Dizerner
Active Member
It does not "divide" the Godhead, that's a non sequitur.
The wills are in unison, and nothing is "separated" ontologically by a negative relation.
Atonement Theories
- Thread starter civic
- Start date
It does not "divide" the Godhead, that's a non sequitur.
The wills are in unison, and nothing is "separated" ontologically by a negative relation.
civic
Active Member
Oh Jesus bought me with a price, it cost Him His life in exchange for mine. He died for my sins according to the scriptures.
civic
Active Member
sure it divides the Godhead when there was a turning away, a departure of the Father from the Son leaving Him alone for hours no longer having fellowship with the Father as He turned away from His Son, forsaking Him to bear the sins of the world all alone for according to PSA God the Father cannot look on sin or allow sin in His presence forcing Him to forsake and abandon His own Son.
PSA is a Farce ,an assault and insult to God.
If God is pouring wrath out on Christ
If Christ becomes a literal curse and literal sin
If the father turns his back on the son
From the 17 claims of the appeasement school. (penal substitution)
13. God pours out His wrath on Christ pretending that Christ is we, the ones who actually deserve punishment (Appeasement School)
14. On the cross, Christ becomes literal sin and a literal curse. (Appeasement School)
15. God's eyes are too holy to look upon sin, so the Father turns his back on Christ, abandoning him. (Appeasement School)
We have a clear separation and a violation of the perichorsis (mutual indwelling) of the Father and the son.
It is not necessary to hold to PSA to believe Christ died for your sins.
I am sure Civic would not deny this.
Dizerner
Active Member
No we don't.
You just baldly asserting a logical non sequitur does not suddenly make it true.
Wrath requires presence. It logically requires both parties to be present.
People inaccurately use the terminology of "separation" from God for "separation from God's positive relations."
God is omnipresent definitionally.
DEFINITIONALLY NOTHING CAN BE SEPARATED FROM GOD.
So this whole nonsensical and unreasonable objection manufactured from irrationality needs to be discarded.
civic
Active Member
Talk about the blinders lol. Thats just it all false doctrine has a blinding effect on its adherents.
Again
15. God's eyes are too holy to look upon sin, so the Father turns his back on Christ, abandoning him. (Appeasement School)
How is that not a separation?
civic
Active Member
100% every other atonement theory is better than PSA. None of the others assault the character and nature of God the Father, Son, Holy Spirit.
civic
Active Member
its denying the obvious elephant in the room. We can quote many Reformed Scholars, Theologians, Pastors over the centuries who teach exactly that.
Dizerner
Active Member
You remove the meaning for what "die for sins" even means.
If I shoot you in the head, you just "died for my sin," my sin of murder.
That is not what we mean with Christ.
He does not die "around" sin or "about" sin or "because" of sin.
He dies FOR the sin itself judicially.
He specifically dies the judicial death that sinners themselves deserve on their behalf.
You are removing God's holy Law that necessitates punishment of sin, if you deny substitutionary atonement.
You have a Jesus who masochistically gets himself killed just to make you feel better about yourself.
Instead of a holy God paying the price of your sin.
But does nothing whatsoever to testify as to mutual indwelling
Isaiah 59:2 (KJV 1900) — 2 But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, And your sins have hid his face from you, that he will not hear.
civic
Active Member
nope you are adding judicial to the scriptures just like those who invented the theory.
civic
Active Member
You are right PSA dissolves perichorsis there is no way around that fact and also many other Character attributes of God are dissolved as well.
It makes a mockery out of God is love. It turns it into God is hate on the cross.
Over a dozen times in both testaments God tells sinners whom He saves I will never leave you or forsake you. But somehow we are to believe He forsook His sinless Son.
What a mockery of the good nature and character of our God. Its sickening.
Not at all
All that is removed is the idea God's motive here is simply one of retribution. Christ is considered the one who sinned, and God pours out his wrath against him, gaining his retribution against the sinners.
You are clearly misrepresenting an alternative view.
But God's motive is one of love, not revenge.
1 John 4:9–10 (LEB) — 9 By this the love of God is revealed in us: that God sent his one and only Son into the world in order that we may live through him. 10 In this is love: not that we have loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.
The idea verily hurts me.
civic
Active Member
Amen which coincides with 1 John 2:2.
Eternally-Grateful
Active Member
Atone-
Hebrew - Kipper - To make atonement, to appease, to cover, to make propitiation, make amends
to have removed, or lifted.
Greek - Hilasterion - To reconcile to propitiate or to expiate - to appease
Biblical - Day of atonement - High priest enters with the blood of bulls and goats to cover the sins of Israel for the previous year.
with this in mind.
#1 does not fit
#2 has major flaws. Ransom to satan?
#3 is in does not fit
#4 is a possibility, it is a step in the right direction
#5 is the most likely or most adequate theory
#6 and #7 are week.. and would not fit totally..
Hebrew - Kipper - To make atonement, to appease, to cover, to make propitiation, make amends
to have removed, or lifted.
Greek - Hilasterion - To reconcile to propitiate or to expiate - to appease
Biblical - Day of atonement - High priest enters with the blood of bulls and goats to cover the sins of Israel for the previous year.
with this in mind.
#1 does not fit
#2 has major flaws. Ransom to satan?
#3 is in does not fit
#4 is a possibility, it is a step in the right direction
#5 is the most likely or most adequate theory
#6 and #7 are week.. and would not fit totally..
