Atonement (Not PSA)

[Armchair Apologist]

THE COVENANT GOD MADE WITH ABRAHAM AND CHRIST

God called out Abram and made a covenant. God would bless him, make him a great nation, He would bless those who blessed him and curse those who cursed him. In him all the families of the earth would be blessed. God would greatly multiply his seed and in his seed all the nations of the earth would be blessed. I do not believe that Abraham realized the full implications of this covenant as it was yet to be revealed. The word “seed” is grammatically a collective singular. While it could point to Abraham’s descendants, Paul tells it that this points to his “Seed”, or Christ.

None of this was written down until several centuries later by Moses but I would guess many things were certainly passed down from generation to generation via "folklore" (oral tradition) or whatever. To me, it seems difficult that Moses would pull such things out of "thin air" but rather that such stories and accounts had already been known of by the children of Israel who were in the wilderness with him.

What is interesting to note here are the overlaps we see in the genealogies leading up to this. First of all, Abraham was born only 50 years after the death of Noah but Shem (father of the Semitic people) was not only alive during the time of Abraham but also for the birth of Isaac! You can also go back to Shem's birth and see that Shem was alive when Methuselah was alive and Methuselah was alive when Adam was alive! Abraham was therefore only four generations removed from Adam! Of course we could not say whether Abraham had any interaction with Shem; the scriptures do not speculate, but it certainly was plausible and what sort of conversation do you think they would've had if they actually met? Perhaps (and this is just my wild imagination here) Shem was Melchizadek? Probably not but who knows?

But what I would assert (commenting on what I have bolded in your statement) is that Abraham likely was well aware of the "Protoevangellium" in Gen 3:15 and that the promise of his "seed" was a continuation of the covenant that God had given to Eve in the garden and I believe you have alluded to this in your comment following.

It is important to remember that this is not the Old Covenant. This is an older covenant which has not replaced. Until the Old Covenant was established there existed no sacrificial system under which sins are atoned. All the sacrifices prior to the Law are in worship, not “making atonement”. But I believe that the Old Covenant foreshadowed the New Covenant to come. I think this primarily because this is how Paul and the author of Hebrews used the Old Covenant.

I believe we have several "covenants" here (Adamic, Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic, and so forth) and each of these covenants build one upon another and each provides a clearer picture which ultimately points to Christ. We understand that the sacrifices in these covenants were not an actual "atonement" but they certainly illustrated the atonement that was to come that was fulfilled from the foundation of the world (had to throw this in somewhere).

THE EXODUS PASSOVER

Israel had been in Egypt for 430 years (many view this to include the journey). At some point they became enslaved in Egypt. God delivered Israel from this bondage.

On the tenth of the month the people took a lamb for themselves. If the family was too small for a whole lamb they went to a neighbor and divided the lamb according to what they would eat. The people assembled on the fourteenth day and killed the lamb at twilight. They took some of the blood and put it on the two doorposts and on the lintel of the home where they ate. That night they ate the lamb with unleavened bread and bitter herbs. None was left over until morning as whatever was left, they burned with fire. They ate the meal ready to leave. God went through Egypt on that night, and He struck down all the firstborn (both man and animal).

When God saw the blood on the two doorposts and on the lintel of the home He passed over that home.

And of course there is the implication of a substitutionary atonement all throughout this account. It would be incorporated in the law of Moses and the Levitical Priesthood and Christ would ultimately be that "Passover Lamb."

THE OLD COVENANT

The covenant God made with Abraham was to him and his Seed. The law (the Old Covenant) was introduced 430 years later and it does not set aside the covenant God made with Abraham and Christ. The law was never intended to depart life otherwise righteousness would have come by the law. Instead, what the law did was lock up everything under the control of sin (under Satan’s domain) so that what was promised (that covenant God made with Abraham and Jesus) would belong to those who believe. In other words, man was held under the law (locked up under the power of Satan) until the faith or faithfulness of Jesus, the Promise, was to be revealed.

I concur with your bolded statement here. It was not a "new covenant" but rather additional revelation which God added to his prior covenants. Paul made it ciear that "By the law is the knowledge of sin" and this is the only reason for which it is intended as "by the deeds of the law shall no flesh be justified." Paul states that "nevertheless, death reined from Adam to Moses" speaking of the time prior to the law that was given by Moses. In such a case, it is one's conscience that will either excuse or accuse. It is the law (either written on parchment or written on the heart) that reveals your spiritual condition and reveals your need for the redemption that is found ONLY in Christ.

You have given me quite a bit to respond to and it is my honor to do so! May take a couple of days to give it the attention it deserves.

 

[37818]

This additional issue here:

. . . Israel had been in Egypt for 430 years . . . .

This contradicts Galatians 3:16-17, Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.

The promise to Abraham was before the Law given to Moses that 430 years.

 

[JonC]

This additional issue here:

This contradicts Galatians 3:16-17, Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.

The promise to Abraham was before the Law given to Moses that 430 years.

It is a type of shorthand, I guess. From Moses to Abraham was 430 years. I was being lazy.

 

[JonC]

The passage does not specify why Cain's sacrifice was rejected.

Only that Cain did not do well.

I agree that we see progressive revelation in the Old Testament which is revealed in the New Testament. The only object of faith we have is in the Promise thar Satan will strike the Seed and He will destroy Satan. But as Scripture goes on this becomes more developed.

I think the way you are expressing this is that it is something THEY are doing in order to "appease" God and I would agree with you that this is a very wrong approach. The sacrifice illustrates God's redemption through his Son and their participation is indicative of their faith and that they are, in fact, resting on this promise.

I agree. In the Hebrew religion, even as early as Adam, God is not a God that can be appeased. The sacrificial system, the passover.. these things foreshadow what was to come. They are models, in a way.

 

[JonC]

None of this was written down until several centuries later by Moses but I would guess many things were certainly passed down from generation to generation via "folklore" (oral tradition) or whatever.

True. But the New Testament account of Jesus' words were also written down long after He said them (not as long). I suppose we have to view Scripture as coming from God in order to trust its accuracy.

I believe we have several "covenants" here (Adamic, Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic, and so forth) and each of these covenants build one upon another and each provides a clearer picture which ultimately points to Christ.

I disagree about some of the covenants (technically there is no "Adamic Covenant" as this makes many assumptions). But I agree that they build in detail.

A Reformed Professor (and friend) once described the covenants like a wheel. The Abrahamic Covenant (this "everlasting covenant" between the Father and the Son) is the wheel itself with other covenants being spokes. They exist within, not in addition to, the Covenant God made with Abraham and his Seed.

We understand that the sacrifices in these covenants were not an actual "atonement" but they certainly illustrated the atonement that was to come that was fulfilled from the foundation of the world (had to throw this in somewhere).

And of course there is the implication of a substitutionary atonement all throughout this account. It would be incorporated in the law of Moses and the Levitical Priesthood and Christ would ultimately be that "Passover Lamb."

Sacrifices were never atonement. But I do not think we can say the priest applying the blood was not actually making atonement for the people's sins.

The reason is the word "atonement". We are talking about a reconciliation. Those in the Old Testament were reconciled to an extent. But it was not the permanent change (being born of the Spirit). So I am ok using atonement, just not to its fullest extent.

It was not a "new covenant" but rather additional revelation which God added to his prior covenants. Paul made it ciear that "By the law is the knowledge of sin" and this is the only reason for which it is intended as "by the deeds of the law shall no flesh be justified." Paul states that "nevertheless, death reined from Adam to Moses" speaking of the time prior to the law that was given by Moses. In such a case, it is one's conscience that will either excuse or accuse. It is the law (either written on parchment or written on the heart) that reveals your spiritual condition and reveals your need for the redemption that is found ONLY in Christ.

I somewhat disagree. There were things in the Law that were very new (sacrifices to cover sin, dietary laws, etc).

But the Law was a certificate of decrees which were ultimately against man. If you inadvertently or even unknowingly ate a piece of pork you committed a sin.

If somebody took you out and killed you by hanging you on a tree outside of town you became a sin and a curse (under the Law you became an unclean thing even if you had no control over the act). This was why the Sadducees crucified Pharisees in 76 BC.

So in a real way the Old Covenant was new when it was given.

But sin, the lesson it taught, existed apart from the Law.

 

[JonC]

@Armchair Apologist

So where do we stand so far (to evaluate the passages that have been offered)?

Humanity is "sold under sin." To be man is to be sin, to be cursed, as "sin begats death" as a wage which is the power of Satan.

Christ bore our sin (He is sinless, yet He experienced the death sin produces as a "power of the one who holds the power of death - that is the devil"). He was made to be sin for us, made a curse for us. And He defeated this power of Satan.

BUT that is only one part of the issue because it is appointed man once to die and then the judgment. Christ was judged as righteous. He was vindicated from unjust oppression, raised to life, given a name above every names, was made a Life giving Spirit.

God set Him forth as a Propitiation through His blood to be received by faith. He entered the Most Holy Place not made with hands through His blood and we enter through His blood.

Christ's blood cleanses from all unrighteousness. In Him we are made new creations, conformed into His image, justified and glorified. The old perishes, we die to sin, the guilty man perishes, the new has come.

 

[37818]

It is a type of shorthand, I guess. From Moses to Abraham was 430 years. I was being lazy.

No. It is an actual Hebrew textual variant issue.
Exodus 12:40, Now the sojourning of the children of Israel, who dwelt in Egypt, was four hundred and thirty years.

Missing some words from the text. ". . . and the land of Canaan, . . . and their fathers . . . ."

LXX Exodus 12:40, And the dwelling of the sons of Israel, which they dwelt in the land of Egypt, and in the land of Canaan, they and their fathers -- four hundred thirty years.

 

[JonC]

No. It is an actual Hebrew textual variant issue.
Exodus 12:40, Now the sojourning of the children of Israel, who dwelt in Egypt, was four hundred and thirty years.

Missing some words from the text. ". . . and the land of Canaan, . . . and their fathers . . . ."

It probably is. I do not think the point Paul was the time frame but that sin reigned apart from the Law.

 

[Armchair Apologist]

True. But the New Testament account of Jesus' words were also written down long after He said them (not as long). I suppose we have to view Scripture as coming from God in order to trust its accuracy.

The New Testament (especially the Gospel accounts) were written by eyewitnesses and by eyewitnesses of eyewitnesses and this is what makes these accounts so powerful! Paul wrote 1 Cor 15 during a time when many who were eyewitnesses of Christ's resurrection were still around and that they themselves would verify the veracity of which Paul was speaking! The 1980s was mostly 40 years ago but many things I still remember as if it were yesterday. John wrote his Gospel about 60 years afterwards in his old age. Certainly the the Holy Spirit helped him out (as with all biblical writers of course) but John likely still had lucidity of thought and writing the accounts as he remembered them.

What Moses was writing was thousands of years removed but I believe that much of it had been passed down through folklore and story telling and that such was part of the Hebrew experience and the fledgling nation of Israel. Moses wrote through Holy Ghost inspiriation but I cannot accept that all of this history found in the book of Genesis would be just pulled out of a vacuum and becoming "new knowledge" to the Children of Israel! Remember also that on Mt. Sinai, God was giving the "Ten Commandments" and he makes reference to the "Seven days of creation?" This implies that the Children of Israel already have knowledge of this! Either Moses had recently completed the book of Genesis which was the current "Hot Seller" making its way around the camp, or they had prior knowledge of this that had been passed down through the generations. I am inclined to believe the latter.

I disagree about some of the covenants (technically there is no "Adamic Covenant" as this makes many assumptions). But I agree that they build in detail.

Actually, I made up "Adamic Covenant" myself though perhaps others have used it. This is, however, where the Covenant Theologians speak of the "Covenant of Law" and the "Covenant of Grace."

A Reformed Professor (and friend) once described the covenants like a wheel. The Abrahamic Covenant (this "everlasting covenant" between the Father and the Son) is the wheel itself with other covenants being spokes. They exist within, not in addition to, the Covenant God made with Abraham and his Seed.

I can go along with this. Dispensational Theology deals with divisions that are rather abrupt in nature but these divisions in time are still quite distinct. For one, it is interesting that there was no societal justice for Abel and it seems as if God was actually protecting Cain from such retribution! Government and capital punishment is quite prevalent after the flood and one of the first things God brought up to Noah!

Sacrifices were never atonement. But I do not think we can say the priest applying the blood was not actually making atonement for the people's sins.

The reason is the word "atonement". We are talking about a reconciliation. Those in the Old Testament were reconciled to an extent. But it was not the permanent change (being born of the Spirit). So I am ok using atonement, just not to its fullest extent.

Perhaps we had somewhat of a "Break Through" here noting that man cannot make "atonement" for anything. He is unable to appease God even through the act of a burnt offering or whatever. It is God who brings about atonement and reconciliation and all of these sacrificial offerings illustrate how God would eventually accomplish and make atonement for our sins.

I somewhat disagree. There were things in the Law that were very new (sacrifices to cover sin, dietary laws, etc).

But the Law was a certificate of decrees which were ultimately against man. If you inadvertently or even unknowingly ate a piece of pork you committed a sin.

If somebody took you out and killed you by hanging you on a tree outside of town you became a sin and a curse (under the Law you became an unclean thing even if you had no control over the act). This was why the Sadducees crucified Pharisees in 76 BC.

So in a real way the Old Covenant was new when it was given.

But sin, the lesson it taught, existed apart from the Law.

Much of what you are speaking of here is in reference to all of the "ceremonial laws" intended to separate Israel from the surrounding nations and in many cases, was for their benefit. It wasn't that mixed garments were sinful but perhaps that they did not wear as well and perhaps there were skin irritations as well? Who knows, but I would say it was more for their benefit. Same thing goes for dietary laws. Seething a kid in its mother's milk had nothing to do with different plates for meat and dairy products but perhaps there were some digestive issues? Many cannot eat cheeseburgers beause the cheese and meat together creates indigestion and acid reflux? My wife is bothered by stuff like this.

Of course none of the ceremonial laws pertain to us today but the moral laws most certainly do!

 

[37818]

It probably is. I do not think the point Paul was the time frame but that sin reigned apart from the Law.

God's promise to Abraham to the giving of the Law to Moses was the 430 years.

 

[JonC]

The New Testament (especially the Gospel accounts) were written by eyewitnesses and by eyewitnesses of eyewitnesses and this is what makes these accounts so powerful! Paul wrote 1 Cor 15 during a time when many who were eyewitnesses of Christ's resurrection were still around and that they themselves would verify the veracity of which Paul was speaking! The 1980s was mostly 40 years ago but many things I still remember as if it were yesterday. John wrote his Gospel about 60 years afterwards in his old age. Certainly the the Holy Spirit helped him out (as with all biblical writers of course) but John likely still had lucidity of thought and writing the accounts as he remembered them.

What Moses was writing was thousands of years removed but I believe that much of it had been passed down through folklore and story telling and that such was part of the Hebrew experience and the fledgling nation of Israel. Moses wrote through Holy Ghost inspiriation but I cannot accept that all of this history found in the book of Genesis would be just pulled out of a vacuum and becoming "new knowledge" to the Children of Israel! Remember also that on Mt. Sinai, God was giving the "Ten Commandments" and he makes reference to the "Seven days of creation?" This implies that the Children of Israel already have knowledge of this! Either Moses had recently completed the book of Genesis which was the current "Hot Seller" making its way around the camp, or they had prior knowledge of this that had been passed down through the generations. I am inclined to believe the latter.

Actually, I made up "Adamic Covenant" myself though perhaps others have used it. This is, however, where the Covenant Theologians speak of the "Covenant of Law" and the "Covenant of Grace."

I can go along with this. Dispensational Theology deals with divisions that are rather abrupt in nature but these divisions in time are still quite distinct. For one, it is interesting that there was no societal justice for Abel and it seems as if God was actually protecting Cain from such retribution! Government and capital punishment is quite prevalent after the flood and one of the first things God brought up to Noah!

Perhaps we had somewhat of a "Break Through" here noting that man cannot make "atonement" for anything. He is unable to appease God even through the act of a burnt offering or whatever. It is God who brings about atonement and reconciliation and all of these sacrificial offerings illustrate how God would eventually accomplish and make atonement for our sins.

Much of what you are speaking of here is in reference to all of the "ceremonial laws" intended to separate Israel from the surrounding nations and in many cases, was for their benefit. It wasn't that mixed garments were sinful but perhaps that they did not wear as well and perhaps there were skin irritations as well? Who knows, but I would say it was more for their benefit. Same thing goes for dietary laws. Seething a kid in its mother's milk had nothing to do with different plates for meat and dairy products but perhaps there were some digestive issues? Many cannot eat cheeseburgers beause the cheese and meat together creates indigestion and acid reflux? My wife is bothered by stuff like this.

Of course none of the ceremonial laws pertain to us today but the moral laws most certainly do!

I agree with a lot of what you post. Rather than go through that I will point out where we probably disagree (only two points).

The first is where we agree that men cannot appease God. We agree on that part but my point was more that God cannot be appeased. He is Holy, which entails beyond appeasement (there is no gray area, God does what is right, what is good, based on His own nature).

The second is the Law. We tend to divide the Law into moral laws, ceremonial laws, and dietary laws. This may be helpful in the examination of the Law but it is not binlical. The Law was a covenant (it is the Old Covenant). It is a whole, not to be divided. To break a dietary command is to break the whole of the Law.

Lets look at another dietary law outside of the Old Covenant. To eat the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge was a moral violation because God commanded against it. But it was a "dietary" law (do not eat that fruit). To weave two different fabrics together, if you were under the Law, was a moral violation because it violated the Law.

The Law was a Covenant. To break one law was a violation of the entire covenant.

Our reconciliation ("atonement") to God was not through the law but a manifestation of God's righteousness apart from the law. Our reconciliation is accomplished by recreating us (making us new creations, conforming us into the image of Christ, cleansing us). This is something the law was powerless to do. The law could not transform. But we are transformed, re-created (the old guilty man must die, the new man will live). We fulfill the law in Christ. The justice of God (righteousness of God) is accomplished, but apart from the law.

 

[JonC]

@Armchair Apologist , if the past posts seem complicated lets look at a broader summary from Scripture.

God created Adam flesh. But the flesh is sold under bondage to sin. The flesh "misses the mark" of God's righteousness.

This is a problem. Sin produces death as a wage. Then comes the judgment. But flesh and blood will not inherit the kingdom of God.

We need a new life, one that is not "of the flesh" but "of the Spirit" in order to be reconciled (atoned) to God.

This God accomplished by reconciling man to Himself in the Person of Jesus Christ, the Son of Man. The Word became flesh, bore our infirmity, was made to become sin, became a curse, willingly suffered under our bondage, suffered the power of Satan by dying on the cross.

On the cross God was reconciling mankind to Himself not counting human sin against Him. It is on this basis that we urge men to be reconciled to God. Christ Himself - the "second" Adam - IS this reconciliation.

As it is appointed man once to die and then the judgment, Christ died once for all and was judged righteous, vindicated, given a name above every name, and set at the Father's right hand. He is a Life-giving Spirit.

So the first man, Adam, became a living being; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. The first man was of the dust of the earth; the second man is of heaven. As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the heavenly man, so also are those who are of heaven. And just as we have borne the image of the earthly man, so shall we bear the image of the heavenly man.

 

[JonC]

What has been presented is actually in the Bible ("what is written", "the Scriptures", God's words).

As there are no objections to what has been presented it is time to move forward to other views that stand in opposition to Classical Christianity in terms of understanding the Atonement.

Now, we can have different understandings of those words, that is different emphasises. And we will as we are all subject to the human condition.

But the only reason to add theory and philosophy to God's Word is the misunderstanding that God's words are incomplete or do not make sense without additions.


So what is not in God's words? What do people add?

Typically people add philosophical ideas from their own worldviews, traditions that gained traction in the past as previous generations sought to contextualize Scripture in accordance with the prevailing ideas of their day.

This is how we ended up with so many theories of the Atonement. But too many of these theories drifted far from God's Word.

The Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement is one of these theories that drifted, or more precisely, continued a drift away from biblical Atonement.


Where all Christian views, at one time in history, viewed death as the power of Satan Christ conquered on our behalf to redeem what had been sold under sin PSA insists that death was divine judgment. This is the first instance of combining two results of Sin (sins and guilt) into one encompassing entity (divine judgment).

 

[Armchair Apologist]

Now, we can have different understandings of those words, that is different emphasises. And we will as we are all subject to the human condition.

Some of this has to do with our sinful condition and our desire to either "sugar coat" things either to make things a little more bearable, to suit our own agenda, or whatever.

In the case of fellow believers, we understand that the scriptures are not monolithic and that they will often speak to us differently each time we read through a particular passage. The underlying core doctrines may be clear and non-negotiable but the application may be different and each of us see things from our own perspectives often based on our own experiences.

But the only reason to add theory and philosophy to God's Word is the misunderstanding that God's words are incomplete or do not make sense without additions.

So what is not in God's words? What do people add?

Typically people add philosophical ideas from their own worldviews, traditions that gained traction in the past as previous generations sought to contextualize Scripture in accordance with the prevailing ideas of their day.

We see this throughout Church History where human wisdom often obfuscates clear biblical truth. In the research for my thesis, I would often stop and think "If Augustine and Thomas Aquinas would've set aside the writings of Plato and Aristotle and just read their Bibles..."

I don't think we need Plato or Aristotle in order to understand our Bibles. What we can see through their teachings is natural man's thought processes and rationale regarding the way we see the world around us. There is a good bit of value in the study of Natural Theology for this very reason.

This is how we ended up with so many theories of the Atonement. But too many of these theories drifted far from God's Word.

I knew nothing of all these different "theories" until I entered the academic world. Each of these "theories" represent certain truths and perspectives to be learned regarding God's plan for our redemption but such are also symptomatic of the darkness of our own hearts where we favor one "theory" over the other in order to formulate a theology that is better aligned with our particular worldview rather than the other way around. This is especially true with liberal Christianity where moral relativism is championed. I once heard someone say that "Liberal Christians are Atheists - they just do not realize it yet." I would say that they earnestly desire to be "atheist" but since their conscience will not allow it, they do their best to make truth as relative as possible. I believe we see this quite clearly with Abelard and his "Moral Example" theory.

The Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement is one of these theories that drifted, or more precisely, continued a drift away from biblical Atonement.

And this is where we should perhaps examine those who have formulated and articulated whatever the "Textbook Position" may happen to be on this theory. Perhaps there are places in which human thinking has crept in with some extra-biblical concepts? Through this exercise, I have learned to be a little more careful regarding my terminology and to better understand a position before I choose either to defend or refute it. I maintain that my position and understanding of the atonement is based upon my understanding of the scriptures and if it reflects PSA, then so be it. I shouldn't "label" my position though.

Where all Christian views, at one time in history, viewed death as the power of Satan Christ conquered on our behalf to redeem what had been sold under sin PSA insists that death was divine judgment. This is the first instance of combining two results of Sin (sins and guilt) into one encompassing entity (divine judgment).

What exactly is divine judgment and how do we differentiate this between that which are consequences of our own actions? Death is the consequence of sin but is not death also an act of mercy on God's behalf? Why did God keep Adam and Eve from the tree of life? Was it for the sake of judgment or would it be a genuinely horrific experience to live in immortality in a sinful, totally depraved state?

There are a good number of things to ponder looking at the first ten chapters of Genesis. First one being that there was no civil justice for Abel's murder and as a matter of fact, God protected Cain from any natural justice that would've occurred at the hands of those seeking vengeance! Why was this? The second thing we see is the longevity of life averaging over 900 years. I believe that the scripture in Luke 12:48 (to whom much is given, much shall be required) is quite applicable here. As far as we can tell, Cain was resolute in his unbelief for the entirety of his life. Scriptures do not say how long Cain lived but fair to say his lifespan was commensurate with others living in that period. Perhaps God has been merciful in shortening our lifespan to the "Threescore and Ten" as it is commonly ascribed?

I believe with the Tower of Babel, God puts up a further barrier that we ought to see as an act of mercy. God observed mankind on the plains of Shinar and declared "Nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do." I believe much of this is in relation to man's total depravity and the wickedness of his heart but also has to do with our inherent inquisitive nature where we are always curious about our own world and what may lie beyond! Perhaps interplanetary and interstellar space travel could've been possible but then God saw to it that mankind would be far too busy fighting wars and killing each other and decided to keep things on "planet earty" rather than seeing "star Wars" become an actual reality? Or perhaps its just the lingering effects of the brown acid I took at Woodstock?

Rom 1:24-28 is often cited as being "God's judgment" but what I am seeing here is mostly passive whereby God just leaves mankind to his own wicked, sinful desires leading to his own destruction - pretty much what we see in with the earth prior to the flood. Jesus said "If you do not believe that I am he, you will die in your sins" (Jn 8:24) and this seems clear that such is the natural consequences of man's sinful, rebellious nature. What would it mean for a man to "die in his sins?" One thing I see is that this man retains his sinful desires along with the ambition to such desires fulfilled but such will never satisfy and will likely only make matters worse! Could it be that such natural consequences would result in far greater agony and torment than the actual flames of hell of which the scriptures speak? If the flames are literal, perhaps they are an act of mercy to provide relief from the real torment?

 

[JonC]

Some of this has to do with our sinful condition and our desire to either "sugar coat" things either to make things a little more bearable, to suit our own agenda, or whatever.

In the case of fellow believers, we understand that the scriptures are not monolithic and that they will often speak to us differently each time we read through a particular passage. The underlying core doctrines may be clear and non-negotiable but the application may be different and each of us see things from our own perspectives often based on our own experiences.

We see this throughout Church History where human wisdom often obfuscates clear biblical truth. In the research for my thesis, I would often stop and think "If Augustine and Thomas Aquinas would've set aside the writings of Plato and Aristotle and just read their Bibles..."

I don't think we need Plato or Aristotle in order to understand our Bibles. What we can see through their teachings is natural man's thought processes and rationale regarding the way we see the world around us. There is a good bit of value in the study of Natural Theology for this very reason.

I knew nothing of all these different "theories" until I entered the academic world. Each of these "theories" represent certain truths and perspectives to be learned regarding God's plan for our redemption but such are also symptomatic of the darkness of our own hearts where we favor one "theory" over the other in order to formulate a theology that is better aligned with our particular worldview rather than the other way around. This is especially true with liberal Christianity where moral relativism is championed. I once heard someone say that "Liberal Christians are Atheists - they just do not realize it yet." I would say that they earnestly desire to be "atheist" but since their conscience will not allow it, they do their best to make truth as relative as possible. I believe we see this quite clearly with Abelard and his "Moral Example" theory.

And this is where we should perhaps examine those who have formulated and articulated whatever the "Textbook Position" may happen to be on this theory. Perhaps there are places in which human thinking has crept in with some extra-biblical concepts? Through this exercise, I have learned to be a little more careful regarding my terminology and to better understand a position before I choose either to defend or refute it. I maintain that my position and understanding of the atonement is based upon my understanding of the scriptures and if it reflects PSA, then so be it. I shouldn't "label" my position though.

What exactly is divine judgment and how do we differentiate this between that which are consequences of our own actions? Death is the consequence of sin but is not death also an act of mercy on God's behalf? Why did God keep Adam and Eve from the tree of life? Was it for the sake of judgment or would it be a genuinely horrific experience to live in immortality in a sinful, totally depraved state?

There are a good number of things to ponder looking at the first ten chapters of Genesis. First one being that there was no civil justice for Abel's murder and as a matter of fact, God protected Cain from any natural justice that would've occurred at the hands of those seeking vengeance! Why was this? The second thing we see is the longevity of life averaging over 900 years. I believe that the scripture in Luke 12:48 (to whom much is given, much shall be required) is quite applicable here. As far as we can tell, Cain was resolute in his unbelief for the entirety of his life. Scriptures do not say how long Cain lived but fair to say his lifespan was commensurate with others living in that period. Perhaps God has been merciful in shortening our lifespan to the "Threescore and Ten" as it is commonly ascribed?

I believe with the Tower of Babel, God puts up a further barrier that we ought to see as an act of mercy. God observed mankind on the plains of Shinar and declared "Nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do." I believe much of this is in relation to man's total depravity and the wickedness of his heart but also has to do with our inherent inquisitive nature where we are always curious about our own world and what may lie beyond! Perhaps interplanetary and interstellar space travel could've been possible but then God saw to it that mankind would be far too busy fighting wars and killing each other and decided to keep things on "planet earty" rather than seeing "star Wars" become an actual reality? Or perhaps its just the lingering effects of the brown acid I took at Woodstock?

Rom 1:24-28 is often cited as being "God's judgment" but what I am seeing here is mostly passive whereby God just leaves mankind to his own wicked, sinful desires leading to his own destruction - pretty much what we see in with the earth prior to the flood. Jesus said "If you do not believe that I am he, you will die in your sins" (Jn 8:24) and this seems clear that such is the natural consequences of man's sinful, rebellious nature. What would it mean for a man to "die in his sins?" One thing I see is that this man retains his sinful desires along with the ambition to such desires fulfilled but such will never satisfy and will likely only make matters worse! Could it be that such natural consequences would result in far greater agony and torment than the actual flames of hell of which the scriptures speak? If the flames are literal, perhaps they are an act of mercy to provide relief from the real torment?

Woodstock? I'm going to start calling you "Dead Head" (my favorite band).

It is true that we grow in the Scriptures. I have read passages I’ve known most of my life only to be surprised to learn something new (for me). And this is typically with application.

Throughout history we have seen human wisdom obscuring biblical truth, I agree. Theology is typically developed to address situations that arise and the issues themselves color how scripture is perceived.

There seems to be two trains of thought - either centuries of theological development moves towards truth or away from it. I am now more inclined to believe the latter (obviously).

Augustine famiously used a Latin passage with a mis-translated word ("with"). I do not think anybody challenges it as a mistranslation. A century later this developed into the Catholic doctrine of Original Sin.

Anselm developed an Atonement theory that resonated with the prevailing worldview of his day, focusing on honor.

Calvin reformed Aquinas' theory to focus on a primary philosophy of his time, and this inline with hos education in law. Today that philosophy as moral justice has been abandoned (although it did have an impact on modern contractual law).

Some see PSA as a theological development bringing us closer to truth, with the understandings of the Apostles and early church as primitive. This is not completely unfair as they did hold ideas and expectations that were not realized as they thought.

But I view this development as a move away from truth, a move away from God's Word. The assumptions cannot be proven, and if they are wrong then the entire theory falls apart.

 

[Armchair Apologist]

Woodstock? I'm going to start calling you "Dead Head" (my favorite band).

My attempt at humor. Sometimes you have to laugh and not take yourself so seriously! On a side note, I used to cover "Friend of the Devil" during acoustic gigs.

Throughout history we have seen human wisdom obscuring biblical truth, I agree. Theology is typically developed to address situations that arise and the issues themselves color how scripture is perceived.

There are those who are dismissive of theology saying all they need is "the Bible" but as you discuss what the Bible says, you are developing theology whether or not you may care to acknowledge this. Theology should always be viewed through the filter of the scriptures, not vice versa but I think I am beginning to sound like a "broken record" here saying such things!

There seems to be two trains of thought - either centuries of theological development moves towards truth or away from it. I am now more inclined to believe the latter (obviously).

I would say we have both. I often tell people that I am pre-millennial because the apostles were pre-millennial based on Acts 1:7 but where the apostles right regarding their eschatological views or do we have a more clear picture today?

We need to "prove all things, hold fast to that which is right" and sometimes make "course corrections" in our theology and doctrine. The Reformation was perhaps the most dramatic of such corrections

Augustine famiously used a Latin passage with a mis-translated word ("with"). I do not think anybody challenges it as a mistranslation. A century later this developed into the Catholic doctrine of Original Sin.

Not reallly something I would hinge my understanding of original sin upon! We can argue "Inherited guilt vs. Inherited consequences" but either way, we are (or were) dead in sin because of Adam. Usually the objection is with Augustine's Seminal view which is the basis upon which infant baptism was dogmatized.

Anselm developed an Atonement theory that resonated with the prevailing worldview of his day, focusing on honor.

I believe that Anselm got many things right but his mistake was equating the atonement with certain aspects of feudalism.

Calvin reformed Aquinas' theory to focus on a primary philosophy of his time, and this inline with hos education in law. Today that philosophy as moral justice has been abandoned (although it did have an impact on modern contractual law).

Some see PSA as a theological development bringing us closer to truth, with the understandings of the Apostles and early church as primitive. This is not completely unfair as they did hold ideas and expectations that were not realized as they thought.

But I view this development as a move away from truth, a move away from God's Word. The assumptions cannot be proven, and if they are wrong then the entire theory falls apart.

TBH, Aquinas makes my head spin. Literally! I know that similar arguments are made about Calvin - that his background in law impacted the way he approached the scriptures. Scientists and engineers have their own biases as well and have historically (and famously) gone to logical extremes never before thought possible (Remember Edgar Whisenaut?).

I often say that my views are "Calvinistic" but the views I hold have much more to do with my understanding of the scriptures than that of Calvin's Inistitutes or the Canons of Dort so it would not be fair to base my position upon what they say but if the discussion is based upon such historical documents, perhaps I need to exercise a little more caution in regards to what I happen to "subscribe" myself to!

 

[Mikey]

Is it the penal aspect of PSA your disagree with or whole theology of substitution atonement?

 

[JonC]

My attempt at humor. Sometimes you have to laugh and not take yourself so seriously! On a side note, I used to cover "Friend of the Devil" during acoustic gigs.

There are those who are dismissive of theology saying all they need is "the Bible" but as you discuss what the Bible says, you are developing theology whether or not you may care to acknowledge this. Theology should always be viewed through the filter of the scriptures, not vice versa but I think I am beginning to sound like a "broken record" here saying such things!

I would say we have both. I often tell people that I am pre-millennial because the apostles were pre-millennial based on Acts 1:7 but where the apostles right regarding their eschatological views or do we have a more clear picture today?

We need to "prove all things, hold fast to that which is right" and sometimes make "course corrections" in our theology and doctrine. The Reformation was perhaps the most dramatic of such corrections

Not reallly something I would hinge my understanding of original sin upon! We can argue "Inherited guilt vs. Inherited consequences" but either way, we are (or were) dead in sin because of Adam. Usually the objection is with Augustine's Seminal view which is the basis upon which infant baptism was dogmatized.

I believe that Anselm got many things right but his mistake was equating the atonement with certain aspects of feudalism.

TBH, Aquinas makes my head spin. Literally! I know that similar arguments are made about Calvin - that his background in law impacted the way he approached the scriptures. Scientists and engineers have their own biases as well and have historically (and famously) gone to logical extremes never before thought possible (Remember Edgar Whisenaut?).

I often say that my views are "Calvinistic" but the views I hold have much more to do with my understanding of the scriptures than that of Calvin's Inistitutes or the Canons of Dort so it would not be fair to base my position upon what they say but if the discussion is based upon such historical documents, perhaps I need to exercise a little more caution in regards to what I happen to "subscribe" myself to!

I always wondered about the "no theology" crowd. Theology, even if not formalized, is simply one's understanding of Scripture.

But at the same time "theology" has taken on another context that prioritizes philosophy and goes to Scripture for verification or support. Reformed Theology, Free-Will Theology, etc. These "theologies" are less understandings of Scripture and more traditions based first in reason with God's Word being the thing being shaped to a particular philosophy.

I think the "Bible only" people tend to see only that second meaning while those who do genuinely hold a philosophy first mentality mistakenly believe they are adhering to thr first meaning.


Calvinism has its strengths and weaknesses. What I appreciated about the theology (second meaning) was its focus on divine sovereignty. What I do not like is that its foundation is not Scripture (one cannot read Scripture in isolation and walk away a Calvinist, although they may have Calvinistic ideas depending on the issue at hand).


The big turning point for me (why I left Calvinism) was PSA. The reason I initially left PSA was that so much of it is not in Scripture. One of the main issues was the judicial philosophy upon which it was built. If that philosophy is wrong then PSA is completely wrong. I believe the philosophy is wrong and completely misinterprets biblical justice. Even secularly (where the philosophy started) it proved a failure. It survives in terms of moral justice only in PSA (it survives secularly in contractual law, where unconcerned with moral justice).


I kinda like Aquinas. I disagree with him, but I like how he went to great detail in defending his ideas before objections could be made. His theory was in danger of being a heresy (at the time) because of his emphasis on justice. He clarified that by punishment he did not mean simple punishment (Jesus experiencing punishment for our sins) but satisfactory punishment.

Why? Because at that time (and prior to that time) Christianity rejected the idea that Jesus could experience punishment for our sins instead of us as this would make God unjust.
So Aquinas developed the theory that a judge can justly punish an innocent man in place of a guilty man provided all parties are willing and the punishment is satisfactory rather than the actual punishment due the crime.


Aquinas reformed Anselm's theory in one direction while Calvin reformed it in another. Calvin liked Anselm. He did not like Aquinas. But in the end Calvin's theory was probably closer to Aquinas' in many ways. PSA just would not have been accepted until the early Renaissance period.

Aquinas just seems convoluted at times because he had to avoid a simple punishment and a penal substitution.

Calvin came at the right time (15th century) to work out PSA. A century before and PSA would not exist. A century after and it would have been an extreme fringe idea that would not have taken hold due to the problems with the philosophy. But Calvin was a law student who had adopted the rising judicial philosophy in 15th century France. His eggs were in that one basket, and timing worked out.

 

[JonC]

Is it the penal aspect of PSA your disagree with or whole theology of substitution atonement?

I object to penal substitution. It is one term, the type of substitution (like ontological substitution, satisfactory substitution).

I do believe there are penal and substitution aspects to the Atonement.

The main thing I object to (other than too much involved in PSA is not in the biblical text) is the judicial philosophy upon which PSA is based.

When developing the theory Calvin explained that justice demands that every crime must be punished and the role of the judge is to avenge the law. He applied this to divine justice.

It was the philosophy Calvin studied and adopted as a law student. And it was the rising philosophy during his time (15th century France, but also in Europe in general). But I believe it is wrong.

History actually proves it is wrong in terms of actual justice (it survives today only in PSA and contractual law).

But if you remove that philosophy then PSA collapses.