A Biblical Based view of Penal Substitutionary Atonement

What doctrine has not been disputed by someone? What text has not been disputed by someone? Again, notice the nature of your appeal - traditions.

My conclusions are based solely upon the very language of the texts and the most obvious import of the words being used.

Notice I place just plain scripture before you - nothing more and then draw conclusions based on the obvious import of the words used in those scriptures! Your response? You refuse to deal with the issues I present but side step and make unsubstantiated assertions with no scripture as a basis.

Why don't you take a shot at it and point out why I am wrong by using EXEGETICAL BASED reasons instead of appealing to traditions????

 

You asked me to defend the just standing in the legal position of the unjust and being penalized for their sins. I gave you with the legal basis - the book of Leviticus - divine law concerning atonement. Your response? Nada, Zilch, Zero except for philosophic speculation.

 

Above is the post I was responding to and the first question. Now here is my answer:

We are not dealing with American Jurisprudence or Roman Jurisprodence, but with DIVINE JURISPRUDENCE. Agreed?

The atonement is based and defined by DIVINE JURISPRUDENCE. Agreed?

The Levitical Law is God's Law. Agreed?

The book of Leviticus is God's Law concerning atonement? Agreed?

The sacrificial animals in the first five offerings, the daily offering, the day of atonement all symbolize a HUMAN BEING whose name is Jesus Christ. Agreed?

These sacrificial animals are qualified by physical characteristics (without spot and blemish) that symbolically represent the sinless character of Jesus Christ. Agreed?

Atonement must be by shedding of blood unto death. Agreed?

Condemnation for violating God's law is the penalty of death (Gen. 2:17; Rom. 5:12; 1 Jn. 3;6) and thus is the "condemnation" under the law. Agreed?

The death of the animal sacrifice represents the death of Jesus Christ. Agreed?

Levitial law - thus DIVINE LAW establishes that a qualified man symbolized by qualified animals, thus an innocent sinless man can be put to death to atone "for" or in behalf of sinners "because of their...sins". Agreed?

Case closed!

 

That is not the question you asked. You have two questions above unrelated to the question you asked which I answered. It easy to provide scripture that demands divine justice is retributive justice in the sense of judgement (penalization) is "according to their works." That is simply to prove IF one is dealing with a reasonable and honest debater.

However, the words "atonement" and "redeemed" are not interchangable terms in either English or Hebrew/Greek as they deal with different aspects. Atonement deals with the WHOLE LEGAL PROCESS demanded by Levitical (divine) Law which includes all parties and is meticulously laid out in detail by divine law (Leviticus).

However, "redemption" refers more to the cost/price provided by Christ with regard to His own Person and the motivation for paying that price which is not a matter of justice, as justice cannot demand anyone pay that price, but rather it is tied into divine love, mercy and grace as the moving cause.

Your error is that you are mixing and confusing them when they should not be confused. You greatly err if you imagine that "redemption" does not fit within the boundaries of divine law even though divine law cannot demand it. Think about this.

 

You are completely ignorning the hard evidence in Leviticus 16 I placed squarely before your eyes and no speculative philosophy was included just the plain simple Biblical language. No doubt this is why you did not respond point for point as it would expose this deceptive response.

 

If you dare, respond point for point where I make an assertion and ask you "agreed." Don't just say "disagree" but provide a Biblical based reason based on a Biblical text.

 

Ok, but I did prove that Jesus Christ is the antitype of the sacrificial type! I proved that with an abundance of scriptures that are clear and explicit. So the animal is an explicit type of a PERSON - Jesus Christ.

I did prove that the sacrificial qualications "without spot and blemish" are the sinless qualifications as type of a PERSON - Jesus Christ.

I did prove that the sacrificial death, shedding of blood are the type of a PERSON - Jesus Christ on the cross.

I did prove that the sacrificial animal was in type Jesus Christ as a sinless person presented as an "atonement" "FOR THE PEOPLE" "BECAUSE OF THEIR SINS."

Hence, the Levitical LAW provides the LEGAL BASIS for a sinless person symbolized by the animal and its ceremonial qualifications to be put to death "for the people" "because of THEIR SINS". It is significant that it was such an atonement made at various times in the journey of Israel through the wilderness that literally and actually stopped God from putting them to all to death physically. Several instances where God was killing them until such an atonement was made and satisfied God's wrath against them and God stopped killing them. Again, this is a type on a spiritual level and what the atonement of Christ prevents with regard to the full extent of death.

Hence, the perpetrators of those sins are not penalized by "death" but the animal which symbolizes a just man is penalized "for the people" "because of their sins."

Not only does Leviticual law justify the use of a SINLESS PERSON to make atonement for SINFUL PERSONS as a lawful and valid atonement but this is spelled out throughout scripture in clear and explicit non-symbolic language as provided in Isaiah 53 and in the words "the just for the unjust".

So you ask,

Can you defend your philosophy that it is just for an innocent man to be punished instead of the guilty person?

Can you defend the philosophy that views justice as demanding punishment to be rendered for an act even if the actual perpetrator is not punished?

I just did defend both above without a speck of philosophical pandering but all based upon clear and explicit scripture with regard to the Levitical law (thus, Divine Law) and with regard to clear and explicit Biblical assertions (Isa. 53; "the just for the unjust" "was made to be sin FOR US who knew no sin")

How many of the readers on this forum can easily and clearly see that I have answered both of Jon's questions WITHOUT A SPEC EXTRA BIBLICAL PHILOSOPHICA SPECULATIVE REASONING??

No offence intend toward you Jon, but as you very well know it is God that must give ability to understand and receive any truth and it seems that you simply lack that ability with regard to this area of truth.

 

What you are demonstrating is total incapability for dealing with very specific evidence in any objective manner. By your criteria NOTHING could be proven by scripture because you simply reject the plain and simple sense of scripture.

Any objective reader can easily see that I have indeed proven my position in so much that you are incapable of providing any objective evidence to disprove a single point I presented. Where is any kind of specified rebuttal to the specifics provided? Nada, zilch, none is the answer.

Instead you repeat a bankrupt talking point that you can't even defend and don't even try to defend. I will leave it to more objective readers to judge rather my presentation contained "presuppositions" and "philosophy" foreign to the scriptures and if any accuse me of those falsehoods I will demand they offer EVIDENCE, the very evidence you have not provided and I believe cannot provide and that is why you respond only in empty baseless talking points.

 

For more objective honest readers below I present again the scripture texts followed by conclusions drawn from those texts:

 

First, your questioned is flawed! There are not such "innocent" men with regard to divine justice - no,not one.

Second, We are talking about the atonement are we not? With regard to the atonement Divine law does not allow for sinful men to be even be qualified to act as a representative for sinners.

Third, sinners cannot be punished for anyone but themselves.

Fourth, divine law specific to the demands for atonement as set forth in the book of Leviticus (which is divine Law specific to your question) demands it must be an "innocent" person as symbolized by an animal and qualifications (without spot or blemish - which is directly applied to the Person of Christ specific to the law of atonement, so don't claim it is a merely animal as Biblical writers specificly apply as a symbol of a PERSON) that can meet the demands of atonement in behalf of sinners.

So, the very nature of your question is a repudiation of clear and explicit divine law that governs atonement.