptism there is direct redemptive language "for remission of sins" "for sins"
2. Just as in baptism the public sacrificial act is to be taken symbolic not literal

PROOFS:

1. Hebrews 11:4
2. Hebrews 10:1-4
3. Isaiah 53

In Hebrews 10:1-4 and 11:4 the first explicit altar sacrifice approved by God in Genesis 4 was not an act in order to obtain righteousness but was an public expression of faith in Christ:

Heb. 11:4 By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh.

Abel did not make the offering in order to be righteous, but the sacrifice gave witness "he was righteous." He made the sacrificial offering as an act of faith because he believed in the gospel of Christ that was symbolized in the public offering of a lamb. We know this is true because Jesus says that Abel was the very first "prophet" (Lk. 11:50-51) and Peter says that "all the prophets" preached remissions of sin through faith in Christ (Acts 10:43).

Heb. 10:1 For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.
2 For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.
3 But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year.
4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.

A "shadow" is a LIKENESS cast upon the ground due to the Sun standing behind the literal object casting that shadow but is "not the very image" - that is the Biblical definition of symbolism. This "shadow" sacrifices could never "take away sins" literally but only symbolically.

Isaiah understood the sacrificial system to be nothing more than a public expression of faith in the Messiah.

"he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter,.....an offering for sin" - Isa. 53:7,10

Before the cross, John the Baptist declared the sin offering of a lamb was a symbolic expression of the gospel of Christ:

"Behold THE LAMB of God who TAKETH AWAY THE SIN of the world" - Jn.1:29

The writer of Hebrews says the very same gospel he preached was preached unto Israel in the wilderness (Heb. 4:2). The sacrificial system was designed to be a symbolic public expression of faith in Christ as redeemer.

Israel at the time of Christ had literalized the sacrificial offering for remission of sins just as the Campbellite movement literalized the act of baptism "for remission of sins."

 

[The Biblicist]

The Atonement is satisfaction of God's wrath against sin and such satisfaction is obedience to the Law/God's Holiness

Throughout the book of Leviticus God cannot be approached without blood or death is the result and that death is characterized as God's wrath. Death is consistently characterized as the wrath of God against sin in the Pentetuch. Satisfaction of God's wrath against sin is through obedience to the Divine Law of Atonement. The book of Leviticus contains the LAW OF GOD concerning atonement. It is obedience to His Law of atonement that satisfies God's wrath against sin.

The obedience by sinners to this Law of God never literally removed sin (Heb. 11:1-4) but was designed to be a public expression of faith in what the sacrifice symbolized and thus "by faith" in what the sacrifice symbolized obtained literal remission of sins prior to the cross due to their faith in Christ (Acts 10:43). Hence, obedience to the sacrificial system was to be a public symbolic expression that they were already righteous, sins already removed literally, prior to offering up the sacifice due to their faith in the gospel (Heb. 11:3; Heb. 4:2).


ATONEMENT REQUIRES A LEGALLY QUALIFIED SUBSTITUTE

The legal qualified substitute must be "without spot or blemish" which symbolizes the sinless condition. Christ was born "under the law" and obeyed the Law perfectly. Christ did not obey the law to become righteous. Christ's righteousness was manifested in his obedience to the Law of God. Again, his obedience did not make him righteousness but manifested that he was righteousness. Yet, his obedience to the law was legally required to be a qualified substitute. In his active obedience to the Law He acted as a divine representative for his people just as Adam in his active disobedience to God's law in Genesis 2:17 acted as a divine representative for his people.

The cross was the legal position for God's atonement for sin. On the cross he acted as a legal representative in his passive obedience as the lawfully qualified atonement for their sins. He was "made to be sin" in keeping with the DIVINE LAW for atonement as a qualified substitute for sinners and their sins which REQUIRED HIS DEATH AS WITHOUT THE SHEDDING OF BLOOD THERE IS NO REMISSION OF SINS. Hence, the Law of God for atonement REQUIRED his death for remission of sins. The other false atonement theories presented on this forum DO NOT REQUIRE THE DEATH OF CHRIST for remission of sins. They only require the righteousness of Christ but not his death.

He suffered the wrath of God against sinners and their sins by being put to death. Throughout the Old Testament the wrath of God against sinners was manifest by God putting sinners to death and it was the blood of atonement that satisfied God's wrath and caused death to cease.

His motive for obeying God's law and the law of atonement was not to become righteous, but his love for all whom the Father gave him to save.

 

[The Biblicist]

Why Christus Victor theory is a false doctrine:

The primary emphasis of the Christus Victor theory is that it presents sinners as VICTIMS of sin rather than GUILTY LAW BREAKERS. It is more of a RESCUE operation than a REDEEMING operation. Logically it does not require the death of Christ to satisfy the holy wrath of God against sin but only death for identification with flesh. It confuses the completed act of atonement with its ongoing applications. It pits one truth against another truth whereas PSA includes all the truth found in Christus Victor as the completed act of atonement secures its applications. Christus Victor is simply NOT ENOUGH to save anyone, it is INSUFFICIENT as it denies the necessity of death to satisfy the holiness of God and his wrath against sinners and their sins and thus denies the very heart of the gospel.

On the cross Christ acted as a legal representative in his passive obedience as the lawfully qualified atonement for their sins. He was "made to be sin" in keeping with the DIVINE LAW for atonement as a qualified substitute for sinners and their sins which REQUIRED HIS DEATH AS WITHOUT THE SHEDDING OF BLOOD THERE IS NO REMISSION OF SINS. Hence, the Law of God for atonement REQUIRED his death for remission of sins and DEMANDS his death to satisfy God's wrath against sinners and their sins because it is INSUFFICIENT to satisfy God's righteousness but the atonement must satisfy God's HOLINESS and thus his HOLY WRATH against sinners and their sins.

To deny that God's Holiness must be vindicated is to deny any just basis for His wrath against sinners and sin. To deny His wrath against sinners (due to their sins) is to deny any need for atonement at all. In the book of Leviticus the divine law of atonement is designed to satisfy God's wrath against sin as no preist could even come before God, much less any other sinful human being without suffering God's wrath which is defined as death. Either the sacrificial animal DIED and its blood shed OR that man who presumed to come in God's presence without blood DIED.

 

[The Biblicist]

A Victimhood Atonement (Christos Victor theory) is a Reproach to a Holy God

The emphasis of this theory is the same as those who preach the gospel of positivism or pie in the sky gospel which places emphasis on the benefits of the atonement rather upon repentance and the costs of sin. There is no such thing as "good news" without knowing the "bad news" as it is the bad news that makes the gospel "good news." There is no need of salvation until first you realize you are lost and worthy of punishment.

Christos Victor places the emphasis on the VICTIMHOOD of sinners as PRISONERS to the power of sin rather than WILLING LAW BREAKERS worthy of condemnation and accountable for being under the power of sin and the absolute necessity for the vindication of God's holiness.

"So it’s not Christus Victor (Christ defeating his enemies) instead of propitiation (Christ bearing God’s wrath)–rather, it’s Christus Victor because of propitiation. Both are gloriously important, but only in that order." - John Murray

Christos Victor places the emphasis on the LOVE of God at the expense of the HOLINESS of God as it denies the absolute necessity of Christ's death to vindicate and satisfy God's holy demands against sinners and their sins but rather portrays death as part of the human condition and proof of his love to become man.

Christus Victor emphasizes the VICTORY over Satan, sin and this world but PSA does not deny that but rather emphasizes the MEANS to reach that victory as well as provides the basis for all the beneficiary applications for having reached the goal.

PSA emphasizes the very heart of the gospel that the just died for the unjust in keeping with Divine Justice according to THE DIVINE LAW OF ATONEMENT.

 

[37818]

4. Gen. 1-2

Yes, but should, I think, be listed as Gen. 1-3. (Genesis 1; Genesis 2; Genesis 3.)

 

[The Biblicist]

Yes, but should, I think, be listed as Gen. 1-3. (Genesis 1; Genesis 2; Genesis 3.)

Well, I did not list Gensis 3 because that is where the fall of Adam occurred. Only in Gen. 1-2 is he in a sinless condition. My point was that like Christ, Adam in the beginning was also without sin and so both are representative sinless men. Adam's representative role included his disobedience whereas Christ's representative role included his active and passive obedience. But both acted in behalf of others and were qualified to do so because both were SINLESS and not under condemnation when assigned their representative roles.

However, in contrast those in Ezekiel are equally condemned sinners under the law and cannot possibly act as representatives for others nor can their actions be imputed to anyone but themselves as they are equally condemned sinners.

In Genesis 1-3 and Romans 5:12-19 there are only TWO human beings qualified by God to serve as LEGAL APPOINTED REPRESENTATIVES to act in behalf of others and they were both SINLESS. However, by the actions of one man many became condemned, be dead, made sinners whereas in direct contrast by the actions of the other man (Christ) many were made righteous, justified.

Notice all these things are attributed to "one man" rather than to the personal actions of many? The only way that it can be just that "many" were condemned by the singular action of one man is because all mankind existed as one undivided human nature which acted as one man. That is Paul's direct assertion in Romans 5:12 and his defense in verses 13-19.

No other law but Genesis 2:17 was violated and could justify universal death between Adam and Moses. Neither the law of Moses existed during that period nor could violation the law of conscience explain universal death as babies die in the womb or in early stages of life where they have no ability to discern good from evil. Where there is no law there is no sin and yet both sin and death existed between Adam and Moses proving that violation of law occurred and thus "all men have sinned" when Adam sinned and that is why universal death reigns during that period because death reigned by one man's act of disobedience making "many" dead, condemned, sinners.

 

[37818]

Divine Law still played a role in the fall, Genesis 3.

 

[loDebar]

Levitical Sacrificial Law is a Public Symbolic Expression of Faith in Christ

The sacificial laws were symbolic expressions of gospel faith just as baptism is a symbolic public expression of gospel faith.

1. Just as in baptism there is direct redemptive language "for remission of sins" "for sins"
2. Just as in baptism the public sacrificial act is to be taken symbolic not literal

PROOFS:

1. Hebrews 11:4
2. Hebrews 10:1-4
3. Isaiah 53

In Hebrews 10:1-4 and 11:4 the first explicit altar sacrifice approved by God in Genesis 4 was not an act in order to obtain righteousness but was an public expression of faith in Christ:

Heb. 11:4 By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh.

Abel did not make the offering in order to be righteous, but the sacrifice gave witness "he was righteous." He made the sacrificial offering as an act of faith because he believed in the gospel of Christ that was symbolized in the public offering of a lamb. We know this is true because Jesus says that Abel was the very first "prophet" (Lk. 11:50-51) and Peter says that "all the prophets" preached remissions of sin through faith in Christ (Acts 10:43).

Heb. 10:1 For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.
2 For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.
3 But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year.
4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.

A "shadow" is a LIKENESS cast upon the ground due to the Sun standing behind the literal object casting that shadow but is "not the very image" - that is the Biblical definition of symbolism. This "shadow" sacrifices could never "take away sins" literally but only symbolically.

Isaiah understood the sacrificial system to be nothing more than a public expression of faith in the Messiah.

"he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter,.....an offering for sin" - Isa. 53:7,10

Before the cross, John the Baptist declared the sin offering of a lamb was a symbolic expression of the gospel of Christ:

"Behold THE LAMB of God who TAKETH AWAY THE SIN of the world" - Jn.1:29

The writer of Hebrews says the very same gospel he preached was preached unto Israel in the wilderness (Heb. 4:2). The sacrificial system was designed to be a symbolic public expression of faith in Christ as redeemer.

Israel at the time of Christ had literalized the sacrificial offering for remission of sins just as the Campbellite movement literalized the act of baptism "for remission of sins."

Those in Heb 11 had no knowledge of the Messiah, They chose to obey God.

 

[The Biblicist]

Those in Heb 11 had no knowledge of the Messiah, They chose to obey God.

Have you read Acts 10:43 and Hebrew 4:2? Have you read Isaiah 53 and Acts 8:30-35?

 

[The Biblicist]

Divine Law still played a role in the fall, Genesis 3.

Of course, where there is no law there is no sin as sin is the transgression of law. Thus both universal sin and death characterized the period between Adam and Moses and the only possible law violated that would bring universal death and sin is Genesis 2:17 which is a direct command from God to mankind represented in Adam.

 

[loDebar]

[QUOTE1. Do you agree that Ezekiel is dealing with those condemned as sinners under the law after the fall of man? Yes or no?.[/QUOTE]

Yes, but in statements direct from God. specific to the situation. Look at the sins listed.

.

. Do you agree that Adam was sinless prior to the fall? Yes or No? Sin is as spiritual being, not physical. He was a sinner when condemned. He was not condemned as a man
.

.

3. Do you agree that Christ was sinless? Yes or No?.

Yes but it is irrlevan to this post

.

4. do you agree that Ezekiel is talking about two sinners that cannot charge their own sins to another sinner? Yes or no?.

No , he is talking about the entire nation and that the son is as guilty as the father, Read the chapter

.

. Do you agree that Adam (in Geneis 1-2)and Christ are not being viewed as sinners or as mere individual's but in Romans 5:12-19 are being viewed as legal representatives acting in behalf of others? Yes or No?.

I have know idea of the significance of this. Christ is in Gen 1-2?

.

6. Do you agree that Paul repeatedly states that "one man" and his singular act of sin is responsible for "condemnation...death....made sinners" for many instead of their own actions being responsible for these things (Rom. 5:17-19)? Yes or No?.

No, we were sinners before being human.

.

. Do you agree that Paul repeatedly states that one man - Jesus Christ" and his obedience and death is responsible for the justification for "many" rather than than the actions by many? Yes or no?.

yes, but why not all as you surmise sinned from
Adam?
It is a double comparison, inverse. Adam physical death. Christ spiritual life

.

You can't get sin or righteousness from SINNERS which is what Ezekiel is talking about..

How does one become a sinner without sin


.

can be charged sin and righteousness by those who are set apart as SINLESS representatives for others which is what Romans is talking about.

 

[loDebar]

Have you read Acts 10:43 and Hebrew 4:2? Have you read Isaiah 53 and Acts 8:30-35?

So me statements of those of Hebrews 11 knowledge of the Messiah.

 

[loDebar]

Of course, where there is no law there is no sin as sin is the transgression of law. Thus both universal sin and death characterized the period between Adam and Moses and the only possible law violated that would bring universal death and sin is Genesis 2:17 which is a direct command from God to mankind represented in Adam.

Where there is no law, there is sin but no recognition of that sin. Read Romans .

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Where there is no law, there is sin but no recognition of that sin. Read Romans .

It didn't work out too well for the people of Noah's day, did it?
Romans 5:12-14. 'Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men because all sinned -- (For until the law, sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses...........)' So:

1. Sin is not imputed when there is no law.
2. Death reigned from Adam to Moses because of sin.
Therefore
3. The moral law of God was extant before Moses.

If you look hard enough, all the 10 Commandments appear before Exodus 20.

 

[loDebar]

It didn't work out too well for the people of Noah's day, did it?
Romans 5:12-14. 'Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men because all sinned -- (For until the law, sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses...........)' So:

1. Sin is not imputed when there is no law.
2. Death reigned from Adam to Moses because of sin.
Therefore
3. The moral law of God was extant before Moses.

If you look hard enough, all the 10 Commandments appear before Exodus 20.

Did God judge sinners before the Law? or did Jesus judge man?

 

[Yeshua1]

Four pages to contradict your own posts

Ezekiel 18 contradicts your version of Romans 5

Eze 18:20
The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

What sin did I get from my father? what righteousness can I have on my account beNOT address though age is cause of his righteousness?

That passage is NOT though addressing our personal righteousness, but just speaking to God will not have a capital crime levied on someone just because their daddy was guilty and stones to death!

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Did God judge sinners before the Law?[

Yes. Genesis 3:17-19; 6:13; 38:7 etc. Obviously there is a final judgement to come.
However, it is my understanding that God's moral law is eternal, and that Adam was under it. Imagine if Adam had strangled Eve, or if he had built an altar to the sun or moon in the garden. Do you think God would have said, "Oh, that's alright, Adam. Just so long as you don't eat that apple!" The very thought is ridiculous. If you think about it, Adam broke most of the commandments when he fell.

or did Jesus judge man?

Christ did not come to judge at His first appearance; He came to save (John 12:47-48). The judging will be done when He comes again (Matthew 25:31-46).

 

[loDebar]

Yes. Genesis 3:17-19; 6:13; 38:7 etc. Obviously there is a final judgement to come.
However, it is my understanding that God's moral law is eternal, and that Adam was under it. Imagine if Adam had strangled Eve, or if he had built an altar to the sun or moon in the garden. Do you think God would have said, "Oh, that's alright, Adam. Just so long as you don't eat that apple!" The very thought is ridiculous. If you think about it, Adam broke most of the commandments when he fell.

Christ did not come to judge at His first appearance; He came to save (John 12:47-48). The judging will be done when He comes again (Matthew 25:31-46).

What about Satan?

how am I as a man condemned already, then?

Let me add , there is a future judgment, but we are not judged as men, We are accounted for when we did here as men.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

What about Satan?

John 16:11.

how am I as a man condemned already, then?

I assume you to be a Christian, therefore Romans 8:1 applies. Otherwise John 3:18 applies.

Let me add , there is a future judgment, but we are not judged as men, We are accounted for when we did here as men.

We are all sinners, both in Adam and in ourselves; either Christ has paid the penalty for our sins or we shall do so ourselves.

 

[loDebar]

John 16:11.

I assume you to be a Christian, therefore Romans 8:1 applies. Otherwise John 3:18 applies.
We are all sinners, both in Adam and in ourselves; either Christ has paid the penalty for our sins or we shall do so ourselves.

you have it, but now put it all together, Satan is judged, we are condemned already also, but won't be judged by Jesus again as flesh, but we will be judged again . after death, but without as flesh or being a man

So our condemnation has nothing to do with Adam's sin, We sin and are responsible for our own sin ans condemnation.
Being Human is so we can share in the death of Christ as a Human to be saved from this condemnation.
God suffered the penalty as a spiritual being but as human we share in His death