Logic and the Literal Payment Theory

[TCGreek]

[/I]




Do you find the NT authors saying to their readers "forget what you find in scripture - just believe whatever we say now"??

OR do they use a "sola scriptura" model EVEN with NT saints that do not yet have a NT -- showing how doctrine being taught to NT saints is fully in line with OT and NOT by "bending the OT to line up with the NT" but by showing effectively that the Gospel IS in fact that New Covenant promise already given in the OT and when they mention to their readers something like "The Atoning Sacrifice" (1john 2:2) they rely on the fact that their readers ARLEADY know the concept from scripture SINCE "Moses is read each Sabbath in the Synagogues".

In other words SCRIPTURE already being read forms the CONTEXT for what they read in the NT letters. It is fine for the NT letters to expand and BUILD on that foundation of the Prophets -- but not to tear it down and "start over".

in Christ,

Bob

Bob, sola scriptura is based on Scripture, and for the early Christians, before their was the full canon, it was exactly that, Scripture.

Please don't forget that before we had the NT in written form, it already existed in oral form, at least in a type of orthodoxy.

Today I was reading in Act 28 how Paul demonstrated from Torah and Neviim about Jesus the Messiah.

To Timothy he said that Timothy came to faith in Christ from the OT Scriptures (2 Tim 3:15).

 

[TCGreek]

HP: Speaking once again of Scripture being of no private interpretation………

Here you try and line up grace with your ‘interpretation’ of what grace as if though by your statement alone you have the rights to the issue of grace. It is like saying that what you believe is automatically right and all other opinions concerning grace are automatically wrong. What kind of an attitude do you think that projects? One shockingly similar to the one Augustine showed I am afraid.

Instead of trying to manipulate the discussion by attempting to foist the high ground by merely begging the question, why don’t you first establish what these doctrines of grace are you speak of with evidence substantiated by Scripture. Only then can we have a real debate instead of merely assuming without proof, as you have indicated thus far, that your ideas are superior and automatically the only ones in accordance with truth without offering the least shred of evidence that they are.

HP, all the doctrines that God wants me to discover are within the pages in Scripture and with the help of the Holy Spirit I will know what God wants me to know (1 Cor 2:10-14).

 

[TCGreek]

HP: TCG, I do not see a direct answer to these simple questrions. Did I miss them? What does the phrase, 'but also for the sins of the whole world' mean?

If Christ actually atoned for the sins of the whole world, meaning every individual, then why aren't all individuals saved indiscriminately? Well, we have to propose the following:

1. Christ only died a potential death--his atonement was only potential, and so each individual may or may not accept it. This is the arminian position.

2. Christ only died for the elect and the whole world refers to all the peoples of the world. This is the calvinist position.

3. Or we can get into all the other theories of the atonement--governmental, moral, accidental and so on.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Scripture: 1Jo 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

TCG: 2. Christ only died for the elect and the whole world refers to all the peoples of the world. This is the calvinist position.

HP: You say rightly this is the ‘Calvinist position.’ It is not the position of the Word of God and you did NOT get it from Scripture. It is Calvinistic interpretation which is in direct opposition to the stated Word of God. So much for Calvinism as being the sole torch bearer for the 'doctrines of grace' as you implied they were.

Am I the only one that just witnessed 'Sola Scripture' go up in smoke?

 

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted by BobRyan

Do you find the NT authors saying to their readers "forget what you find in scripture - just believe whatever we say now"?? (That in fact is the RC model being suggested for today)

OR do they use a "sola scriptura" model EVEN with NT saints that do not yet have a NT -- showing how doctrine being taught to NT saints is fully in line with OT and NOT by "bending the OT to line up with the NT" but by showing effectively that the Gospel IS in fact that New Covenant promise already given in the OT and when they mention to their readers something like "The Atoning Sacrifice" (1john 2:2) they rely on the fact that their readers ARLEADY know the concept from scripture SINCE "Moses is read each Sabbath in the Synagogues".

In other words SCRIPTURE already being read forms the CONTEXT for what they read in the NT letters. It is fine for the NT letters to expand and BUILD on that foundation of the Prophets -- but not to tear it down and "start over".
[/i]

The Sola Scriptura argument comes from places like

Acts 17:11 "They searched the SCRIPTURES daily to SEE IF those things were so"

And as our RC bretheren like to point out in defense --"yes but that would be the OT text and surely we all want to ignore it right?"

Sola scriptura also comes from places like 2Tim 3:16
"ALL scripture is given by inspiration from God AND IS to be used for doctrine"

And there again the RC retort is - "Yes but that too is a primary reference to the scriptures of God - the OT - the WORD of God used by the NT authors -- surely we don't want to pay attention to that -- so can't use that text for sola scriptura with today's Christians"

Bob, sola scriptura is based on Scripture, and for the early Christians, before their was the full canon, it was exactly that, Scripture.

Indeed as we see in the examples above the NT authors NEVER said "ignore scripture and just wait for us to keep telling you more oral tradition and doctrine -- whatever you do -- don't read God's Word".

Please don't forget that before we had the NT in written form, it already existed in oral form, at least in a type of orthodoxy.

That is the RC argument --agreed.

But that is NOT what we find WRITTEN in the text of the NT. NO NT author says "sorry to say it but the SCRIPTURES you have in written form we will start calling the OT (not really the "good stuff") so for now best thing to do is just pay attention to our oral traditions - ignore the Word of God as much as possible and wait until we can get NEW TEXT to you in WRITTEN form so that you will once AGAIN have the WORD of God in written form -- a better version replacing what we call today "Scripture" and Word of God". (A more perfect Mormon argument could hardly be imagined!!)

Today I was reading in Act 28 how Paul demonstrated from Torah and Neviim about Jesus the Messiah.

To Timothy he said that Timothy came to faith in Christ from the OT Scriptures (2 Tim 3:15).

True -- he continues to argue for the VALIDITY of the Scriptures -- the SAME ones that Timothy read in 2Tim 3:15 ARE APPROVED for NT readers in the NEXT verse "ALL scripture is given by inspiration from God AND TO BE USED FOR DOCTRINE".

As you point out -- the primary reference there is to the OT text.

NOW let's look at the way this adds to our topic.

1. It means that High Priestly role emphasized by Paul in Heb 7-9 IS KEY to the Atonement (As seen in Lev 16) AND it means that the "ATONING SACRIFICE" described by John in 1John 2:2 is ALSO key as we see in Lev 16:15.

John does not have to go into "detail definition" in 1John 2:2 of what "Atoning sacrifice" MEANS since he knows that his readers hear "Moses read in the synagogues every Sabbath" Acts 15:21. He mentions the term and NEEDS NO definition "repeated".

The same is true with Paul in 1Cor 5 "Christ our PASSOVER has been slain" with no need to "define and explain what is PASSOVER".

The same thing with Paul in Hebrews in regard to the WORK of the High Priest -- a reference to it in Heb 9 POINTING TO Lev 16 AS IF the reader was familiar with it.

And BECAUSE those two texts FIT SO WELL (Lev 16 and Heb 7-9) we HAVE an atonement that ALLOWS for NEW SINNERS being converted and forgiven -- and EXISTING saints that may indeed suffere Matt 18 "Forgiveness Revoked".

The "Read no scripture if it is OT -- thinking it still has value" model of Christians today -- is "an innovation" added to what we FIND IN the NT writer's text and it plays right into the hands of the RC argument for oral tradition over scripture INSTEAD of "Sola scriptura" scrutiny.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

HP: You say rightly this is the ‘Calvinist position.’ It is not the position of the Word of God and you did NOT get it from Scripture. It is Calvinistic interpretation which is in direct opposition to the stated Word of God. So much for Calvinism as being the sole torch bearer for the 'doctrines of grace' as you implied they were.


Am I the only one that just witnessed 'Sola Scripture' go up in smoke?

No sir you are not -- I too saw it in triplicate in that post of TCG's

Hopefully people are not so married to Calvinism's view of Atonement that they would gladly trash scripture and claim in its place the new ideas of "oral tradition".

I much prefer the UNITY and HARMONY of the scriptures where the NT text BUILDS on the "foundation of the Apostles and prophets with Jesus Christ Himself as the Corner Stone" Eph 2:20. As Peter said "Holy men of old moved by the HOLY SPIRIT spoke from GOD". The question for Calvinists today is - how much of God's Word are you willing to put aside in favor of Calvinism's brand of "atonement"?

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

In God's OWN "Day of Atonement" instruction (if we can be allowed the luxury of placing other ideas aside for a moment) - God shows that Atonement process is "completed" only AFTER the lamb of God is slain and AFTER the work of the High Priest has ended.

The ceremonial year at that point was OVER -- no more sinners coming to Christ, no more blood to be slain, nor more forgiveness to be applie, no more intercession to be done.. it was as if in our terms "The Second coming" had just happened.

But of course -- that's the Bible - so you need to decide if that is the good part or the "not as good part".

If Christ actually atoned for the sins of the whole world, meaning every individual, then why aren't all individuals saved indiscriminately? Well, we have to propose the following:

1. Christ only died a potential death--his atonement was only potential, and so each individual may or may not accept it. This is the arminian position.

The Arminian position is that it is the REAL death of Christ and the suffering and torment of Christ is for the REAL suffering and torment OWED by all mankind for all the sins in all time.

The "Lamb of God" slain -- the "Lord's Goat SLAIN" as in Lev 16:15 but not the High Priest's work ENDED since as Paul confirms it BEGINS in Heb 8!

TCG

2. Christ only died for the elect and the whole world refers to all the peoples of the world. This is the calvinist position.

"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.

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 them 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

 

[TCGreek]

Indeed as we see in the examples above the NT authors NEVER said "ignore scripture and just wait for us to keep telling you more oral tradition and doctrine -- whatever you do -- don't read God's Word".

Scripture remains the final authority in my world view, not a synod, a council or a church.

But that is NOT what we find WRITTEN in the text of the NT. NO NT author says "sorry to say it but the SCRIPTURES you have in written form we will start calling the OT (not really the "good stuff") so for now best thing to do is just pay attention to our oral traditions - ignore the Word of God as much as possible and wait until we can get NEW TEXT to you in WRITTEN form so that you will once AGAIN have the WORD of God in written form -- a better version replacing what we call today "Scripture" and Word of God". (A more perfect Mormon argument could hardly be imagined!!)

What we find in Scripture is all the truth God wants us to know revealed in written form.

Before Jesus went to the cross he told his disciples that the Spirit would guide them into all truth (John 14-16).

I believe that happened in the time of the apostles, so much so that we see early believers devoting themselves to the apostles' doctrine.

There must have been a recognizable body of doctrine for this to have happened.

True -- he continues to argue for the VALIDITY of the Scriptures -- the SAME ones that Timothy read in 2Tim 3:15 ARE APPROVED for NT readers in the NEXT verse "ALL scripture is given by inspiration from God AND TO BE USED FOR DOCTRINE".

As you point out -- the primary reference there is to the OT text.

NOW let's look at the way this adds to our topic.

1. It means that High Priestly role emphasized by Paul in Heb 7-9 IS KEY to the Atonement (As seen in Lev 16) AND it means that the "ATONING SACRIFICE" described by John in 1John 2:2 is ALSO key as we see in Lev 16:15.

John does not have to go into "detail definition" in 1John 2:2 of what "Atoning sacrifice" MEANS since he knows that his readers hear "Moses read in the synagogues every Sabbath" Acts 15:21. He mentions the term and NEEDS NO definition "repeated".

The same is true with Paul in 1Cor 5 "Christ our PASSOVER has been slain" with no need to "define and explain what is PASSOVER".

The same thing with Paul in Hebrews in regard to the WORK of the High Priest -- a reference to it in Heb 9 POINTING TO Lev 16 AS IF the reader was familiar with it.

And BECAUSE those two texts FIT SO WELL (Lev 16 and Heb 7-9) we HAVE an atonement that ALLOWS for NEW SINNERS being converted and forgiven -- and EXISTING saints that may indeed suffere Matt 18 "Forgiveness Revoked".

The "Read no scripture if it is OT -- thinking it still has value" model of Christians today -- is "an innovation" added to what we FIND IN the NT writer's text and it plays right into the hands of the RC argument for oral tradition over scripture INSTEAD of "Sola scriptura" scrutiny.

in Christ,

Bob

But even as the used the OT text, with the Holy Spirit as the resident teacher, they were interpreting the OT text from a christological viewpoint (1 Cor 5:7, as you pointed out above).

No doubt the OT is seminal in our understanding the OT, but we make a colossal mistake to ignore the NT interpretation of the atonement of Christ.

And as a student of Scripture, I believe the NT writers have sufficiently interpreted the atonement of Christ, and this is what I found:

Christ died a substitutionary death once for all, a death which is real and actual and not potential, to propitiate the God by removing the sins of sinners, so they don't have to do the same.

 

[TCGreek]

HP: You say rightly this is the ‘Calvinist position.’ It is not the position of the Word of God and you did NOT get it from Scripture. It is Calvinistic interpretation which is in direct opposition to the stated Word of God. So much for Calvinism as being the sole torch bearer for the 'doctrines of grace' as you implied they were.

Am I the only one that just witnessed 'Sola Scripture' go up in smoke?

Don't worry about the label! That's the least of your hermeneutical problem. Focus on what Scripture teaches.

Perception is everything in this debate and countless others.

Christ died at Calvary to atone for my sins once and for all, so that when I stand before the Father, he sees not my sins or my own righteousness, but the sacrifice of Christ and the righteousness of Scripture:

"God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God" (2 Cor 5:21, TNIV).

I know you might find a problem with my interpretation, because it doesn't accord with yours and your church. That's ok. I've come to expect that.

I take my stance on the truths of Scripture, ala Luther.

 

[TCGreek]

In God's OWN "Day of Atonement" instruction (if we can be allowed the luxury of placing other ideas aside for a moment) - God shows that Atonement process is "completed" only AFTER the lamb of God is slain and AFTER the work of the High Priest has ended.

When the NT writers interpret the OT, who am I to overturn their interpretations?

For example, the High Priest went into the holy of holies once a year to atone for his sins and the sins of the people.

Then we the Hebrew writer telling us that Christ and his sacrifice has superceded that type (Heb 9-10).

Now I need to spend understanding the death of Christ from the NT writers' perspective. Enough has been said:

"For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God" (1 Pet 3:21, TNIV).

If you wish to spend your time in the OT to understand the atonement of Christ, you are free to do so. But I will take no such approach.

The ceremonial year at that point was OVER -- no more sinners coming to Christ, no more blood to be slain, nor more forgiveness to be applie, no more intercession to be done.. it was as if in our terms "The Second coming" had just happened.

But of course -- that's the Bible - so you need to decide if that is the good part or the "not as good part".

Hear Scripture on this:

11 But when Christ came as high priest of the good things that are now already here, he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not made with human hands, that is to say, is not a part of this creation. 12 He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, thus obtaining eternal redemption. 13 The blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who are ceremonially unclean sanctify them so that they are outwardly clean. 14 How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God! (Heb 9:11-14, TNIV).

"Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12 But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, 13 and since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool. 14 For by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy" (Heb 10:11-14, TNIV).

I rather gaze upon the clearer picture of the NT than the OT on this issue.

If you think the OT is clearer than the NT, then you are free to do so.

The Arminian position is that it is the REAL death of Christ and the suffering and torment of Christ is for the REAL suffering and torment OWED by all mankind for all the sins in all time.

The "Lamb of God" slain -- the "Lord's Goat SLAIN" as in Lev 16:15 but not the High Priest's work ENDED since as Paul confirms it BEGINS in Heb 8!

Give me the beaming light of the NT interpretation of the OT.

"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.

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 them 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

Why aren't we all universalists since Christ atoned for all indiscriminately?

That can't be since some are already lost in hell.

So we can offer the potential death theory of Christ.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

BR: The Arminian position is that it is the REAL death of Christ and the suffering and torment of Christ is for the REAL suffering and torment OWED by all mankind for all the sins in all time.

HP: Yes,it is for that , but not thought of in the sense the literal payment theory imbibes. Growing up in Arminian circles I believe it was always explained as a substitutionary act, one God accepted as sufficient enough to allow Him to set aside the penalty for sin under certain conditions. I do not believe I ever heard it explained as you are expressing it, as the exact amount of suffering or death that was owed in any literal sense.

Am I misunderstanding or misrepresenting your sentiments?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

TCG: HP, all the doctrines that God wants me to discover are within the pages in Scripture and with the help of the Holy Spirit I will know what God wants me to know (1 Cor 2:10-14).

HP: My point is that you are not getting your ideas only from Scripture, and that the idea you have of grace is not necessarily that of Scriptures. You have no right to act as if though you alone own the rights to the idea of grace and all that oppose you and the developed ideas of Calvinism as it defines grace are in reality deniers of grace. Augustine was a clear example of that frightfully wrong opinion. The notion of grace that you are aligning yourself with comes straight out of the Augustinian/Calvin playbook, not directly from Scripture.

 

[TCGreek]

HP: My point is that you are not getting your ideas only from Scripture, and that the idea you have of grace is not necessarily that of Scriptures. You have no right to act as if though you alone own the rights to the idea of grace and all that oppose you and the developed ideas of Calvinism as it defines grace are in reality deniers of grace. Augustine was a clear example of that frightfully wrong opinion. The notion of grace that you are aligning yourself with comes straight out of the Augustinian/Calvin playbook, not directly from Scripture.

HP, if you think you can contributed one iota to your salvation, then you are preaching another gospel, which really is not another (Gal 1:6-9).

If claiming from Scripture that my salvation, from start to finish, is wholly of God and nothing of me, and this was taught by Augustine and Calvin, then I'm grateful to be among these men on this issue.

Scripture is the source of my doctrine of grace:

"When he arrived, he was a great help to those who by grace had believed" (Acts 18:27, TNIV, emphasis mine). Solely by the grace of God can we ever come to faith in His Son.

"8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast" (Eph 2:8-9, TNIV, emphasis mine).

I can only stand on Scripture--sola scriptura--take away Scripture from me and I have nothing on which to stand.

 

[BobRyan]

HP: Yes,it is for that , but not thought of in the sense the literal payment theory imbibes. Growing up in Arminian circles I believe it was always explained as a substitutionary act, one God accepted as sufficient enough to allow Him to set aside the penalty for sin under certain conditions. I do not believe I ever heard it explained as you are expressing it, as the exact amount of suffering or death that was owed in any literal sense.

Am I misunderstanding or misrepresenting your sentiments?

yes I am saying that the Law's penalty is "exact" for each and every sin specific suffering and that the suffering of Christ "exactly matched". God did not pour out far more punishment upon His only Son than guilty mankind even owed. NOR did He short cut the exact suffering debt that His OWN law demands for sin.

We both agree that "God was satified that the suffering of Christ met the conditions of the Law" -- I simply argue that this is not "fuzzy logic" it is exact accounting -- perfect reconning on God's part.

I am not sure how that breaks the model that you have held except that you do not think God takes the suffering and death down to such a finite exact level.

However consider this -- that was the MOST EXPENSIVE payment heaven ever made - it cost the suffering torment and death of God's Son. Was He not going to pay very close attention such that Christ sufferred no "more" than was absolutely positively necessary to meet the demnds of His Law?

While all in the fires of the second death - fire and brimstone seen in Rev 20 lose out on eternal life -- ALL do not "suffer the same" as Luke 12:47-48 points out regarding the torment owed by the wicked -- some owing much and others owing less. Again -- I am simply saying that the truth of that statement is far more concrete than some might have supposed.

The implications are great -- for it means that the Romans soldier's cruel treatment AND the Jew's rejection and abuse of Christ merely ADDED to the debt that He would pay.

It also means that when we as Christians -- continue in sin we also add our part to the weight of torment and suffering of our precious Lord and Savior. A debt that He fully "foresaw" but a needless contribution to that debt (on our part) nonetheless.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Bob said

Do you find the NT authors saying to their readers "forget what you find in scripture - just believe whatever we say now"??

OR do they use a "sola scriptura" model EVEN with NT saints that do not yet have a NT -- showing how doctrine being taught to NT saints is fully in line with OT and NOT by "bending the OT to line up with the NT" but by showing effectively that the Gospel IS in fact that New Covenant promise already given in the OT and when they mention to their readers something like "The Atoning Sacrifice" (1john 2:2) they rely on the fact that their readers ARLEADY know the concept from scripture SINCE "Moses is read each Sabbath in the Synagogues".

In other words SCRIPTURE already being read forms the CONTEXT for what they read in the NT letters. It is fine for the NT letters to expand and BUILD on that foundation of the Prophets -- but not to tear it down and "start over".

Bob, sola scriptura is based on Scripture, and for the early Christians, before their was the full canon, it was exactly that, Scripture.

Please don't forget that before we had the NT in written form, it already existed in oral form, at least in a type of orthodoxy.

The "Sola Scriptura" point is Acts 17:11 "They studied the scriptures Daily to SEE IF those things spoken to them by Paul - were so".

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

And as pointed out above - this is why they could simply reference the fact of "Atonement" rather than "fully detail it" and in the case of "Adam created first not Eve" a small snippet detail in a much larger story found in scripture to which the reader of the NT letter had access.

For as James said "Moses is read every Sabbath in the Synagogues".

Scripture remains the final authority in my world view, not a synod, a council or a church.

What we find in Scripture is all the truth God wants us to know revealed in written form.

Before Jesus went to the cross he told his disciples that the Spirit would guide them into all truth (John 14-16).

I believe that happened in the time of the apostles, so much so that we see early believers devoting themselves to the apostles' doctrine.

There must have been a recognizable body of doctrine for this to have happened.

I have no doubt about the NT letters being ADDED to scripture - what I have a problem with is the "scrap the old and start over" ideas that sometimes gain popularity since that would be the "death of sola scriptura". The only way sola scriptura can possibly be claimed as the model for NT saints in the first century is to accept that the Acts 17:11 principle "BUILDING on the OT text not replacing it" was the "norm".

I have to think that this is one reason that Luke is divinely lead to include that incident.

But even as they used the OT text, with the Holy Spirit as the resident teacher, they were interpreting the OT text from a christological viewpoint (1 Cor 5:7, as you pointed out above).

Agreed. Christ "IS THE WORD that became FLESH" - Seeing the Salvation purpose of God in Christ "reconciling the WORLD to HIMSELF" 2Cor 5 is key to a deeper and more accurate understanding of the truth and importance of "Scripture" whether you label it "OT" or "NT" (Labels that God never used nor did the NT authors)

No doubt the OT is seminal in our understanding the OT, but we make a colossal mistake to ignore the NT interpretation of the atonement of Christ.

It is highly questionable whether we have ANY evidence that NT authors viewed the "Atonement" of Christ in the "absence of what THEY called scripture" - rather we constantly find THEM arguing that the Atonement of Christ was "ACCORDING to scripture".

And as a student of Scripture, I believe the NT writers have sufficiently interpreted the atonement of Christ, and this is what I found:

Christ died a substitutionary death once for all

We all find that.

What we DON't find is that the High Priest's role (Christ's role as OUR High Priest -- to give that OT fact a Christological amplification) "as GOD defined it in Lev 16" is NOT APPLICABLE to atonement. We do not find such a teaching in EITHER the NT or the OT text "of scripture".

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".

God HIMSELF chose to point out in Lev 16 that the Atonement COMPLETES the plan of salvation to a far more pefect end than the Calvinist model allows. God places this as THE LAST sacrifice -- no more sins brought in, no more mediation of the priests, no more "conversions" claiming the blood. At the end of the year on the Day of Atonement -- all accounts are settled. The story "is over" -- it is the point that most closely resembles what we call today "The Second coming".

And THAT is why Arminians who accept this all-encompassing scope for the Atonement as we find God defining it in Lev 16 -- find PERFECt accomodation for "continued evangelism and confession of sin" AFTER the time of the Cross. UNTIL the High Priestly work of Christ in applying the blood of the atonement ends - the gospel marches on!


in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Quote:
Originally Posted by BobRyan
In God's OWN "Day of Atonement" instruction (if we can be allowed the luxury of placing other ideas aside for a moment) - God shows that Atonement process is "completed" only AFTER the lamb of God is slain and AFTER the work of the High Priest has ended.

TCGreek
When the NT writers interpret the OT, who am I to overturn their interpretations?

I am good with going with what the Bible writers say. My whole point is that THEY are the ones saying ...

Acts 17:11 "They studIED the SCRITPURES daily to SEE IF those things were so"

1john 2:2 "He is the ATONING SACRIFICE for OUR SINS and not for OUR sins only but for the SINS of the WHOLE world"

They themselves CLAIM they are teaching "nothing but what the Prophets" predicted.

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;

For example, the High Priest went into the holy of holies once a year to atone for his sins and the sins of the people.

Then we the Hebrew writer telling us that Christ and his sacrifice has superceded that type (Heb 9-10).

Clearly we see in Heb 8 that "He is our High Priest" and in Heb 7 that with the passing of the Priesthood to Christ in heaven - the role of all earthly priests ends for THE REAL antitype form is now taking place.

No question that Christ is now doing for "real" what the prior services merely "predicted".

TCGreek

"For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God" (1 Pet 3:21, TNIV).

If you wish to spend your time in the OT to understand the atonement

You propose an "either OR fallacy" when in fact the NT authors ARGUE for "both AND" they argue for BUILDING on the foundation of scripture and they SHOW it in their writing continually referencing "SCRIPTURE" and claiming that theiir teaching on the MESSIAH is in fact "according to scripture".

I am going to have to go with their word on that.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

I note that the "Scripture" appealed to by the NT writers authorotatively has this teaching...

Bob

Quote:
The ceremonial year at that point was OVER -- no more sinners coming to Christ, no more blood to be slain, nor more forgiveness to be applie, no more intercession to be done.. it was as if in our terms "The Second coming" had just happened.

But of course -- that's the Bible - so you need to decide if that is the good part or the "not as good part".

TCGreek said
Hear Scripture on this:

11 But when Christ came as high priest of the good things that are now already here, he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not made with human hands, that is to say, is not a part of this creation. 12 He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, thus obtaining eternal redemption. 13 The blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who are ceremonially unclean sanctify them so that they are outwardly clean.

14 How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God! (Heb 9:11-14, TNIV).

All good. It appears to DRAW FROM scripture (the OT as we now call it) and point out the fact that what was seen in OT times was in fact PREDICTING in "types" the work of the Messiah that was "future".

Perfect harmony between what they were calling "scripture" and what they were claiming about the MESSIAH.

TCG points out --

"Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12

But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, 13 and since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool. 14 For by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy" (Heb 10:11-14, TNIV).

Indeed Christ's sacrifice is "once for all" no MASS, nor coming back to "die on the cross again" -- His is a ONCE for ALL sacrifice putting an end to "Sacrifices and offerings" just as Daniel 9 predicted.

This is a case of FULFILLING the predictions made in scripture.

Peter calls it a "more sure word of PROPHECY" because we SEE that "scripture" was in deed CORRECT -- affirmed - validated, SHOWN to be reliable so as Peter goes on to day "HOLY men of old MOVED by the Holy Spirit spoke from GOD".

This is an argument FOR scripture -- not for "dumping it and starting over with oral tradition".

I rather gaze upon the clearer picture of the NT than the OT on this issue.

If you think the OT is clearer than the NT, then you are free to do so.

You have twisted the argument of "BUILD on scripture" into "clearer picture in OT than NT" -- my argument is for the WHOLE of scripture and you argue that we should RATHER read the NT for the clear picture and not worry about what the NT writers themselves HELD UP as "Scripture".

Your "either OR" approach is NOT the one we find the NT writers using.

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;

Could they have BEEN any clearer on that point??

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Bob
The Arminian position is that it is the REAL death of Christ and the suffering and torment of Christ is for the REAL suffering and torment OWED by all mankind for all the sins in all time.

The "Lamb of God" slain -- the "Lord's Goat SLAIN" as in Lev 16:15 but not the High Priest's work ENDED since as Paul confirms it BEGINS in Heb 8!

TCGreek
Give me the beaming light of the NT interpretation of the OT.

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

Why aren't we all universalists since Christ atoned for all indiscriminately?

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.

That can't be since some are already lost in hell.

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

 

[BobRyan]

Bottom line -- I agree with your arguments that IF those Calvinist terms and conditions were true - THEN the Calvinist conlusions for limited atonement is also true ALTHOUGH you would still be stuck with "no conversions, no repentance, no confession" for NO CHANGE can take place once the end-of-year Atonement process ends (as we see at the 2nd coming and the end of Christ's role as High Priest).

When I counter the Calvinist argument - I am countering the entire argument with a Bible solution that works in EVERY respect -- no dangling bits of Calvinism to account for in the middle of an "otherwise" arminian solution.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[TCGreek]

The "Sola Scriptura" point is Acts 17:11 "They studied the scriptures Daily to SEE IF those things spoken to them by Paul - were so".

Doctrine must come from Scripture and not church or council.

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

Agreed.

And as pointed out above - this is why they could simply reference the fact of "Atonement" rather than "fully detail it" and in the case of "Adam created first not Eve" a small snippet detail in a much larger story found in scripture to which the reader of the NT letter had access.

Whatever the Spirit wanted the NT writers to elaborate on, they did.

I have no doubt about the NT letters being ADDED to scripture - what I have a problem with is the "scrap the old and start over" ideas that sometimes gain popularity since that would be the "death of sola scriptura". The only way sola scriptura can possibly be claimed as the model for NT saints in the first century is to accept that the Acts 17:11 principle "BUILDING on the OT text not replacing it" was the "norm".

I'm not calling for a replacement of the NT. Rather, I'm calling for a better understanding of OT concepts via the NT writers.

It is highly questionable whether we have ANY evidence that NT authors viewed the "Atonement" of Christ in the "absence of what THEY called scripture" - rather we constantly find THEM arguing that the Atonement of Christ was "ACCORDING to scripture".

While keeping the OT in mind, the NT writers give us the true sense of the Atonement of Christ as symbolized in the OT.

"1 The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming—not the realities themselves. For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship. 2 Otherwise, would they not have stopped being offered? For the worshipers would have been cleansed once for all, and would no longer have felt guilty for their sins. 3 But those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins. 4 It is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins" (Heb 10, TNIV).

What we DON't find is that the High Priest's role (Christ's role as OUR High Priest -- to give that OT fact a Christological amplification) "as GOD defined it in Lev 16" is NOT APPLICABLE to atonement. We do not find such a teaching in EITHER the NT or the OT text "of scripture".

Christ is now our great Hight Priest.

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".

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)

God HIMSELF chose to point out in Lev 16 that the Atonement COMPLETES the plan of salvation to a far more pefect end than the Calvinist model allows. God places this as THE LAST sacrifice -- no more sins brought in, no more mediation of the priests, no more "conversions" claiming the blood. At the end of the year on the Day of Atonement -- all accounts are settled. The story "is over" -- it is the point that most closely resembles what we call today "The Second coming".

Now I have identified your problem.

And THAT is why Arminians who accept this all-encompassing scope for the Atonement as we find God defining it in Lev 16 -- find PERFECt accomodation for "continued evangelism and confession of sin" AFTER the time of the Cross. UNTIL the High Priestly work of Christ in applying the blood of the atonement ends - the gospel marches on!

Read Hebrews 10:14:

"For by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy" (TNIV).