1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

A Biblical Based view of Penal Substitutionary Atonement

Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by The Biblicist, Feb 24, 2019.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. JonC

    JonC Lifelong Disciple
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    13,711
    Likes Received:
    1,143
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The fact reasonable Christians have for a very long time disputed your reasoning may actually shed more light on your leanings than on the dispute itself.
     
  2. percho

    percho Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2009
    Messages:
    4,456
    Likes Received:
    87
    Faith:
    Baptist
    To Bill, mister President

    Why is, "is," is?

    Before the foundation of the world, before, man was created; Did God have a problem that needed to be solved?
    What was that problem? Would the solution to the problem require the creation of man. Would the solution require the man to sin and bring death to himself? Would the solution to the problem require that, a holy one, substitute himself for that death?

    Acts 15:18 Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.
    Romans 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: ----- Something God knew he was going to do, before he created Adam.

    The law -Thou shall not eat of it - For we know that the Law is spiritual, but I am of flesh, sold [fn] into bondage to sin..Rom 7:14 NSAB -

    Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. Heb 2:14,15

    Did the solution to the problem begin with the creation of Adam?

    Why is old Bill like he is?
     
  3. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    15,702
    Likes Received:
    397
    What doctrine has not been disputed by someone? What text has not been disputed by someone? Again, notice the nature of your appeal - traditions.

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

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

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

    The Biblicist Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    15,702
    Likes Received:
    397
    You asked me to defend the just standing in the legal position of the unjust and being penalized for their sins. I gave you with the legal basis - the book of Leviticus - divine law concerning atonement. Your response? Nada, Zilch, Zero except for philosophic speculation.
     
  5. JonC

    JonC Lifelong Disciple
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    13,711
    Likes Received:
    1,143
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I never asked you to defend the just standing in the legal position of the unjust and being penalized for their sins. I know the defense.

    I asked you to provide a verse that states (rather than implies) redemption is a matter of divine justice and that divine justice is retributive justice. You couldn’t (because there are none).

    Yet you rambled on. So I gave up on that line of questioning and simply asked you to defend the belief that it is in fact just for an innocent man to be punished instead of the guilty person. And I asked you to defend the belief that justice demands punishment to be rendered for an act even if the actual perpetrator is not punished.

    You couldn’t.

    If you want another crack at it, here goes:

    Defend the philosophy that it is in fact just for an innocent man to be punished instead of the guilty person.

    Defend the judicial philosophy that views justice as demanding punishment to be rendered for an act even if the actual perpetrator is not punished.
     
  6. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    15,702
    Likes Received:
    397
    Above is the post I was responding to and the first question. Now here is my answer:

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

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

    The Levitical Law is God's Law. Agreed?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Case closed!
     
  7. JonC

    JonC Lifelong Disciple
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    13,711
    Likes Received:
    1,143
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Actually, I do not agree. You seem to be applying a philosophy of justice to God, in essence making God a prisioner if your warped idea of justice.

    Defend the philosophy that it is in fact just for an innocent man to be punished instead of the guilty person.

    Defend the judicial philosophy that views justice as demanding punishment to be rendered for an act even if the actual perpetrator is not punished.
     
  8. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    15,702
    Likes Received:
    397
    That is not the question you asked. You have two questions above unrelated to the question you asked which I answered. It easy to provide scripture that demands divine justice is retributive justice in the sense of judgement (penalization) is "according to their works." That is simply to prove IF one is dealing with a reasonable and honest debater.

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

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

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

    The Biblicist Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    15,702
    Likes Received:
    397
    You are completely ignorning the hard evidence in Leviticus 16 I placed squarely before your eyes and no speculative philosophy was included just the plain simple Biblical language. No doubt this is why you did not respond point for point as it would expose this deceptive response.
     
  10. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    15,702
    Likes Received:
    397
    If you dare, respond point for point where I make an assertion and ask you "agreed." Don't just say "disagree" but provide a Biblical based reason based on a Biblical text.
     
  11. JonC

    JonC Lifelong Disciple
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    13,711
    Likes Received:
    1,143
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I gave up on trying to get upu to provide non-existent passages (you couldn't, which was my point, but I think you missed the fact). So I decided to take baby steps:

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

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

    If not, then why would you attribute such foolishness to God? If so, prove it.
     
  12. JonC

    JonC Lifelong Disciple
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    13,711
    Likes Received:
    1,143
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I do not have an issue with the text. The sacrifical system points to the redemption that was to come (apart, interesting enough, from the law).

    What you have to do first is prove your presuppositions. If you cannot do that then your interpretation/ application is obsolete.

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

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

    The Biblicist Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    15,702
    Likes Received:
    397
    Ok, but I did prove that Jesus Christ is the antitype of the sacrificial type! I proved that with an abundance of scriptures that are clear and explicit. So the animal is an explicit type of a PERSON - Jesus Christ.

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

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

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

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

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

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

    So you ask,

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

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

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

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

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

    JonC Lifelong Disciple
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    13,711
    Likes Received:
    1,143
    Faith:
    Baptist
    No, you proved nothing. You offered Scripture and because we both see the system as pointing to Christ and God offering Christ as a guilt offering you felt it appropriate to restate your claim.

    You have to prove that it is just for an innocent man to be punished instead of the guilty person. You think you did because you have adopted the false notion that killing an animal is "punishment". That is reading into the text.

    Prove that justice is satisfied when punishment is inflicted, regardless as to whether the innocent or guilty is punished.

    That is the presupposition you are reading into the sacrificial system. That is the philosophy you are bringing into Scripture. So prove it before insisting others should adopt it.
     
  15. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    15,702
    Likes Received:
    397
    What you are demonstrating is total incapability for dealing with very specific evidence in any objective manner. By your criteria NOTHING could be proven by scripture because you simply reject the plain and simple sense of scripture.

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

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

    The Biblicist Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    15,702
    Likes Received:
    397
    For more objective honest readers below I present again the scripture texts followed by conclusions drawn from those texts:


     
  17. JonC

    JonC Lifelong Disciple
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    13,711
    Likes Received:
    1,143
    Faith:
    Baptist
    No. You have just used a lot of words.

    Try this (fill in the blank):

    It is just to punish the innocent in place of the guilty because __________________.

    The reason I have not engaged the passages you provided is because the are not proof of the philosophical system you bring into the discussion. Prove your presuppositions correct and then we can address Scripture through them.
     
  18. percho

    percho Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2009
    Messages:
    4,456
    Likes Received:
    87
    Faith:
    Baptist
    In a way, God, was a prisoner.

    for the shewing forth of his righteousness in the present time, so that he should be just, and justify him that is of the faith of Jesus. Rom 3:26

    Why at this time should God show that he is just?

    For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; Romans 8:20 NKJV

    Now the, in hope, there is the faith of Jesus at the end of Rom 3:26. one is justified, made righteous, out of faith of Jesus or that is through the obedience of one Rom 5:19. But why because of the first part of Rom 8:20

    The creation was subjected to futility.

    Not by Satan or anything he willed, not by man or what he willed but by God himself. Therefore God had to show himself as just and the justifier,
     
  19. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    15,702
    Likes Received:
    397
    First, your questioned is flawed! There are not such "innocent" men with regard to divine justice - no,not one.

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

    Third, sinners cannot be punished for anyone but themselves.

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

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

    JonC Lifelong Disciple
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    13,711
    Likes Received:
    1,143
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Under that theory, I agree. God was subject to a standard that proved greater than Himself, but through Christ He found a way to redeem mankind.

    BUT what if Romans 3:26 was being descriptive rather than describing a problem solved. God is just and the justifier of sinners (only under the philosophy of retributive justice is this even a question). I believe it to be a declaration.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...