Featured Atonement

While this thread is not about P.S., so far I have not read anything contrary to that view. I guess I am looking for our differences, which I am sure will reveal themselves in short order.

 

I strongly agree with this. The literal meaning of hamartia is 'the missing of the mark.' We sin when we miss the mark of God's holiness (I Peter 1:15-16; Hebrews 12:14). In archery, one often misses the mark by falling short of it. 'For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.' God's glory is strongly intertwined with His holiness (Isaiah 6:1-3; John 12:41).
Therefore, if God cannot deny Himself (2 Timothy 2:13), whatever means He has devised for the salvation of guilty sinners cannot compromise His holiness, righteousness and justice. I believe that one of the most important texts with reference to the Atonement is Romans 3:26.

 

Over and over again you have declared that you believe in Penal Substitution but not Penal Substitution 'theory.' Over and over again I have denied any such bifurcation. I am delighted that you have now given up that particular aspect of your argument.

 

Ok, I now see what you meant with regard to the Kingdom of God. However, I still do not see any logical or Biblical connection between this redemptive goal and sin exceeding a moral issue.

 

You sin as "a power" rather than Satan as the power behind sin?

Here is where we have serious problems with each other's view of sin. You say death is not a "penal" consequence of sin but merely "the consequence of sin." It is merely something Jesus "experienced" on the cross but not a necessity for atonement due to legal condemnation of sin.

So, in the book of Leviticus death of the sacrifice has no legal significance for atonement? Without the shedding of blood (unto death) can there be any atonement in the book of Leviticus? Is death necessary of the sacrifice to satisfy legal condemnation for sin? So death is non-essential for LEGAL SATISFACTION OF SIN WITH REGARD TO LEGAL CONDEMNATION OF SIN?

 

In other words you do not see sin having penal consequences for anyone? If sinners refuse Christ would they have penal consequences for sin? I think you believe they do? However, Christ can satisfy the condemnation of sin without penal conseqences but the sinner cannot?

In Genesis 9 do you believe the law established by God that says if man sheds blood of another man then his blood must also be shed is a penal consequence of that sin? However, when it comes to the very same language with the sacrifices "without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins" you believe that does not convey penal satisfaction?

I believe if you remove satisfaction of the penal consequences from the atonement you have no atonement, you have no gospel but only a shell of "another gospel" that saves no one.

 

But you still believe it is a "moral" issue right? You still believe it is a violation of moral law right? Is this a law that can be violated without penalization? For example, suppose you reject Christ and continue in your love and practice of sin, is there any legal penal consequence for violating God's moral law? If there is not, then lets eat drink and be merry for tomorrow we only suffer a non-penal consequence of sin - death.

On the other hand, if violation of God's moral law demands "condemnation" that carries penal consequences then how is that penal consequence satisfied? How is it satisfied for those who continue in sin and unbelief? Does God have a two teir justice system? Is there one kind of justice administered for sinners outside of Christ but another administered to Christ for sins?

Why does God demand "without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins" and require the death of the atoning sacrifice if its is merely a voluntary act of love that satisfies no legal demands against sin? Why not merely make a meal offering instead, a bloodless sacrifice and the corresponding application would be merely the just and righteous life of Christ if death is not necessary to satisfy sin? Is death merely a "consequence" of sin (which Christ had none) but a legal necessity due to legal "condemnation" of sin by law?

 

God must punish those who violate His Holy Law, and the only way to have Him freely able to both punish for sins and to be able able to forgive the sinner is by the Pst!

 

But isn't man, like Adam a WILLING participant, a willing slave and that made a choice to serve Satan, thus submit to Satan's jurisdiction and power? Is not the moral inclination of the lost man really empowered by his "love" for darkness and his "hate" for light rather than some kind of abstract power inherent in sin? Is not the "law of sin" simply the power of attraction that finds its real source of power not in "sin" but in a fallen nature that loves, thrives to pursue sin? Is not that what Paul is saying concerning his yet unredeemed "body" that sin still has its appeal to the natural drives of the body and that is the avenue by which Satan still works in the life of the regenerate (Rom. 7:14-25)? So, is this not really an issue of moral character/nature driven by its love of sin and hatred of God in a willing cooperation with Satan and His power as the real source of power rather than sin having abstract power in and of itself? The only power found in sin is "the law" of attraction to unredeemed aspects of fallen human nature joined with Satan's power?

 

Does the bible ever attribute "power" to sin? Or does the Bible attribute "power" with regard to sin to Satan and the law? For example,

The sting of death is sin; and the strength [Gr. dunamis] of sin is the law. - 1 Cor. 15:56

Does not Paul mean that the Law aggrevates the sinful nature in man, because the sinful nature in man "loves" darkness and "hates" light and the Law condemns that sinful drive of fallen human nature? Hence, the "power" of sin is "the law" of attraction as the law is the what empowers the sinful nature to respond by sinning? Hence, "the law of sin" that Paul refers to is inherently connected with the unredeemed aspect of his human nature that still loves evil and hates good (Rom. 7:14-25) and will remain that way until the remaining aspect of human nature is fully redeemed (Rom. 7:23-25)? Hence, the only "power" of sin in connection with fallen man is found in the "heart" (love/hate) drives/depravity (Rom. 8:7).

 

Is man inability found in some kind of inherent power in sin, or found in the fallen nature which is unwilling to do so? Is the problem in "sin" or in the sinner's nature which "loves" sin and "hates" light? Are you not justifying the sinner by claiming he is "unable" when the real inability is found in his fallen nature that is unwilling because by nature it loves sin?

It seems that your view makes man a victim of sin rather than an willing advocate for sin?

 

Again, does God have a two teir justice system? Are unbelievers penalized for sin while Christ is not penalized for sins to be remitted for other sinners?

Are some sinners penalized for sin while other sinners are not penalized for sin?

Please don't respond that "sin" cannot be penalized but only sinners can be penalized. I know that, and that is not the PSA position. The PSA position is that sinners are penalized for sins and that Christ took the place for sinners and thus Christ was penalized NOT FOR ANY SINS HE COMMITTED but for the sins he TOOK UPON HIMSELF.