Divine Justice

[Martin Marprelate]

No. I know you can. I was a PSA theorist most of my life.

You keep mentioning this as if you hadn't been doing so for 15 years or more, and as if it were a badge of honour. It isn't. Galatians 1:6 applies

Until yesterday I had not read anything of those I just quoted. I have quoted others oin the past and did not want to recycle them

I quoted them because @DaveXR650 was unaware that others shared my view of the Atonement. It appears he is unaware that any other view exists, except as private interpretations.

It is a logical fallacy (a formal logical fallacy) to dismiss a belief based on where an adherent studied, works or their denomination. And you are not accurate (you cherry pick what you think will earn you "points"). I mainly referenced Rillera.

Andrew Rillera earned his PhD from Duke and his MA from Fuller. He is the Assistant Professor of Biblical Studies and Theology at Kings University.

Leonard Zee, earned his degree from Calvin Thological Seminary.

Moffitt earned his PhD from Duke.

Campbell earned His degree from the University of Toronto.

I would sooner hear from a man like Alec Motyer, who was one of Britain's greatest authorities on the O.T. "I’m not really a scholar. I’m just a man who loves the Word of God.”[

The man who first articulated your faith never earned a degree in Christianity. He studied secular law.

You are right. The Lord Jesus, Paul, John, Clement of Rome, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus and Polycarp never earned degrees in Christianity. Did Paul study secular law?

AW Tozier was self taught.

Do you mean A.W. Tozer?

The standard for truth is not where one works, their education, their denomination, their gender, or the color of their skin. God's words ("what is written", the biblical text) is the standard.

Indeed. William Tyndale was educated at both Oxford and Cambridge Universities, but He gave his life, quite lierally, to bring the word of God in English to the people. He wrote, around ten years before Calvin wrote anything:
'By grace we are plucked out of Adam, the ground of all evil, and graffed into Christ, the root of all goodness. In Christ God loved us, his elect and chosen, before the world began, and reserved us unto the knowledge of his Son and of his holy gospel; and when the gospel is preached to us, openeth our hearts, and giveth us grace to believe, and putteth the Spirit of Christ in us.' William Tyndale, 'A Pathway into the Scriptures, c. 1525.
In his exposition of 1 John2:2 (written c. 1531), he wrote:
'And he is the satisfaction for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for all the world's' That I call 'satisfaction' the Greek calleth Ilasmos and the Hebrew Copar: and it is first taken for the suaging of wounds, sores and swellings, and the taking away of pain and smart of them; and thence it is borrowed for the pacifying and suaging of wrath and anger, and for an amends-making, a contenting, satisfaction, a ransom and making at one, as it is to see abundantly in the Bible. So that Christ is a full contenting, satisfaction and ransom for our sins, and not for ours only, which are apostles and disciples of Christ while he was yet here; or for ours which are Jews, or Israelites, and the seed of Abraham; or for ours that now believe at this present time, but for all men's sins, both for their sins which went before and believed the promises to come, and for ours which have seen them fulfilled, and also for all them which shall afterward believeunto the world's end, of whatsoever nation or degree they be.'

I have added this, not to contend that Tyndale is right in every particular, but that before the time of Calvin he held to the Doctrines of Free Grace and of Penal Substitutions (as did all the English Reformers) against the errors of the Church of Rome, and that he endured poverty, exile and death to bring the word of God to us.

 

[Ben1445]

I was a PSA theorist most of my life.

There are many Baptists who have converted their beliefs to Catholicism, SDA, and even Mormonism and JW.

Does changing one’s mind mean that they are on to bigger and better things?

I do wish that you would drop your appeal to your experience and expertise. It lends no merit to your beliefs. We already know what your beliefs are. That they are yours does nothing to make them right. And for those that were yours, that does nothing to prove them wrong.
There were many disciples of Christ who turned away from Jesus because of a teaching that was difficult to accept. You have to explain why Jesus being cursed for us (instead of us) and ourselves putting on His righteousness is not PSA.

 

[JonC]

I welcome you bringing in other names and wish you had done so more and earlier. I'll read more as I have time of course. I guess because I have not read these guys in any kind of detail I would ask this. We had begun discussing earlier regarding that if Jesus bore our sin in his own body on the cross, granting any interpretation you wish to give that for a moment - is it still possible to have the Father not desiring as part of a plan, that it be his will that Jesus do this. In other words, the choice still seems to be either God wanted Christ to suffer and die like this, or else it was something men did as a horrible sin and as you seem to say, God had nothing to do with it.

If the theologians address this, I will discover it. Otherwise, I wonder if we're not throwing up another deflection like when you said Torrance was against penal substitution then when I looked into it and found out it wasn't so the argument was that after all he was just another Presbyterian minister. So first, I would like to settle this issue regarding the death of Christ - was it by the Father's will or not.

I do not know why you are so hung up on Torrance. I never said I hold his view. I will say you are probably the only person I have encountered that viewed Torrance as just another Presbyterian minister holding PSA. Funny thing is Torrance himself did not view himself as holding that position. He viewed it as too much a "legal transition". Torrance was famous in his rejection that Christ's death appeased God. Sproul viewed his "participatory" atonement as different.

The only reason I mention this is you seem to see PSA everywhere. Torrance was wrong about what he actually believed (Total Atonement is the same as PSA to you). Speoul was wrong that Torrance's view was different because it looks the same to you.

I can guarantee that if you read Rillera you will somehow walk away saying "yea... but that really is PSA".

The book I ran across deals primarily with the sacrifices. It is Lamb of the Free by Andrew Remington Rillera.

You will probably find it academically lacking (per MartinM, anyway) as he earned his PhD from Duke and his MA from Fuller. I think MartinM views Duke and Fuller less a degree than whereever he went to University.

But ignore the "it was Duke...and Fuller....diploma mills!"..thinking and just consider the words against Scripture.

And try your best not to read PSA into their words.

 

[JonC]

You keep mentioning this as if you hadn't been doing so for 15 years or more, and as if it were a badge of honour. It isn't. Galatians 1:6 applies

I would sooner hear from a man like Alec Motyer, who was one of Britain's greatest authorities on the O.T. "I’m not really a scholar. I’m just a man who loves the Word of God.”[

You are right. The Lord Jesus, Paul, John, Clement of Rome, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus and Polycarp never earned degrees in Christianity. Did Paul study secular law?

Do you mean A.W. Tozer?

Indeed. William Tyndale was educated at both Oxford and Cambridge Universities, but He gave his life, quite lierally, to bring the word of God in English to the people. He wrote, around ten years before Calvin wrote anything:
'By grace we are plucked out of Adam, the ground of all evil, and graffed into Christ, the root of all goodness. In Christ God loved us, his elect and chosen, before the world began, and reserved us unto the knowledge of his Son and of his holy gospel; and when the gospel is preached to us, openeth our hearts, and giveth us grace to believe, and putteth the Spirit of Christ in us.' William Tyndale, 'A Pathway into the Scriptures, c. 1525.
In his exposition of 1 John2:2 (written c. 1531), he wrote:
'And he is the satisfaction for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for all the world's' That I call 'satisfaction' the Greek calleth Ilasmos and the Hebrew Copar: and it is first taken for the suaging of wounds, sores and swellings, and the taking away of pain and smart of them; and thence it is borrowed for the pacifying and suaging of wrath and anger, and for an amends-making, a contenting, satisfaction, a ransom and making at one, as it is to see abundantly in the Bible. So that Christ is a full contenting, satisfaction and ransom for our sins, and not for ours only, which are apostles and disciples of Christ while he was yet here; or for ours which are Jews, or Israelites, and the seed of Abraham; or for ours that now believe at this present time, but for all men's sins, both for their sins which went before and believed the promises to come, and for ours which have seen them fulfilled, and also for all them which shall afterward believeunto the world's end, of whatsoever nation or degree they be.'

I have added this, not to contend that Tyndale is right in every particular, but that before the time of Calvin he held to the Doctrines of Free Grace and of Penal Substitutions (as did all the English Reformers) against the errors of the Church of Rome, and that he endured poverty, exile and death to bring the word of God to us.

Yes. I will keep mentioning it. God saved me from being carried away by that philosophy in a single day. I was not even questioning OSA (like you, I assumed it would be in the Bible and like you I was wrong).

DaveXR650 once said I was obcessed with Christ redeeming us. I ignored it as an insult at the time. But he is right. I do think of the gospel of Christ continually.


No, Paul did not study secular law. The Early Church writers were educated (the education system was different, it was one of apprenticeship).

 

[DaveXR650]

I do not know why you are so hung up on Torrance. I never said I hold his view. I will say you are probably the only person I have encountered that viewed Torrance as just another Presbyterian minister holding PSA. Funny thing is Torrance himself did not view himself as holding that position. He viewed it as too much a "legal transition". Torrance was famous in his rejection that Christ's death appeased God. Sproul viewed his "participatory" atonement as different.

Torrance was an example of someone you brought up who was supposedly against PSA. I bought his book, called strangely enough "Atonement". I thought you liked him but I guess you haven't really read him after all. Not sure what Sproul said about him but I can give you the quotes which sound pretty "substitutionary" to me.

The only reason I mention this is you seem to see PSA everywhere. Torrance was wrong about what he actually believed (Total Atonement is the same as PSA to you). Speoul was wrong that Torrance's view was different because it looks the same to you.

I do think it is at the core of and is central to a complete understanding of the atonement. Christus Victor is true, but it works because Christ took care of the one barrier that keeps God from outright defeating Satan directly. Ransom is ransom paid to the demands of God's justice. And so on. I don't have to agree with everything Sproul said. He is the one I think who at one time said that God in effect would have said "God damn you" to Jesus on the cross. Sometimes he got carried away.

I can guarantee that if you read Rillera you will somehow walk away saying "yea... but that really is PSA".

Strangely enough, Rillera seems flat out wrong and it only took a few minutes to find a couple of reviews of his book by theological peers who easily refuted his thesis. It does seem true what you say in that there are two kinds of people. Those who see PSA everywhere, and those who feel an overwhelming need to get out from under it.

I do not mind you finally bringing out theologians who are a step beyond the Greg Boyds of this world though. I like to know what is out there, even though in the case of Rillera's book, just reading the first 9 chapters of Hebrews would leave anyone with an open mind scratching their head as to why he could come up with this stuff. But really, nothing he says is as bad as your attempts to make the idea that God (the Trinity actually) planned with a purpose and that it was directly God the Father's - will that Jesus suffer as he did on the cross for us, and that it was directly essential to our redemption. This line of thinking shows a slippage into a dark area rather than an enlightenment and you should stop and think what it is you're doing and who you seem to be traveling with.

 

[JonC]

Torrance was an example of someone you brought up who was supposedly against PSA.

He was an example of somebody who rejected that Christ sin in order to pay our debt of sin. You have a very broad concept of PSA.

Torrance himself viewed PSA as an error. He argued that Western theology historically took a wrong turn, separating the Incarnation from the Atonement, and PSA reduced the Atonement to a legal transaction.

Other PSA theorists view Torrance's Total Substitution and rejection of the Atonement within the context of God's law as a departure from PSA. Sproul was one of these. Reformed critics also pointed to his rejection of Westminster standards.

NT Wright is a good example. Some say he affirms PSA. He says he does. Others say his rejection of the idea that Christ suffered as a result of God's wrath or punishment excludes him from being a PSA theorist.

BUT I do not care. We can work within your "PSA lite" view because we are talking about individual doctrines rather than titles.

Strangely enough, Rillera seems flat out wrong and it only took a few minutes to find a couple of reviews of his book by theological peers who easily refuted his thesis.

This is where you constantly fail. You refuse to compare sources with the biblical text and go for reviews and commentaries.

I can say it is very easy to see that John Owen was flat out wrong by reading his peers criticisms. I could say it is easy to see that Sproul held the "Latin heresy" by reading the reviews of his peers.

Why don't I? Because I am a Christian.

 

[JonC]

I do not mind you finally bringing out theologians who are a step beyond the Greg Boyds of this world though.

Again, you are introducing logical fallacies to avoid the topic.

By your logic we should not weigh John Owen (or most Puritan writers) works against Scripture because they were persecutors of other believers. Owen even interpreted "he will strike His heel" to merely explain that humans would fear snakes. Owen rejected believers baptism as a heresy.


It is wrong to dismiss claims simply because you think Duke, Fuller, and Calvin Theological Seminary are basically diploma mills.

When you have sp many scholars from veru different theologies observing the same error in PSA it is responsible to examine what they observe.

It does no good to close your eyes, plug your ears and pretend the Emperor is fully clothed.


I listed scholars that are Reformed, Ababaptist, Anglican, Baptist, and Methodists who have independently observed the same error in PSA that I have observed when comparing it to God's words. This alone would cause any true Christian to take notice and consider the issues against the text of Scripture.

 

[JonC]

You keep mentioning this as if you hadn't been doing so for 15 years or more,

lol.... your age is showing (the quote above is not true....I wish it were, too much wasted time).

 

[DaveXR650]

I listed scholars that are Reformed, Ababaptist, Anglican, Baptist, and Methodists who have independently observed the same error in PSA that I have observed when comparing it to God's words. This alone would cause any true Christian to take notice and consider the issues against the text of Scripture.

And I've used scholars from all the same groups who believe PSA. Unless you have some other sources to back up your ideas I guess we are done.

 

[DaveXR650]

This is where you constantly fail. You refuse to compare sources with the biblical text and go for reviews and commentaries.

Lamb of the Free: Recovering the Varied Sacrificial Understandings of Jesus’s Death

Jacob A. Rodriguez reviews Andrew Remington Rillera's Lamb of the Free: Recovering the Varied Sacrificial Understandings of Jesus’s Death.

www.pastortheologians.com

If you look you will notice a few biblical texts being referenced. It's almost like quoting the Puritans. Almost every sentence has about 3 scripture references with it. I had assumed everyone knew that but I guess I need to quit assuming everyone reads that stuff.

 

[JonC]

Lamb of the Free: Recovering the Varied Sacrificial Understandings of Jesus’s Death

Jacob A. Rodriguez reviews Andrew Remington Rillera's Lamb of the Free: Recovering the Varied Sacrificial Understandings of Jesus’s Death.

www.pastortheologians.com

If you look you will notice a few biblical texts being referenced. It's almost like quoting the Puritans. Almost every sentence has about 3 scripture references with it. I had assumed everyone knew that but I guess I need to quit assuming everyone reads that stuff.

Lol.... every review will have references. Even those refuting Owen will have scripture references. I assumed everyone knew that, but obviously not.

The issue is not Scripture but how it is understood.

My position was Scripture verbatum. Yet you do not believe it is true because you view those passages differently.

The point - iron sharpening iron - is not pointing out verses we all believe but looking at how we believe them.

Only a fool would read a review of another's writings and assume the review was accurate just like only a fool would read a review alongside the work being reviewed. I am not saying you are a fool but that you should consider a writing on its own merits with God's words before commenting.


You have very educated theologians from many backgrounds - Reformed, Methotist, Anglican, Anabaptist, Baptist - independently observing the same problem with PSA when compared to God's Word. You have Christian historians independently observing the same problem. You have Christoans somply reading the biblical text independently recognizing the same issue with PSA. You have Presbyterian members looking at Scriptures and seeing the same problem, trying to urge their denomination to revisit the doctrine.

When two unrelated people look at you and express concern anout a mole, you probably should get it checked out. Here you have many scholars from diverse backgrounds seeing the same problem. It needs to be explored.

Top many people are not Christians at heart but cult members. They do not care about how accurate their belief is as long as it works for them. Don't be that cult member. Stop being do defensive and consider what so many have been saying over the past few centuries. Evaluate it. Then choose.


I give props to the Reformed professor who abandoned PSA when he noticed it was inconsistent with Scripture and reality. That takes courage. You know you will be an outsider to the camp. And you have to choose between that camp and God.

 

[JonC]

And I've used scholars from all the same groups who believe PSA. Unless you have some other sources to back up your ideas I guess we are done.

??? This is a very strange post.

There are scholars on all sides. My point wss not to use theologisns who hold my view to back up my view.

It is not a game where the one with the most scholars wins.

I posted others who shared my view because you said none existed and it was important.

What a true Christian would do (not a "nominal Christian", one who just joins a camp) is consider the criticisms and go back to God's word. What a "nominal Christian" would do is try to defend their campaign and read how to defend against other views without considering the criticisms. One type is saved. The other is not.

I only looked up those thrologians because you said they did not exist, you had never heard of my position, and you thought it important.

They are not important to me because I did mot afopt their view (I arrived at their view withoyt reading their works).

 

[JonC]

@DaveXR650

Ask yourself - what would it take for you to move from the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement?

Would it take negative evidence, like the biblical text not stating that Jesus experienced God's wrath, or not stating that sins can be transferred, or not stating that Jesus died instead of us do it?

Would it take positive evidence, like God stating that punishing the just is wrong, or that clearing the guilty is an abomination, or that God will not abandon the righteous, or that punishing the innocent is an abomination, or that God can forgive sins, or that the one who holds the power of death is the devil, or that Christ became flesh and flesh cannot inherit the kingdom of God, or that He shared our humanity, or that atonement was made when the blood was applied, or that the significance of the blood is life?

Would it be philosophical, perhaps showing how and when the humanistic secular philosophy that developed the idea "all crimes must be punished, punishment satisfies justice, the judge must avenge the law" failed?


What would you need to see in order to believe?


It is only fair that I answer as well. If you provided a verse stating Jesus experienced God's wrath and was punished gor our dins instead of us then I would abandon my view for PSA. It is possible that I overlooked the passage when I sought to remain a Calvinist. But it has to be God's words, not Owen or Knox, or Calvin saying what those words really teach.


The reason I ask is many Christians today are Christian in name only. Their heart belongs to a camp, a theology, an organization, a club... anything but God. It would be a waste of time to discuss the gospel with somebody who would not be persuaded even with God's words. The only benefit would be others who may evaluate their own views.

And, if that is you, I do not hold it against you. It would be sad, but it takes courage. My former pastor was Roman Catholic. It took courage for him to leave that cult. It was not a question for him because his heart was for God, but it still took courage. Same with Mormons leaving the LDS congregation. It takes courage. But that is where we learn where one's heart is - it is not doing the comfortable that shows us who we are but in doing the difficult things in life.

 

[JonC]

Here is the first point I came to (the following is from the above referenced book)



There is no such thing as a substitutionary death sacrifice in the Torah. We will accumulate more supporting reasons below and in the following chapters for why substitutionary death cannot be the logic of Levitical sacrifices, but the following three are important to realize straightaway.

Whenever something calls for capital punishment, or for the sinner to be “cut off,” there is no sacrifice that can be made to rectify the situation (see esp. Num 15:30–31; 35:32–33).

This already rules out the idea that the death of the sacrificial animal is substituting for the death of the offerer. If “substitutionary death” was the logic of animal sacrifice, then the one thing we could expect to be remedied by sacrifice would be capital offenses when the death of the offender is on the line. The fact that this is explicitly not the case means we need to rethink the OT sacrificial system and to analyze the NT’s sacrificial metaphors with this in mind.

 

[JonC]

One reason some assume sacrifice is a substitutionary death is because certain sacrifices call for the offerer to lay a single hand on the animal. The mistaken idea is that this gesture means the animal is substituting for the offerer who should really be the one to die. But the fact that there is no such thing as a substitutionary death sacrifice automatically excludes this as a possibility.

Notice that the “well-being” sacrifices (šǝlāmîm) (Lev 3), which have no atoning function (because they have nothing to do with sins), are one of the sacrifices that require a single-hand-laying gesture (3:2, 8, 13). This means the single-hand gesture cannot be understood as substitutionary death or transferring sin or whatever else because “sin” is excluded from view for these non-atoning well-being sacrifices. . . . these well-being offerings are “made on joyous occasions and have nothing to do with atonement. For these sacrifices, the idea that the animal’s life substitutes for the life of the offerer does not even make sense.”


Additionally, the guilt offering, which is one of the atoning sacrifices, does not require a hand gesture (5:14–6:7 Eng. [5:14–26 MT]). These two offerings prove that whatever the single-hand gesture means, it cannot mean “substitutionary death” or “transfer of sins”: the non-atoning well-being offering requires the hand gesture, whereas the atoning guilt offering does not.

What does the hand gesture mean then? Quite simply, it is a gesture of ownership.28 The single-hand gesture is distinguished from the double-hand gesture, which occurs on the Day of Atonement, although only upon the goat that is not sacrificed and remains alive (16:21).

 

[JonC]

David Wright observes - while the laying of two hands connotes designation, the laying of a single hand conveys the notion of ownership. The rite is not intended to express some abstract identification between the offerer and the offering—it is not intended to say “This offering represents me.” Rather, the statement is more concrete and practical. The offerer puts his single hand on the offering to state: “This offering is mine.”

 

[JonC]

Another reason sacrifice cannot be construed as a substitutionary death is because the (obvious) biological death of the animal sacrifice is reconceptualized in Lev 17 into something explicitly other than a “killing” and a “death.”

 

[JonC]

Christian Eberhart highlighted the fact that “The priestly texts lack any indication that this ritual element [i.e., ‘the act of killing the animal’] had special significance. . . . This means that ritualized killing is not the purpose of cultic sacrifices in the Hebrew Bible, and killing alone does not qualify a given set of activities as a sacrifice."

 

[JonC]

The fact that sacrificial killing involves accessing blood means that something other than death qua death is being activated. ... “the blood is the vehicle or agent of the victim’s life” and “[t]he converse of this point is that the death or slaughter of the victim, while necessary to procure the blood, has no particular atoning significance in and of itself.”

A bloodless breaking of the animal’s neck or some such would suffice as a “sacrifice” if all that mattered was the death of the animal. However, breaking an animal’s neck is a non-sacrificial slaughter used only in special circumstances that are also ritually construed (and thus the ritualized action again renders it no longer a killing/murder), but it is explicitly not a sacrificial ritual (Exod 13:13; 34:20; Deut 21:4)...

Not only is sacrifice separated from having anything to do with the concept of “death,” it is also separated from the notion of “suffering.”65 As David Moffitt explains, “To maltreat a sacrificial animal would be to render it ineligible to be offered to God, since a sacrificial victim that suffered physical damage from abuse would no longer be ἄμωμος.

 

[JonC]

The past posts were describing what the Levitical sacrifices were not. They were not (per the biblical text) substitution or a transference of sin.

Going forward the writer examines what these sacrifices were.