Atonement (what is written)

[JonC]

Brother, thank you for your reply. I understand how you are reading those passages. For my part, I am simply trying to stay with the words as they stand in the text itself, and I believe they speak plainly. I’m content to let Scripture say what it says, and I appreciate the conversation.

At some point, for the discussion to be profitable, we will have to explain our reasoning.

I say this because I am also trying to stay with the words as they stand in the text itself. I also believe they speak plainly and desire to lean on His words rather than by understanding.

Yet what we see as the obvious meaning of the text, the normal reading plainly obvious by the words God chose, differs greately.

This difference cannot be attributed to God's Word because we believe the exact same words and hold them as our standard.

I do not doubt that you would abandon your understanding in less than a heartbeat if yoy saw any point where it contradicts, changes, or adds to Scripture. I doubt it would even be a choice for you - as faithful believers we must be faithful to His words.

But that is why I left PSA behind. It was not by choice. I would have preferred to have stayed in that tradition. I had invited a lot in that understanding (a lot of money building a library, a lot of time studying, preaching and teaching).

I never would have been able to persuade my old self that PSA was wrong. The possibility it could be wrong never once entered my mind. It simply was not my choice to abandon the theory so it is impossible that I return.

 

[JonC]

@Anthony Pritchard

It is a rainy night, so very little will happen here (all transfers will stop during the storm, but I am stuck here until 6:45 am).

So barring any emergencies I will probably post some random insights, opinions, observations...you know, the usual heretical nonsense I tend to spout.

It is not to flood the thread but to offer how I view things for you to consider as you see fit. Maybe one of my points will hit where we see things differently.

If not, at least it will keep me occupied for 12.5 hours. So there's that.

 

[Aaron]

If you are talking about the sacrifice system, what occurred was the Israelites obeyed and offered a sacrifice. The priest took the blood that was shed into the Tabernacle to "make atonement for the sins of the people".

The priest also used some of the blood to atone for the tent of meeting


The Penal Substitution theory is a bit too superficial. It addresses sins through the law while ignoring God's justice manifested apart from the law (the actual gospel).

All men everywhere are commanded to repent. The obedient Israelite was still a penitent Israelite.

You're ignoring a host of rites concerning the body of the sacrifice. We don't just take the cup at Lord's table. There's the broken bread too. More on that later.

Still, the sacrifice was accepted for the Israelite, on his behalf, in his place. And the sacrifice for sin, received the sinner's judgment.

To say otherwise is in defiance of the text.

 

[JonC]

You're ignoring a host of rites concerning the body of the sacrifice. We don't just take the cup at Lord's table. There's the broken bread too. More on that later.

No, I am not ignoring them at all- quite the contrary.

The rite of sacrifice was the people offering an animal as a sacrifice. The animal was killed - its blood was shed. What God desired here was actually obedience. And killing the animal did not atone for sins - the priest took the blood into the Tabernacle and "made atonement for the sins of the people" by applying this blood.

Likewise, God set forth His Son as a Propitiation through His blood to be recieved by faith. Christ was obedient even to death - offering Himself as a guilt offering. He entered the Most Holy Place not made with hands through His blood and makes atonement for our sins. The blood of Christ cleanses from all unrighteousness.

We died with Christ. We will also live with him. For we know that since Christ was raised from the dead, he cannot die again; death no longer has mastery over him. The death he died, he died to sin once for all; but the life he lives, he lives to God.

We observe this in the Lord's Supper. His body was broken and we observe this death. His blood was shed, the blood that cleanses us, and we partake.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

I appreciate the thought that has gone into the various views expressed, but I’m not going to continue the discussion in this direction. I’m content with what Scripture says, and I’ve already stated my understanding plainly. As far as I’m concerned, we’ve exhausted this topic, and I won’t be engaging further.

 

[JonC]

I appreciate the thought that has gone into the various views expressed, but I’m not going to continue the discussion in this direction. I’m content with what Scripture says, and I’ve already stated my understanding plainly. As far as I’m concerned, we’ve exhausted this topic, and I won’t be engaging further.

That is fine. We can leave it at you and I both believe the biblical text (the actual words of God) but we have different understanings about what those words teach.

In the end we rest in His words (this is our common ground, how we are united in Christ) and not our own understanding.


While profitable to examine our different understandings it is not mandatory as neither of us leans on them (you understand the Atonement to be penal substitution but I am sure you hold that at arms length as I also hold my understanding with a grain of salt preferring God's actual words).

Our understanding is subjective and fluid (it changes), but God's Word is absolute and objective. His words stands.

 

[JonC]

We can say that it pleased God to persecute the early Christians, to put them to grief. They were persecuted by evil men, ultimately under the power of Satan, but this was God's predetermined plan. They suffered and died for Christ. They died in behalf of Him.

And through this God solidified and strengthened the church, and our faith spread. The persecutions were a visible example of our faith.

BUT I do not believe it is appropriate to say they suffered God's persecution or that they died as Christ's substitute.

 

[JonC]

One issue that has plagued this conversation is different philosophies of justice.

PSA theorists often give a classic courtroom illustration to demonstrate their theory of justice and how it was met on the cross

It goes something like this -

You stand before the judge convicted of a crime. The judge renders his sentence - a $20k fine or 10 years in jail. You are devastated. You cannot pay. But then another steps forward and declares that He has paid for your crime, served your sentence for you. Justice is served, the demands of the law are satisfied. You go free.


The problem is this is not justice. Justice is not focused on a law court collecting a payment. It is not focused on, as Calvin put it, "avenging the Law".

Punishment in the above example was not for the court but for the community. It was a penalty to prevent crime, even a penalty to change the behavior of the criminal.


Here is a better example -

You stand found guilty of murder. You are sentenced to death. Another steps in and tells you that you have been remade, while the guilty you will die you needn't worry. You have died to sin. You have been redeemed and cleansed. You will die bodily but you have been given a new life, a new identity. The "you" that is innocent will live. Although you die, so shall you live.

You die and are raised to life in Christ. You stand before the Judge. The Judge sees you are not the guilty man but instead you stand before Him made a new creation and conformed to the image of Christ.

The Judge explains to you that per the demands of the law the wicked will perish. But you are not the old you. You are not guilty, are not wicked. The requirements of the Law have been met but under a New Covenant apart from the Law.