The revisionist history is reading PSA in the early church fathers as real church historians will testify to even most Calvinist historians
In any case there are all those particulars to PSA that no previous atonement theory had to be accounted for
If you deny PSA, you have become an OT Jew.
- Thread starter Diserner
- Start date
In any case there are all those particulars to PSA that no previous atonement theory had to be accounted for
Yes it is. Historians so testify. It is partisans who read their views back into history. Seeing one or two familar items they say PSA ignoring the rest
Samson
Active Member
God did not abandon Jesus on the cross or pour out his wrath upon him.
All you have to do is look at the trust David has, which is also prophetically seen in Jesus, that is clearly shown In Psalm 22:19-24. There is a plea for God to deliver, followed by a significant declaration of God’s faithful character—that he will respond to this cry for help.
19 But you, Lord, do not be far from me.
You are my strength; come quickly to help me.
20 Deliver me from the sword,
my precious life from the power of the dogs.
21 Rescue me from the mouth of the lions;
save me from the horns of the wild oxen.
22 I will declare your name to my people;
in the assembly I will praise you.
23 You who fear the Lord, praise him!
All you descendants of Jacob, honor him!
Revere him, all you descendants of Israel!
24 For he has not despised or scorned
the suffering of the afflicted one;
he has not hidden his face from him
but has listened to his cry for help.
Psalm 22:19-24
Did you catch the last verse? David writes that God “has not despised or scorned the suffering of the afflicted one.” (Psalm 22:24) Not only that, but God “has not hidden his face from him but has listened to his cry for help.”
God did not despise Jesus on the cross, in fact, He did not even hid his face. This directly and forcefully contradicts any notion that God turned His face away from Jesus during the crucifixion. David, inspired by the Holy Spirit, says that God has not hidden his face from Jesus at all.
All you have to do is look at the trust David has, which is also prophetically seen in Jesus, that is clearly shown In Psalm 22:19-24. There is a plea for God to deliver, followed by a significant declaration of God’s faithful character—that he will respond to this cry for help.
19 But you, Lord, do not be far from me.
You are my strength; come quickly to help me.
20 Deliver me from the sword,
my precious life from the power of the dogs.
21 Rescue me from the mouth of the lions;
save me from the horns of the wild oxen.
22 I will declare your name to my people;
in the assembly I will praise you.
23 You who fear the Lord, praise him!
All you descendants of Jacob, honor him!
Revere him, all you descendants of Israel!
24 For he has not despised or scorned
the suffering of the afflicted one;
he has not hidden his face from him
but has listened to his cry for help.
Psalm 22:19-24
Did you catch the last verse? David writes that God “has not despised or scorned the suffering of the afflicted one.” (Psalm 22:24) Not only that, but God “has not hidden his face from him but has listened to his cry for help.”
God did not despise Jesus on the cross, in fact, He did not even hid his face. This directly and forcefully contradicts any notion that God turned His face away from Jesus during the crucifixion. David, inspired by the Holy Spirit, says that God has not hidden his face from Jesus at all.
Yes that is the truth of the matter, God had not hidden his face from Christ
He was in fact
2 Corinthians 5:18–19 (KJV 1900) — 18 And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation; 19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.
Cyrus
Active Member
I like this one.
Jeremiah 31:2-30, Ezekiel 18:20, and Deuteronomy 24:16 tell us that a person is put to death for his own sin and that the wickedness of the wicked is upon himself. That isn't the case in penal substitution.
Looking at the Law, a person who murdered couldn't sacrifice an animal to atone for it. He must pay. It's also important to note that verses like Deuteronomy 24:16, 2 Kings 14:6, 2 Chronicles/4 Kings 25:4, and Ezekiel 18:19-20 make a strong case against the idea of substitutionary punishments.
Jeremiah 31:2-30, Ezekiel 18:20, and Deuteronomy 24:16 tell us that a person is put to death for his own sin and that the wickedness of the wicked is upon himself. That isn't the case in penal substitution.
Looking at the Law, a person who murdered couldn't sacrifice an animal to atone for it. He must pay. It's also important to note that verses like Deuteronomy 24:16, 2 Kings 14:6, 2 Chronicles/4 Kings 25:4, and Ezekiel 18:19-20 make a strong case against the idea of substitutionary punishments.
Also
Proverbs 17:26 (KJV 1900) — 26 Also to punish the just is not good, Nor to strike princes for equity.
Cyrus
Active Member
Good one Tom!
Thanks.
Proverbs 17:15 (NASB 2020) — 15 One who justifies the wicked and one who condemns the righteous, Both of them alike are an abomination to the LORD.
Pancho Frijoles
Active Member
In the Old Testament, if you committed a sin, you had to confess it, repent, and abandon that lifestyle.
In the New Testament, if you committed a sin, you had to confess it, repent, and abandon that lifestyle.
To forgive a sin, in the Old Testament God demanded a broken, contrite heart.
To forgive a sin, in the New Testament God demands a broken, contrite heart.
So, the sacrifice of Jesus did not change the way God has forgiven sins across history.
Whatever you think about Jesus sacrifice, you must still do the same thing that Ninevites did when Jonah preached to them. The same thing that the tax collector did, and that the Pharisee did not. The same thing that the Prodigal Son did.
Diserner
Active Member
In the Old Testament, faith in the sacrificial system represented your sins being judged in the future.
In the New Testament, faith in Jesus' sacrifice was your sins actually being judged.
Please study this passage carefully:
24 being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,
25 whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed,
26 to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. (Rom. 3:24-26 NKJ)
Notice that ALL sins "passed over" are not swept under the rug, forgotten about, ignored, counted as "no biggie," or minimized.
Rather they are all propitiated by Christ's Blood as a demonstration of God's righteousness in the present time.
Jesus wasn't just a good guy dying for a good cause, he was the mercy seat where our sins are judged and expiated—all sins of all time.
This was not all God demanded—God demanded the death of his Son, who suffered for our sins, the Just for the unjust, to bring us to God.
No one ever said it did.
Well, amen.
And you still need sacrifice, you don't bypass it, or ignore it.
Pancho Frijoles
Active Member
If what you say is true, then either
- God forgot to reveal that small detail for thousands of years and then, out of a sudden, overnight, He began asking that additional requisite, or
- God did not forget... it is just that He was not interested in forgiving and renewing the heart of anybody. King David was not forgiven nor his heart renewed. Isaiah was not forgiven. The Ninevites were not forgiven.
The Old Testament has 23,145 verses which were written for over 1,000 years. In which of them God lets Israel know that sacrificed lambs and bulls represented the Messiah to come? Or that the High Priest represented that Messiah to come?
I invite you to think about this and let us know your opinion.
Pancho Frijoles
Active Member
The sacrifice we need is a spiritual sacrifice. Jesus blood sacrifice is a symbol of the spiritual sacrifice of our old lives that God requires.
The spiritual sacrifice means to come to God with a broken spirit, crucify the old man and be resurrected (or "born again") into a new life.
Here is the biblical support:
The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit,
A broken and a contrite heart—
These, O God, You will not despise. (Psalm 51:17)
"You also, as living stones, are being built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ." (1 Peter 2:5)
I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, which is your reasonable service. And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God. (Romans 12:1)
knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin. (Romans 6:6)
when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, (Ephesians 2:5,6)
Pancho Frijoles
Active Member
Hi Dizerner
Thank you very much for keeping this conversation open and for sharing with me and the readers your views.
When you examine the Old Testament, there is no hint whatsoever that God placed the sinner in a kind of "waiting room" for his sins to be forgiven in the distant future, when the Messiah would appear and atone for those sins.
On the contrary: The Old Testament shows God forgiving and changing people in the present.
This is why the Psalmist could say: "Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, Whose sin is covered." (Psalm 23:2) and "You have forgiven the iniquity of Your people; You have covered all their sin." (Psalm 85:2)
Isaiah was granted the certainty of having his sins purged at that moment, not in the distant future
Behold, this has touched your lips; Your iniquity is taken away, And your sin purged.” (Isaiah 6:6)
****
It is also important to remark that in no verse in the Torah in which God explains that the sacrificial system represents a process that would take place many centuries ahead, by the Messiah.
If you read the whole chapter and the whole epistle, you will notice that Paul is trying to bring converts from Jew and Greek origin to unity.
Paul is telling them that no one should despise the other, because both groups had sinned, and both needed salvation.
Paul is comparing the past life of both groups (Jews and Greeks) and finding them comparable. God had been merciful with both of them, passing over their sins and giving them a chance to a new life.
Paul is not saying that King David or Isaiah or the Ninevites in ancient times had not been forgiven/renewed/saved.
Diserner
Active Member
Jesus Got a Big Discount
All have sinned and fallen short,
And what do we deserve?
Flames of fire burning forth?
The wrath of God is served?!
Hey, we have a Savior, nice!
But did he really pay the price?
I just don't like the way it feels,
if Jesus gets the selfsame deal!
God said my sins made anger fact,
I'd feel his wrath and burn in hell!
But justice is on sale, rollback!
A moment of not feeling well!
Just the semblance on the Cross,
no wrath against our sin!
The Father smiled at the cost,
no punishment was in.
How dare you split the Triune God,
just paying for my soul!
We'll uphold his holiness,
by letting it all go!
And so my Savior it turns out,
Got quite a big discount!
I'd earned the wrath of God...
but it never was poured out!
The Law brings no wrath — Not Romans 3.
"My God, My God, why does Psalm 22 say you've forsaken me?" — Not Jesus.
~The Discount Theory of the Atonement~
Deserves a re-post.
All have sinned and fallen short,
And what do we deserve?
Flames of fire burning forth?
The wrath of God is served?!
Hey, we have a Savior, nice!
But did he really pay the price?
I just don't like the way it feels,
if Jesus gets the selfsame deal!
God said my sins made anger fact,
I'd feel his wrath and burn in hell!
But justice is on sale, rollback!
A moment of not feeling well!
Just the semblance on the Cross,
no wrath against our sin!
The Father smiled at the cost,
no punishment was in.
How dare you split the Triune God,
just paying for my soul!
We'll uphold his holiness,
by letting it all go!
And so my Savior it turns out,
Got quite a big discount!
I'd earned the wrath of God...
but it never was poured out!
The Law brings no wrath — Not Romans 3.
"My God, My God, why does Psalm 22 say you've forsaken me?" — Not Jesus.
~The Discount Theory of the Atonement~
Deserves a re-post.
civic
Active Member
Amen and as we read God was with Him throughout His pain and suffering never turning His back upon Him, forsaking Him.
Psalm 22:24
24 For He has not despised nor scorned the suffering of the afflicted;
Nor has He hidden His face from him;
But when he cried to Him for help, He heard.
Diserner
Active Member
civic
Active Member
God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself. That took place on the cross. This passage proclaims Perichoresis- the eternal mutual indwelling of the Trinity.
So much for PSA it’s an ungodly doctrine.
Perichoresis is the fellowship of three co-equal Persons perfectly embraced in love and harmony and expressing an intimacy that no one can humanly comprehend. The Father sends the Son (John 3:16), and the Spirit proceeds from the Father and was sent by the Son (John 15:26)—another example of perichoresis, with the result that God’s people are blessed.
There is nothing that separates the Persons of the Trinity or interrupts the mysterious interchange of perichoresis. It can be imagined as a Venn diagram showing three circles intersecting in the center with each circle intersecting the others perfectly and multi-dimensionally, as they rotate about a common center of divine love.
hope this helps !!!
praise_yeshua
Active Member
Is this an attempt to collect information?
Indeed, the idea of a separation of the Father and the son is problematic for the doctrine of the Trinity and scripture.
2 Corinthians 5:19 (LEB) — 19 namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation.
John 14:10–11 (LEB) — 10 Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak from myself, but the Father residing in me does his works. 11 Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; but if not, believe because of the works themselves.
Perichoresis
The Orthodox Formulation
The orthodox doctrine of the Trinity was enunciated in a series of debates and councils that were in large part prompted by the controversies sparked by such movements as monarchianism and Arianism. The Council of Constantinople (381) formulated a definitive statement in which the church made explicit the beliefs previously held implicitly. The view that prevailed was basically that of Athanasius (293–373), as elaborated and refined by the Cappadocian theologians—Basil, Gregory of Nazianzus, and Gregory of Nyssa.
The formula that expresses the position of Constantinople is “one οὐσία (ousia - essence) in three ὑποστάσεις ((hupostaseis).” The emphasis often seems to be more on the latter part of the formula, that is, the separate existence of the three persons rather than on the one indivisible Godhead. The one Godhead exists simultaneously in three modes of being or hypostases. The idea of “coinherence” or, as later termed, perichoresis, of the persons is emphasized. The Godhead exists “undivided in divided persons.” There is an “identity of nature” in the three hypostases. Basil says:
For all things that are the Father’s are beheld in the Son, and all things that are the Son’s are the Father’s; because the whole Son is in the Father and has all the Father in himself. Thus the hypostasis of the Son becomes as it were form and face of the knowledge of the Father, and the hypostasis of the Father is known in the form of the Son, while the proper quality which is contemplated therein remains for the plain distinction of the hypostases.1
1 Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology. (2nd ed.; Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1998), 361.
The article discusses the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity, particularly as articulated during the Council of Constantinople in 381. It emphasizes the formulation of "one οὐσία (ousia) in three ὑποστάσεις (hupostaseis)," highlighting the coexistence of three distinct persons within one divine essence. The views of Athanasius and the Cappadocian theologians—Basil, Gregory of Nazianzus, and Gregory of Nyssa—are central to this understanding. They argue for the unity of the Godhead while maintaining the individuality of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, each possessing unique properties. The article addresses concerns about potential tritheism, asserting that the divine activity of revelation is a unified action involving all three persons. It also emphasizes that the divine essence is simple and indivisible, challenging the application of numerical categories to the Godhead. Overall, the orthodox formulation seeks to balance the distinctiveness of the persons with the unity of the divine substance.
This is an AI-generated summary
