Logic and the Literal Payment Theory

[TCGreek]

I am more than happy to listen to Paul telling us that this is the gospel and work of the Messiah "According to the Scripture". I think he knew what he was talking about to claim that this idea of "scripture fulfilled" Confirms our faith in the Word of God.

Which means "God was right" to tell us about the all-encompassing scope of Atonement in Lev 16 that goes far BEYOND the "Atoning Sacrifice" of vs 15.

Bob
Quote:
"WHOLE World in Calvinism refers to "A person or persons that happen to live in the WORLD where there are other PEOPLE".

It is the ultimate marketing spin doctoring (as suggested by Calvinism) to argue that the FEW of Matt 7 are in fact to be gratuitously referred to as "THE WHOLE WORLD" to make God look generous.

However - To be fair to Calvinism - they have NO CHOICE but to "DOWNSIZE" terms like "WHOLE WORLD" once they claim the ENTIRE Lev 16 process of atonement to be ENDED since there is no possible way to have that process CONCLUDE IN YOUR FAVOR without being saved and in no need of repentance, forgiveness etc.

And THAT is why I object so often to finding Arminians who blindly swallow the Calvinist definition for Atonement and then try to reject the logical conclusion that Calvinism makes regarding "limited atonement" and Christ "not dying for all" no matter what the Bible says -- because in fact if you let Calvinists start by owning the definition of the term -- instead of appealing to the bible alone -- you have already lost the argument against Calvinism's limited Atonement.

in Christ,

Bob



Because as I stated above the Calvinist definition for what happened at the cross and their definition for atonement -- is wrong.

As Long as the High Priest's role continues -- the door of mercy remains open -- and the conditional salvation of the form "To as many as received Him" continues.




Another good point in favor of Calvinism -- but only IF we agree to ignore the scriptures in 1Thess 4 (those who have fallen asleep) and in John 11 (Lazarus sleeps) and in Romans 2 (future judgment) 2Cor 5 (future judgment).

So just as in the case of Atonement -- once you have a Calvinist definition then Limited Atonement is the only answer.

The same goes with the texts above regarding the reality of the dorman-state of death -- if you can ignore that for a minute and use the idea of "wicked enter judgment of 2nd death instantly" then as you point -- you have the "game over" defintion for Atonement already ended -- but that would also mean "no new evangelism" and "no confession/repentance".

in Christ,

Bob

I will accept your explanation of the Atonement of Christ if you can demonstrate from the NT any NT writer's use of Lev 16 to explain Christ's atonement.

 

[BobRyan]

That is easy --

1. in 1John 2:2 John says "He is the Atoning Sacrifice" without giving the reader any definition at all for "Atonement" -- clearly the reader had to have had access to "scripture" to understand it.

2. Paul says this "BUILD ON scripture" model was the one used by the NT saints.
Ephesians 2:20
having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone,

Acts 26:22
"So, having obtained help from God, I stand to this day testifying both to small and great, stating nothing but what the Prophets and Moses said was going to take place;

3. Paul then "explicitly" references the "ONCE A YEAR" work of the High Priest in Heb 9 to explain the work of Christ -- which IS in fact the "Day of Atonement service". Paul points to the fact that the visual aid of the earthly service in that Day of Atonement service is "instructive" in teaching us about the work of Christ as our High priest. (Turns out God's Word "scripture" was considered to be "inspired and profitable for doctrine" even by Paul in Heb 9.)

Heb 9

7 but into the second, only the high priest enters once a year, not without taking blood, which he offers for himself and for the sins of the people committed in ignorance.
8 The Holy Spirit is signifying this, that the way into the holy place has not yet been disclosed while the outer tabernacle is still standing,
9 which is a symbol for the present time. Accordingly both gifts and sacrifices are offered which cannot make the worshiper perfect in conscience,
10 since they relate only to food and drink and various washings, regulations for the body imposed until a time of reformation.
11 But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things to come, He entered through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this creation;
12 and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption.

4. Acts 17:11 is explicit proof that the OT text (called "scripture") WAS in fact being used by the listeners to understand AND TEST the validity of the teaching of the NT apostles. "To see IF those things were so" is a process of "testing against scripture".

Bob
The NT authors of the letters sent to the churches relied on the fact that the readers (already) had access to scripture.

TCGreek Agreed.

Hmm - I would think that if you will go with that point - then what is stated above is already accepted.



in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Quote:
RATHER we find that the OT PREDICTS the future work of the Messiah in not only dying for sin but fully providing ALL aspects of what God called "Atonement".

TCGreek
Not only is Christ the sacrifice required to propitiate God, but He is also the one who mediated the blood as our Great High Priest (Heb 7:26-28)

There is no "Propitiate God" teaching in all of scripture.

There is only "God so LOVED that HE Gave"

There is only "God was IN CHRIST reconciling the WORLD to Himself".

In other words it is the "opposite" of "propititate God" the direct opposite of "appease God" the exact opposite of "appease the angry deity". There is nothing at all in scripture of the form "Christ so suffered that God was appeased and turned away his anger from his victims".

The greek pagan concept of "propitiating God" is not found -- rather the Scripture-based concept of "God PROVIDING atonement" IS found.

Christ IS GOD -- IS One with the Father (not in Person but in function) and so to say "Christ propitiates God" is to say "Christ appeased himself by letting himself be tortured by guilty man until he felt better about guilty man". The Greek pagan concept of "appeasement" does not work in scripture.

The other option in the "propitiate God" model is to "divide god against God so that god appeases GOD by letting himself be tortured" -- another idea that most people should reject if they just stop and think about what they are saying.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[TCGreek]

That is easy --

1. in 1John 2:2 John says "He is the Atoning Sacrifice" without giving the reader any definition at all for "Atonement" -- clearly the reader had to have had access to "scripture" to understand it.

2. Paul says this "BUILD ON scripture" model was the one used by the NT saints.
Ephesians 2:20
having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone,

Acts 26:22
"So, having obtained help from God, I stand to this day testifying both to small and great, stating nothing but what the Prophets and Moses said was going to take place;

3. Paul then "explicitly" references the "ONCE A YEAR" work of the High Priest in Heb 9 to explain the work of Christ -- which IS in fact the "Day of Atonement service". Paul points to the fact that the visual aid of the earthly service in that Day of Atonement service is "instructive" in teaching us about the work of Christ as our High priest. (Turns out God's Word "scripture" was considered to be "inspired and profitable for doctrine" even by Paul in Heb 9.)



4. Acts 17:11 is explicit proof that the OT text (called "scripture") WAS in fact being used by the listeners to understand AND TEST the validity of the teaching of the NT apostles. "To see IF those things were so" is a process of "testing against scripture".





Hmm - I would think that if you will go with that point - then what is stated above is already accepted.



in Christ,

Bob

Maybe you have gotten the wrong impression about my view of the OT. Let me go on record as saying:

1. The OT is as much Scripture as the NT (2 Tim 3:15-17; 1 Tim 5:18).

2. The OT was used by the NT writers and Christians to prove Jesus as Messiah (Acts 17:2, 3).

3. The OT outlines the fundamental historic pillars of the gospel (1 Cor 15:1-3).

But according to Paul, we have been made "ministers of the New Covenant" (2 Cor 3:6).

I still stand by what I've said already: I look to the NT writers' interpretation of the Atonement of Christ rather than Lev 16.

 

[TCGreek]

There is no "Propitiate God" teaching in all of scripture.

So why the Day of Atonement in the OT? Why the Atonement of Christ? Why did God set Jesus forth as the Atoning sacrifice (Rom 3:25)?

There is only "God so LOVED that HE Gave"

There is also "the WRATH of God" (Rom 1:18).

There is only "God was IN CHRIST reconciling the WORLD to Himself"

.

It seems like you are content in setting aside a large portion of the Scriptures:

"Then I heard a loud voice from the temple telling the seven angels, “Go and pour out on the earth the seven bowls of the wrath of God" (Rev 16:1).

Maybe you need to go back and read about the WRATH of God. Maybe you can start with Rev 16 about the seven bowls of the wrath of God.

In other words it is the "opposite" of "propititate God" the direct opposite of "appease God" the exact opposite of "appease the angry deity". There is nothing at all in scripture of the form "Christ so suffered that God was appeased and turned away his anger from his victims"

.

Read Paul:

"9 For they themselves report concerning us the kind of reception we had among you, and how you turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God, 10 and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, Jesus who delivers us from the wrath to come" (1 Thess 1).

Whose WRATH is to come, if not God?

The greek pagan concept of "propitiating God" is not found -- rather the Scripture-based concept of "God PROVIDING atonement" IS found.

Christ IS GOD -- IS One with the Father (not in Person but in function) and so to say "Christ propitiates God" is to say "Christ appeased himself by letting himself be tortured by guilty man until he felt better about guilty man". The Greek pagan concept of "appeasement" does not work in scripture.

The other option in the "propitiate God" model is to "divide god against God so that god appeases GOD by letting himself be tortured" -- another idea that most people should reject if they just stop and think about what they are saying.

in Christ,

Bob

I stand on Scripture. If God reconciled us to Himself through the Substitute. What made us the enemies of God, if not sin?

And this sin brought the WRATH of God against sinful man.

"It is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God" (Heb 10:31).

"From his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron. He will tread the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty" (Rev 19:15).

If you are content in setting aside a large portion of Scripture, I will do no such thing.

It is precisely the fury of the wrath of God that believers are saved from, because Messiah has satisfied an angry God.

 

[BobRyan]

The Bible says "God so LOVED that HE gave" I am going to have to go with God as "FIRST cause" in this salvation - gospel solution not as "reacting" to an independant act of "someone else" but "GOD IN HUMAN FLESH" taking upon HIMSELF the job of suffering for OUR sins.

I am going to have to go with this Bible idea of "God was IN CHRIST reconciling the WORLD to HIMSELF" in 2Cor 5 as the accurate model so diametrically opposed to the greek pagan concept of "appeasement".

The sin that separates is "rebellion" we live in rebellion against God -- that separates. God in Christ is "reconciling the WORLD to Himself" so that we may escape the 2nd death and be saved. "We BEG you on BEHALF OF Christ BE RECONCILED to God" 2Cor 5.

Very very different from "little god -- Jesus - APPEASING the angry deity of big GOD -- God the Father".

Down to the very end -- Jesus prays "FATHER with you ALL things are possible - IF IT BE POSSIBLE let this cup PASS FROM Me" -- We do not see Jesus saying "mr. angry deity -- I shall allow myself to be tormented and tortured until you are appeased".

God's Law for the stability of HIS creation demands that those in rebellion suffer torment and eternal death -- called "the 2nd death" in Rev 20. This is like a civil government or king defining laws that punish those in rebellion against the government. But when their own child commits and act of rebellion they need to find a solution that can spare the child AND spare the kingdom. The King does not become "one who needs to be appeased" when considering the death and doom of those he loves. The problem faced in that case is "very different" from the greek pagan concept of "appeasing the angry deities".

God's wrath is against "sin" (Rebellion for sin is the transgression of God's Law) not the sinner. This is why 2Cor 5 can say "He (GOD) became SIN for us"

in Christ,

Bob

 

[TCGreek]

The Bible says "God so LOVED that HE gave" I am going to have to go with God as "FIRST cause" in this salvation - gospel solution not as "reacting" to an independant act of "someone else" but "GOD IN HUMAN FLESH" taking upon HIMSELF the job of suffering for OUR sins.

May I suggest that you get a handle around Romans 1:18-8:39.

I am going to have to go with this Bible idea of "God was IN CHRIST reconciling the WORLD to HIMSELF" in 2Cor 5 as the accurate model so diametrically opposed to the greek pagan concept of "appeasement".

Christ satisfied the wrath of God. There's no getting around this biblical fact.

The sin that separates is "rebellion" we live in rebellion against God -- that separates. God in Christ is "reconciling the WORLD to Himself" so that we may escape the 2nd death and be saved. "We BEG you on BEHALF OF Christ BE RECONCILED to God" 2Cor 5.

Christ has saved believers from the wrath of God to come (Rom 5:9, 10; 1 Thess 1:9, 10).

God's Law for the stability of HIS creation demands that those in rebellion suffer torment and eternal death -- called "the 2nd death" in Rev 20. This is like a civil government or king defining laws that punish those in rebellion against the government. But when their own child commits and act of rebellion they need to find a solution that can spare the child AND spare the kingdom. The King does not become "one who needs to be appeased" when considering the death and doom of those he loves. The problem faced in that case is "very different" from the greek pagan concept of "appeasing the angry deities".

God's wrath is against "sin" (Rebellion for sin is the transgression of God's Law) not the sinner. This is why 2Cor 5 can say "He (GOD) became SIN for us"

in Christ,

Bob

And precisely because believers have escape the wrath of an angry God.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

TCG: And precisely because believers have escape the wrath of an angry God.

HP: This is in all reality a false picture of your actual beliefs. How can one escape anything that there was absolutely no possibility of enduring?? Your system is one of absolute fatalistic determinism, without the least shred of any other possibility existing other than predetermined fate. Your idea of 'escape' can only be likened to a rock 'escaping' the top of a cliff as it is booted off by someone kicking rocks.

 

[BobRyan]

I thought it might be helpfull to have the texts highlighted that have to be faithfully "ignored and sidestepped" to hold to a greek pagan model of "appeasing an angry deity" instead of "God so Loved that He gave".

sometimes in the back and forth -- it is easy to miss this.

The Bible says "God so LOVED that HE gave" I am going to have to go with God as "FIRST cause" in this salvation - gospel solution not as "reacting" to an independant act of "someone else" but "GOD IN HUMAN FLESH" taking upon HIMSELF the job of suffering for OUR sins.

I am going to have to go with this Bible idea of "God was IN CHRIST reconciling the WORLD to HIMSELF" in 2Cor 5 as the accurate model so diametrically opposed to the greek pagan concept of "appeasement".

The sin that separates is "rebellion" we live in rebellion against God -- that separates. God in Christ is "reconciling the WORLD to Himself" so that we may escape the 2nd death and be saved. "We BEG you on BEHALF OF Christ BE RECONCILED to God" 2Cor 5.

Very very different from "little god -- Jesus - APPEASING the angry deity of big GOD -- God the Father".

Down to the very end -- Jesus prays "FATHER with you ALL things are possible - IF IT BE POSSIBLE let this cup PASS FROM Me" -- We do not see Jesus saying "mr. angry deity -- I shall allow myself to be tormented and tortured until you are appeased".

...
God's wrath is against "sin" (Rebellion for sin is the transgression of God's Law) not the sinner. This is why 2Cor 5 can say "He (GOD) became SIN for us"

"God is NOT WILLING for ANY to perish but for ALL to come to repentance" 2Peter 3

"God sent His SON -- to be the Savior of the WORLD" 1John 4:10-12

"God sent His SON to be the ATONING SACRIFICE for our SINS and not for OUR sins only but for the SINS of WHOLE WORLD" 1John 2:2.

"God so LOVED THE WORLD -- that HE GAVE"
"Oh Jerusalem Jerusalem that slays the prophets... how I WANTED to gather your children for protection... but YOU would not" Matt 23.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

BR: I thought it might be helpful to have the texts highlighted that have to be faithfully "ignored and sidestepped" to hold to a Greek pagan model of "appeasing an angry deity" instead of "God so Loved that He gave".

sometimes in the back and forth -- it is easy to miss this.

HP: I fully agree that the model of "appeasing an angry deity" is not supported by Scripture or reason. You point out some clear verses that set forth a different model indeed. You cannot appease the penalty of the law, neither can the penalty be set aside by appeasement. God gave of Himself in love, nothing constraining, in order to save a lost and dying world. God reached out in love at tremendous cost to Himself to save the lost. God designed and forged the way whereby men might be reconciled to Himself.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

BR, I know you understand our disagreements over the atonement. I still cannot understand how you arrive at it being an Arminian position that an exact amount of punishment or death was provided for an exacting amount of sin. That is in no wise any Arminian position that I have ever encountered. Would you happen to know of any well known or recognized Arminian that would or has believed in that manner?

For starters, how many ‘eternal separations' has Christ suffered? Eternal separation from God is the scriptural penalty for sin. 2Th 1:9 Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

BR, tell me how much suffering would pay for a single sin? Cannot you see that the penalty for sin was not a specific amount of suffering or even physical death, nor could it be? The sufferings and death of Christ in no way forced God to forgive sin, nor could such mandate that the penalty for sin would of necessity be set aside as a literal payment for a specific amount of sin would indicate. The death and sufferings of Christ was a satisfaction made, a substitution made, that God saw as sufficient to set aside the penalty for sin under certain conditions.

The problem with the atonement is that there is no exacting illustration in human government we could illustrate this act of love by. The closest thing that would illustrate such a granting of love and forgiveness is seen in a pardon, but even then it does not speak in exacting terms to the atonement. Just the same, I believe that one can readily see that NO amount of anything, even in a simple pardon, can be seen in the light of a specific payment for a specific amount of guilt. If anyone is to receive of a pardon, or if the means by which a pardon is to be offered is to be formed, it cannot be based upon any such literal payment, exacting a specific payment for a specific mount of incurred debt to the law. Nothing, outside of grace, not even the death and suffering on the part of God Himself, can force or mandate that the penalty of God’s law be set aside. The penalty of God’s law is exacting apart from His grace. God indeed can governmentally accept the atonement as the means by which He utilizes in setting aside the penalty of His law as He obviously did, but He is not forced, nor can anything force, the setting aside of the penalty for any reason.

The atonement is not a literal payment of a specific penalty for a specific amount of incurred debt in any sense. It was an act of love and grace, with no constraints whatsoever to provide the forgiveness of sin on anyone’s behalf, regardless of the sufferings and death of Christ. Men tormenting and killing Christ did not force God’s hand to forgive. Forgiveness is of grace not debt or the payment by means of sufferings and death. Certainly it involved the sufferings and death of Christ, but the grounds of salvation lies in the grace of God not the sufferings and death of Christ. The sufferings and death of Christ were the ‘means by which’ God chose to use, but His grace is the only grounds.

Suffering and physical death are finite in nature and cannot literally pay, in and of themselves, an eternal debt. In the case of Christ, God accepted the sufferings and death of Christ as a governmental substitute for the payment of the eternal debt of sin. I believe where you go wrong is in your belief that sins punishment is somehow finite and not eternal as Scripture states.

I am certain as we go along this can be couched in a much better manner. It is simply a feeble and preliminary attempt to place into words my thoughts on the matter.

 

[TCGreek]

HP: This is in all reality a false picture of your actual beliefs. How can one escape anything that there was absolutely no possibility of enduring?? Your system is one of absolute fatalistic determinism, without the least shred of any other possibility existing other than predetermined fate. Your idea of 'escape' can only be likened to a rock 'escaping' the top of a cliff as it is booted off by someone kicking rocks.

I'm interested in Scripture.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

TCG: I'm interested in Scripture.

HP: So are we all. Nowhere does Scripture present salvation as a necessitated consequence of arbitrary selection, as you obviously interpret it.

 

[TCGreek]

HP: So are we all. Nowhere does Scripture present salvation as a necessitated consequence of arbitrary selection, as you obviously interpret it.

1. Let me outline what you reject:

2. Paul was at Corinth dismayed and about to turn to the new city. The Lord appeared to him and said:

"And the Lord said to Paul one night in a vision, “Do not be afraid, but go on speaking and do not be silent, 10 for I am with you, and no one will attack you to harm you, for I have many in this city who are my people.” 11 And he stayed a year and six months, teaching the word of God among them" (Acts 18, emphasis mine).

3. Then sometime later Paul wrote to the church at Corinth:

"26 Brothers and sisters, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. 27 But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. 28 God chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are, 29 so that no one may boast before him. 30 It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption. 31 Therefore, as it is written: "Let those who boast boast in the Lord." (1 Cor 1:26-31,TNIV, emphasis mine).

4. When I put those two texts together this is what I come away with: When God said he had a people in Corinth, it meant a people he had chosen for salvation.

I'm just letting Scripture speak.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

TCG: 4. When I put those two texts together this is what I come away with: When God said he had a people in Corinth, it meant a people he had chosen for salvation.

I'm just letting Scripture speak.

HP: We shall get to the bottom of who is speaking and what exactly is being said. You seem to emphasis the word ‘chose.’ What does that imbibe or entail and what does that exclude? (Since we are only concerned with what Scripture speaks, Scripture references only. )

 

[TCGreek]

HP: We shall get to the bottom of who is speaking and what exactly is being said. You seem to emphasis the word ‘chose.’ What does that imbibe or entail and what does that exclude? (Since we are only concerned with what Scripture speaks, Scripture references only. )

How about presenting a Scriptural argument rather than being philosophical?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

TCG: How about presenting a Scriptural argument rather than being philosophical?

HP: Do you have something against using the reasoning capabilities God has given to man to discern the truth? Sound philosophy is not opposed to Scripture, nor Scripture to sound philosophy. Truth is truth and as such has its origin in God regardless of the source.

You seem to emphasis the word ‘chose.’ What does that imbibe or entail and what does that exclude according to Scripture?

By the way, does anyone feel inclined to see the movie that just came out entitled "Expelled! No Intelligence Allowed!" I may break down and go see it. I hear it is an excellent documentary.

 

[TCGreek]

HP: Do you have something against using the reasoning capabilities God has given to man to discern the truth? Sound philosophy is not opposed to Scripture, nor Scripture to sound philosophy. Truth is truth and as such has its origin in God regardless of the source.

You seem to emphasis the word ‘chose.’ What does that imbibe or entail and what does that exclude according to Scripture?

By the way, does anyone feel inclined to see the movie that just came out entitled "Expelled! No Intelligence Allowed!" I may break down and go see it. I hear it is an excellent documentary.

It appears to me that you're not interested in a Scriptural debate.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

TCG: It appears to me that you're not interested in a Scriptural debate.

HP: I asked you for Scriptural evidence of what the word ‘chose’ entails, and you say I am not interested in a Scriptural debate? How's that?