Divine Justice

[JonC]

(1) Not all sacrifices have an atoning function.

(2) The purpose of the regular burnt offerings is “divine attraction” or “invitation.”

(3) The purpose of the well-being offerings is sacred feasting between God and people.

(4) The Passover is neither about atonement nor substitutionary death.

(5) The covenant-inauguration and renewal ceremonies only use non-atoning sacrifices. (

(6) The blood sprinkling on the people (Exod 24:8) ... is a way to signify and ratify the bond between two covenantal parties (God and Israel here).

(7) Whenever blood is placed on people, it is never blood from the atoning sacrifice used to atone (purge) sancta (the ḥaṭṭāʾt)

 

[JonC]

There are two types of impurity ... “ritual” and “moral” ...across the uses of purity language in the Torah. On the one hand, ritual impurity has nothing to do with sins, but it is contagious. ... On the other hand, moral impurity is not contagious and cannot be removed through atoning sacrifices. This is because moral impurity polluted both the person and the land, ...

 

[JonC]

All of that was a glimpse of the Old Testament sacrifices. It is incomplete (I jumped around, providing highlights). But now will reference the writing again.

 

[JonC]

[The book of] Hebrews is making the argument that Jesus’s life-blood serves as a sacrifice that fulfills the functions of both kipper and non-kipper sacrifices in the Levitical system. According to the author, Jesus is a non-kipper covenant-making sacrifice, and he also has atoning significance and can accomplish the purification of the heavenly sanctuary.

Just as we saw from the Gospels, the author also links the forgiveness of sins and moral purification with the establishment of the new covenant, rather than with the kipper system. In fact, the author grounds Jesus’s capacity to bring about atonement in the non-atoning sacrifice that establishes the new covenant. Once again, we see how Jesus’s association with the non-atoning sacrifices are primary. It is what makes these other theological moves possible....


Overall, Hebrews is emphasizing the all-encompassing nature of Jesus’s resurrected “indestructible life” (Heb 7:16) and his ability to fulfill the functions of the entire Levitical system, rather than only linking it to the kipper system.

 

[JonC]

1 John presents a truly universal atonement theology (2:2) while Hebrews presents a view of atonement that focuses on the decontamination of the heavenly sanctuary and granting believers access to the purified heavenly holy of holies, rather than a substitutionary punishment for sin.

This concept of atonement is embedded within a theology of participation, with believers being seen as fellow purification offerings with Jesus as they share in his sufferings and high priesthood. In this way, the atonement theology of Hebrews is worked out through its concept of Jesus as a “forerunner” (6:19–20). What Jesus does is not “instead of” us, but rather “ahead of us.” The call to follow Jesus is the call to full union and participation in the Son’s indestructible life as we “bear his reproach” (13:13).

 

[DaveXR650]

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.

So if you read a review and think it is accurate you are a fool - but if you read the book itself and thought it was newly discovered ultimate truth, you are wise?
Yes you are saying I am a fool which I don't mind. I guess it's better than the usual charge of blasphemy and heresy.

 

[Ben1445]

So if you read a review and think it is accurate you are a fool - but if you read the book itself and thought it was newly discovered ultimate truth, you are wise?
Yes you are saying I am a fool which I don't mind. I guess it's better than the usual charge of blasphemy and heresy.

Reviews are not considered writing, I guess. Since they are not writings, they cannot have merit.

 

[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?

If I were to find out that the cross was not a plan of redemption and that it had nothing to do with our salvation in a direct manner - and by that I mean that it turned out to be true that God did not want Jesus to go to the cross - then I would give up penal substitution. I would also give up Christianity and figure that Jesus was a nice but deluded guy who meant well but actually just caused a lot of social unrest wherever he went.

Along the same lines, as G. Campbell Morgan said, we should note that Jesus never tried to explain the theology of the atonement. And it is very noteworthy that he did it completely alone. Man was shut out. It was not in any way participatory. We were spectators only. So when men try to explain the atonement and their explanation is incomplete as in the case of early churchmen who, with an incomplete agreement on the deity of Christ or the Trinity would not have been able to formulate a detailed theology I certainly find no fault. But when someone comes along who has figured the difference between a single and double hand gesture on a sacrifice, yet doesn't see the significance of the necessity of a bloody sacrifice and a violent death I become suspect. When they deny that our uncleanness and sinfulness causes "wrath" on God's part, even though to touch the wrong thing or go into the wrong chamber would cause instant death directly at the hand of God - I suspect once again, that they don't know what they are talking about. And when they make such unscriptural claims such as that the Passover lamb had nothing to do with escaping judgement and outpouring wrath of God, once again, I doubt they know of what they speak.

To have a belief on the atonement that stops at Jesus ransomed us, or died for us according to the scriptures, or bore our sins in his own body on the cross and refuse to call that penal substitution for whatever reason I won't judge as to why. But when they go on like you do and attack and follow people around on threads totally unrelated to try to bring this up and to make it a crusade - and then finally to clarify that the problem really is deeper in that the objection is the whole idea of the cross being the will of God and Jesus and the result of their direct plan - but is only allowed if it is some kind of mistake and injustice and thus we can make it meaningful as we (wonderful people that we are) follow along in participation - is horrible. And the reason is that it turns the whole theme of man falling into sin and God rescuing us into another scheme of man participating in and rescuing himself. I am afraid that someday you are going to find out that God is not as grateful to you for your participatory plan of salvation as you had assumed.

So yeah, if penal substitution is not true I figure I am as decent and nice as most people and should at least come out of this with a gentlemen's "C". And any other religion that encourages "niceness" whenever possible should do as well.

 

[DaveXR650]

Reviews are not considered writing, I guess. Since they are not writings, they cannot have merit.

Of the first two reviews I came across, the one was a summary of a detailed review that is available in PDF and is 105 pages. It is not exactly superficial and is at a graduate, theologian level. These claims of "new" truth are something we need to be aware of in our post modern days where they try to "deconstruct" everything. I do believe that we don't have to have a "theory" of atonement in order to be saved. Our part is to believe on Christ. But I will promise you that aberrant teachings about the atonement will result in damage at a practical level to simple Christian teaching and church life. That's why I always challenge those who hate PSA to show me good churches and good practical preaching that hates PSA. When you see an article, usually, for some reason on Patheos or Baptist News Global, just follow the links and see what else they are teaching.

 

[JonC]

Reviews are not considered writing, I guess. Since they are not writings, they cannot have merit.

Reviews are writings. But the problem is you are viewing one person's claims through another.

For example, if I were to examine an RC Sproul sermon through the writing of a person who disagrees with Sproul them I may walk away viewing Sproul as a heretic without even considering his words.

Do reviews of a book have merit in relation to the ideas expressed? No. They only tell you how another viewed the book. That reviewer could be prejudiced. He may hold a different understanding or theology.

Too many read reviews as if they understood and rejected what was being reviewed.

Now, if you have a cult mentality then reviews are how you self-indoctrinated. Cult leaders tell you what to believe, what God really means. A Jehovah Witness, for example, will not read a Christian theology because the Watchtower has reviewed it as wrong and contrary to God.

 

[JonC]

Of the first two reviews I came across, the one was a summary of a detailed review that is available in PDF and is 105 pages. It is not exactly superficial and is at a graduate, theologian level. These claims of "new" truth are something we need to be aware of in our post modern days where they try to "deconstruct" everything. I do believe that we don't have to have a "theory" of atonement in order to be saved. Our part is to believe on Christ. But I will promise you that aberrant teachings about the atonement will result in damage at a practical level to simple Christian teaching and church life. That's why I always challenge those who hate PSA to show me good churches and good practical preaching that hates PSA. When you see an article, usually, for some reason on Patheos or Baptist News Global, just follow the links and see what else they are teaching.

I never said reviews are superficial, although they are rarely academic.

The isdue is the book contains no "new truths". That is your pet word for "I do not want to consider it". Ironically, the author of the book obviously does not hate PSA. Neither does any of the writers I mentioned.

But they love God more than they love tradition. They are saying - as has been said for over two centuries - that "we made a mistake in PSA and need to reevaluate the theory".


The fact you have fought so hard over the past several years to prevent anybody from going back to the Bible, reexamining the PSA theory and its presuppositions, trying to silence any opposing view by attacking the authors, etc. shows me that you know you are wrong or at least that your theory may be wrong and you simply do not want to know.


I can provide reviews agreeing with the book. I can find reviews agreeing with the book and highlighting the "faith once delivered" but largely abandoned in mainstream Evangelical churches.


So why do you choose reviews that disagree with the book rather than reviews that agree with the book?

You do that not because you are even remotely interested in truth but because you seek ammo to defend your camp (what is to you a cult).


Show me in Scripture what is denied.


A Mormon defending against Christian doctrine offers LDS reviews and quotes from the Book of Mormon. Do you grasp the problem?

 

[JonC]

So if you read a review and think it is accurate you are a fool - but if you read the book itself and thought it was newly discovered ultimate truth, you are wise?
Yes you are saying I am a fool which I don't mind. I guess it's better than the usual charge of blasphemy and heresy.

No. If you read a review instead of the book and think it is accurate you are foolish.

If you believe the doctrine presented in the book is new you are a fool. It is much older than PSA, and has been used to argue against PSA theorists for over a century.

It has resurfaced in Evangelical circles, but it is far from new.

Rather than merely insulting and regurgitating what you read in reviews why not text what is said with God's words.

The time it took you to read that long "graduate level" review could have been spent reading God's words to see which view is true.