The Nature of God in the Atonement

You have yet to explain Roman’s 9. I’m still waiting for your explanation.

Maybe you could explain Romans 9 like you do with Daniels 70 weeks. You give your “ opinion “ with that in great detail.

hope this helps !!!
Ya, but in all this time, did you ever take the time to really investigate all the evidences I give? Go through all the calculations for yourself? Really study? Really think things through? I go by a person's actions. If you haven't for that, why would I spend the time and effort to correct you in this?
 
Ya, but in all this time, did you ever take the time to really investigate all the evidences I give? Go through all the calculations for yourself? Really study? Really think things through? I go by a person's actions. If you haven't for that, why would I spend the time and effort to correct you in this?
Quoting scripture is not evidence. The devil quoted scripture to Jesus.
 
If I believed one way for 40 years and my mind was Changed that’s the very definition of being open minded . :)

hope this helps !!!
No, trying to catch someone in an "aha" and mock their viewpoint and set yourself up as the "expert" without even knowing what someone else's position is, that is evidence of NOT an open mind.
 
Yes, he did. He tried to twist the meaning of the words. Jesus would have none of it. That's why when you present a twisting of Scriptural teaching it is such a big deal.
That’s what you did with Roman’s 9. You twisted it’s meaning which I exposed several times was in error with chosen, elect , predestination, sovereignty, Israel/ Jews and gentiles with the law, faith , blindness , hardening of Gods elect/ chosen people.

hope this helps !!!
 
That’s what you did with Roman’s 9. You twisted it’s meaning which I exposed several times was in error with chosen, elect , predestination, sovereignty, Israel/ Jews and gentiles with the law, faith , blindness , hardening of Gods elect/ chosen people.

hope this helps !!!
I did? Where exactly? I simply QUOTED the passage. You are the one that went all hot and bothered when I did that.
 
I did? Where exactly? I simply QUOTED the passage. You are the one that went all hot and bothered when I did that.
In the other thread on Romans 9.

Now back to the OP. What have I said about the atonement that is incorrect in this thread ?

What have I said about the character.nature of God that is incorrect ?

Please point me to those and make your counter argument from scripture proving my view is unbiblical.

hope this helps !!!
 
In the other thread on Romans 9.

Now back to the OP. What have I said about the atonement that is incorrect in this thread ?

What have I said about the character.nature of God that is incorrect ?

Please point me to those and make your counter argument from scripture proving my view is unbiblical.

hope this helps !!!
Like I said, display an open mind and a willing teachable spirit. You're going to have to show exact proof or take back your accusation. I don't continue discussion with people who lie.
 
Like I said, display an open mind and a willing teachable spirit.
And you never explained this.
Ya, but in all this time, did you ever take the time to really investigate all the evidences I give? Go through all the calculations for yourself? Really study? Really think things through? I go by a person's actions. If you haven't for that, why would I spend the time and effort to correct you in this?
 
Like I said, display an open mind and a willing teachable spirit. You're going to have to show exact proof or take back your accusation. I don't continue discussion with people who lie.
Rule Violation.

2c. This further includes making false statements or accusations about a member. Do not lie about anyone or call them a liar.
 
Back to one of the most used passages to support PSA.

Is 53:10 which can also mean meek , humble not not just crushed . See Brown Driver and Briggs OT lexicon for proof .

Isaiah 53:10
Yet it was the LORD’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and though the LORD makes his life an offering for sin, he will see his offspring and prolong his days, and the will of the LORD will prosper in his hand

Below we see the same Hebrew word has various meanings.

Psalm 34:18
The LORD is near to the brokenhearted; He saves the contrite in spirit.

Jeremiah 44:10
To this day they have not humbled themselves or shown reverence, nor have they followed my law and the decrees I set before you and your ancestors.

The word means humbled, contrite, meek see BDB- Brown Driver Briggs lexicon of the O.T.

So Isaiah 53:10 can read it was the Lords will to humble him and cause him to suffer.


The fact is the Father did not kill the Son nor was He responsible . The NT evidence from Jesus and the Apostle’s say otherwise.

hope this helps !!!
@Complete
 
Part 1

The Nature of God in the Atonement

1-Introduction
- Definition of theology, attributes and nature of God, Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53, and PSA (wrath of God arguments).

2-Thesis statement: Scripture does not teach that God’s wrath was poured out on Jesus.

3-Attributes of God : His unchanging nature, His love being the cornerstone.

The main Old Testament Passages where Penal Substitutionary Atonement is Derived: Psalm 22; Isaiah 53

4-New Testament Interpretation of Isaiah 53: Matthew 8:14-17;Mark 15:27-32;John 12:37-41;Luke 22:35-38;Acts 8:26-35;Romans 10:11-21;1 Peter 2:19-2

5- Jesus as the Expiation for Sin in the Atonement

Propitiation
1 John 2:2; 4:10

Expiation—Forgiveness and covering of sin. Use of typology

6- Conclusion

God is Love

This paper is about the Trinity, and the penal substitutionary theory of the atonement (e.g., PSA), as it relates to the nature and character of God. The word Theology refers to the study of God, and God is Triune, a Trinity- Tri-Unity. All doctrine begins with God at its starting point. God’s innate attributes are Aseity (God is self-sufficient), Infinite (without limit), Eternal (God has no beginning or end, he is timeless), Immutable (God is unchanging), Love (God is love), Holy (God is set-apart), Perichoresis (the indwelling of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit). Divine Simplicity states God is Love because He is Love, not because He possesses that quality. God is the center of all the Divine Attributes. They point to His Being. God is not distinct from His nature.

God is Love. In love, the Father sent the Son on our behalf to be the perfect sacrifice for sin. We Love because He first loved us and sent His Son as 1 John 4:19 tells us.

We must understand how God's attributes all work in harmony together, not in opposition to each other. God's attributes and character flow from His love—for God is love.

God being love has nothing to do with His creation. That is secondary. God is love, and that love is perfect, lacking nothing within His Triune nature as God. Love, by definition, has to be expressed with another, which is why a unitarian god cannot be love. Love requires another to share and express that love, and it is what we see with the Triune God. God is love before anyone/anything existed.

Before creation, there was no sin. There was no judgment, wrath, mercy, grace, and justice. Why? Because those are God's secondary attributes concerning the creation and the fall. God's love is a primary attribute, like Holy is a primary one. Everything about God flows from His being Love which includes His secondary attributes, which were not in use until the creation and the fall.
Then, "everything about God flows from his being [holy and just]", too (just by way of example).

So are you saying that God has these "secondary attributes" as a result of our rebellion? That sounds like you are saying that he is not immutable, though you say next (below) that he is immutable. It certainly contradicts the attribute of Aseity. I can only hope that you mean that these are not actually attributes, but they are what we see that he does in his dealings with corrupted creation. That is to say, they are the workings of what ARE his attributes upon rebellious creatures.

Let’s examine how this works in conjunction with Gods sovereignty and His love. God is sovereign and also love. Both sovereignty and love as they intersect with God have been revealed plainly to us by God in His word. He has done this both through his word and his works. And God has sworn never to change for He is Immutable.

God's sovereignty is never exercised in violation of his love. His love is very everlasting, for God is love. The love of God has not the slightest shadow of variation, and it, not his sovereignty, is the basis upon which his moral standards rest. Any promotion of any doctrine that represents God as acting in a way that violates his love appealing to the fact that He is sovereign is found nowhere in the pages of scripture.
"Any promotion of any doctrine that represents God as acting in a way that violates his [purity] appealing to the fact that he is sovereign is found nowhere in the pages of scripture." Why do you imagine that the attribute of love is more important than truth, life, purity, and other things? That God is love does not mean that he is not these other things. That love defines these other attributes does not mean that they don't define his love.

And what is probably most important in the context of your paper, what YOU think his love means, does not define what his love is.
The fact that God can do something is not a justification for Him doing it. The fact that God can damn everyone without a reason is not an argument for justifying teaching that he does as in the Calvinist doctrine of double predestination. All that He can do is restricted by the standard that God values most which is His love. If it will violate love, God will not and cannot do it for that would be contrary to His nature and character as a loving God. And if it will violate love then it is not right. God cannot make it right by doing it just because He is sovereign. If God does it just because He is sovereign then He would not be God but something else.

What makes God, God is so intricately bound to his intent for doing things that if He were to do a thing just by virtue of the fact that He is sovereign and can do it rather than by virtue of the fact that it is loving? He would not be God as we know Him but something else. If sovereignty is what defines what makes up love in such a way that God doing anything is what defines love, then love has no meaning and can be anything and everything it is and opposes any time, which is ridiculous.
These last few paragraphs above, you are apparently trying to represent the "Calvinist doctrine of double predestination". You and I both know several Calvinists that would protest, saying that Calvinism has no such doctrine. But for those, like myself, that do believe in double predestination, we would protest strongly to your characterization of it. We don't say that he does anything "without a reason". We don't say that "the fact that he can do something is justification for Him doing it". We don't say that anything he does "violates love". Are you going to say that his wrath, (which, I think, you admit to), violates his love? —Of course not!

You consistently speak as though God must live up to some standard. You here characterize Almighty God as "restricted by the standard he values most." This is simply bogus talk. At best it is "so-to-speak". God does what God is; he doesn't do anything by reason of 'living up to a standard'. What makes you think he values love above purity? They are both HIM —not something he must live up to. If they can even be said to operate in him, they operate neither in equal nor in un-equal proportions. In him they are both one-and-the-same thing. WE are the ones who must think of them each separately.
This below is from the Calvinist Theologian Abraham Kuyper on God is love:


“Before God created heaven and earth with all their inhabitants, the eternal Love of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit shone with unseen splendor in the divine Being. Love exists, not for the sake of the world, but for God's sake; and when the world came into existence, Love remained unchanged; and if every creature were to disappear, it would remain just as rich and glorious as ever. Love exists and works in the Eternal Being apart from the creature; and its radiation upon the, creature is but a feeble reflection of its being.

Abraham Kuyper continues:
"Love is not God, but God is Love; and He is sufficient to Himself to love absolutely and forever. He has no need of the creature, and the exercise of His Love did not begin with the creature whom He could love, but it flows and springs eternally in the Love-life of the Triune God. God is Love; its perfection, divine beauty, real dimensions, and holiness are not found in men, not even in the best of God's children, but scintillate only around the Throne of God.


"The unity of Love with the Confession of the Trinity is the starting-point from which we proceed to base Love independently in God, absolutely independent of the creature or anything creaturely. This is not to make the divine Trinity a philosophic deduction from essential love. That is unlawful; if God had not revealed this mystery in His Word we should be totally ignorant of it. But since the Scripture puts the Triune Being before us as the Object of our adoration, and upon almost every page most highly exalts the mutual Love of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and delineates it as an Eternal Love, we know and plainly see that this holy Love may never be represented but as springing from the mutual love of the divine Persons.

"Hence through the mystery of the Trinity, the Love which is in God and is God obtains its independent existence, apart from the creature, independent of the emotions of mind and heart; and it rises as a sun, with its own fire and rays, outside of man, in God, in whom it rests and from whom it radiates.

"In this way we eradicate every comparison of the Love of God with our love. In this way the false mingling ceases. In principle we resist the reversing of positions whereby arrogant man had succeeded in copying from himself a so-called God of Love, and into silencing all adoration. In this way the soul returns to the blessed confession that God is Love, and the way of divine mercy and pity is opened whereby the brightness of that Sun can radiate in a human way, i.e., in a finite and imperfect manner to and in the human heart, to the praise of God. “From his book on the Work of the Holy Spirit Volume 3, Second Chapter Love- xviii Love in the Triune Being of God “
I don't know, by the way, if you intended to quote Kuyper as though what he says, you agree with, and it should serve to convince Calvinists of your point of view, or just what. But he does a good job of pointing out that God's love is a fact on its own separate from his creation, as over against being something that 'shows up' because of his creation —and this you agree with, as you have pointed out; but he also says, "In this way we eradicate every comparison of the Love of God with our love. In this way the false mingling ceases." And you seem (to me) to be unaware of that, because you continue to define God's love as though you really understand it and know what it is, and to measure all other things according to your notion of God's love. That is a mistake. (And no, I don't pretend my notion of it is better than yours.)
 
Then, "everything about God flows from his being [holy and just]", too (just by way of example).

So are you saying that God has these "secondary attributes" as a result of our rebellion? That sounds like you are saying that he is not immutable, though you say next (below) that he is immutable. It certainly contradicts the attribute of Aseity. I can only hope that you mean that these are not actually attributes, but they are what we see that he does in his dealings with corrupted creation. That is to say, they are the workings of what ARE his attributes upon rebellious creatures.


"Any promotion of any doctrine that represents God as acting in a way that violates his [purity] appealing to the fact that he is sovereign is found nowhere in the pages of scripture." Why do you imagine that the attribute of love is more important than truth, life, purity, and other things? That God is love does not mean that he is not these other things. That love defines these other attributes does not mean that they don't define his love.

And what is probably most important in the context of your paper, what YOU think his love means, does not define what his love is.

These last few paragraphs above, you are apparently trying to represent the "Calvinist doctrine of double predestination". You and I both know several Calvinists that would protest, saying that Calvinism has no such doctrine. But for those, like myself, that do believe in double predestination, we would protest strongly to your characterization of it. We don't say that he does anything "without a reason". We don't say that "the fact that he can do something is justification for Him doing it". We don't say that anything he does "violates love". Are you going to say that his wrath, (which, I think, you admit to), violates his love? —Of course not!

You consistently speak as though God must live up to some standard. You here characterize Almighty God as "restricted by the standard he values most." This is simply bogus talk. At best it is "so-to-speak". God does what God is; he doesn't do anything by reason of 'living up to a standard'. What makes you think he values love above purity? They are both HIM —not something he must live up to. If they can even be said to operate in him, they operate neither in equal nor in un-equal proportions. In him they are both one-and-the-same thing. WE are the ones who must think of them each separately.


Abraham Kuyper continues:

I don't know, by the way, if you intended to quote Kuyper as though what he says, you agree with, and it should serve to convince Calvinists of your point of view, or just what. But he does a good job of pointing out that God's love is a fact on its own separate from his creation, as over against being something that 'shows up' because of his creation —and this you agree with, as you have pointed out; but he also says, "In this way we eradicate every comparison of the Love of God with our love. In this way the false mingling ceases." And you seem (to me) to be unaware of that, because you continue to define God's love as though you really understand it and know what it is, and to measure all other things according to your notion of God's love. That is a mistake. (And no, I don't pretend my notion of it is better than yours.)
I appreciate your response and critique. I will take some time and respond to your thoughts above and not just give a quick reply. So be patient :)

But I will say where I will go with this regarding love. Jesus is God in the flesh and He demonstrated what Gods love looks like, acts like, lives like, responds like etc..... We need no further than examining Jesus life and ministry to see and experience Gods love in action. And the Apostle Paul, Peter, James and John in their epistles also reinforce what Gods love looks like. So we can get a complete picture that the N.T. paints for us that demonstrates God is love and what that looks like in the greatest detail.

If the greatest commandments and the Royal Law is all summed up in loving god with all of our mind, soul, heart and strength and our neighbor then we should be able to know what that looks like for is is a perfect reflection to the world of Gods love. This is where I will be camping out at in my response to your above mentioned objections to my paper that I will be adding to it in due time. There is allot that can be added to it and it is a work in progress that is a never ending study. One thing I have come to believe over the past few years is the God never asks us to be something that He is not Himself. That is some food for thought and something to contemplate. God is knowable and wants to be known in a great and personal way since He created us in His image/likeness for relationship since God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit is a relational Being. And this is why love, God is love is foundational in my view. It why Paul can say all else will cease to exist except love which will never fade away. Its eternal like God. :)

hope this helps !!!
 
Last edited:
I appreciate your response and critique. I will take some time and respond to your thoughts above and not just give a quick reply. So be patient :)

But I will say where I will go with this regarding love. Jesus is God in the flesh and He demonstrated what Gods love looks like, acts like, lives like, responds like etc..... We need no further than examining Jesus life and ministry to see and experience Gods love in action. And the Apostle Paul, Peter, James and John in their epistles also reinforce what Gods love looks like. So we can get a complete picture that the N.T. paints for us that demonstrates God is love and what that looks like in the greatest detail.

If the greatest commandments and the Royal Law is all summed up in loving god with all of our mind, soul, heart and strength and our neighbor then we should be able to know what that looks like for is is a perfect reflection to the world of Gods love. This is where I will be camping out at in my response to your above mentioned objections to my paper that I will be adding to it in due time. There is allot that can be added to it and it is a work in progress that is a never ending study. One thing I have come to believe over the past few years is the God never asks us to be something that He is not Himself. That is some food for thought and something to contemplate. God is knowable and wants to be known in a great and personal way since He created us in His image/likeness for relationship since God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit is a relational Being. And this is why love, God is love is foundational in my view. It why Paul can say all else will cease to exist except love which will never fade away. Its eternal like God. :)

hope this helps !!!
Thanks. Just a quick comment, and then I intend, as I find time, to read the next post of your continued OP.

Notice above that you demonstrated no logical link between your idea of the foundational, "God is love", and 'free will' or even 'non-PSA'. Basically, what you said is, "God is loving," or even, "God is nice," (depending on who reads what you said, or how they read what you said.)
 
Part 2

God can do anything and everything is what sovereignty means by definition. God will only do what is loving and what is righteousness. Righteousness is the foundation of his throne. In other words, righteousness is the constraint of his sovereign rule. Love is how God rules His creation. Sovereignty, Righteousness, Justice, Mercy and all the other attributes of God fall under the umbrella of His love. God being love is foundational to Gods nature, character, the gospel and the entire purpose for Christs 1st Coming. John 3:16. God rules by His love. The question we need to be asking ourselves is this, how does our Sovereign God display His love in conjunction with His rule over mankind?
Sovereignty is implied in the fact that "God can do anything and everything", and vice versa; that God is sovereign implies that he can do anything and everything. But sovereignty means quite a bit more than just that. But, I suppose, it doesn't change your point —maybe because I don't see what your mention of sovereignty has to do with this paragraph and what follows below.

But I do like that you declare here that righteousness is the "foundation of his throne". I'm a bit surprised that you didn't say that love is that foundation. That righteousness is, seems to me, contradicts (to some degree) your earlier (and here, too) uses of the pervasiveness of his love as primary above his other attributes.
Psalm 22

The messianic passage of Psalm 22 was played out before their very eyes, and Jesus quotes the opening verse letting His persecutors know that He truly is the Son of God, the Messiah, by quoting Psalm 22. The passage was being lived out before all witnesses of the crucifixion. It is a proclamation and a declaration that He is the Messiah, God's One and Only Son who gave His life as a ransom for many.

What the Father did allow to happen and not rescue His Son from was His death and suffering from those wicked leaders to be our sacrifice for sin. The entire weight of that was upon Him to bear alone, but the Father never left Him. He was there hearing His prayers and answering them upon His death. Moreover, let us not forget Jesus' promise to the sinner, "Today, you will be with me in paradise Luke 23:4." For God so loved the world that He gave His Only Begotten Son that whosoever believes in Him will not perish but have everlasting life. The Trinity was never fractured, broken, or severed for even a moment, but together, the Godhead accomplished salvation for sinners.

It was a Triune effort that worked out to perfection as They had planned from the very beginning. Furthermore, when this reconciliation took place at the cross, we read that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself - 2 Corinthians 5:19. The book of Romans states that "God demonstrated His love for us that while we were still sinners Christ died for us" (Romans 5:8). So Jesus' sacrificial atonement both propitiates (turns away God’s wrath) and expiates (covers our sins). Gods’ wrath does not fall on the sacrifice. Scripture teaches us that sin was condemned in the flesh, not that Jesus was condemned (Romans 8:3).



Psalm 22
My God, my God, why have You forsaken me?
Far from my deliverance are the words of my groaning.
2 O my God, I cry by day, but You do not answer;
And by night, but I have no rest.
3 Yet You are holy,
O You who are enthroned upon the praises of Israel.
4 In You our fathers trusted;
They trusted and You delivered them.
5 To You they cried out and were delivered;
In You they trusted and were not disappointed.
6 But I am a worm and not a man,
A reproach of men and despised by the people.
7 All who see me sneer at me;
They separate with the lip, they wag the head, saying,
8 “Commit yourself to the Lord; let Him deliver him;
Let Him rescue him, because He delights in him.”
9 Yet You are He who brought me forth from the womb;
You made me trust when upon my mother’s breasts.
10 Upon You I was cast from birth;
You have been my God from my mother’s womb.
11 Be not far from me, for trouble is near;
For there is none to help.
12 Many bulls have surrounded me;
Strong bulls of Bashan have encircled me.
13 They open wide their mouth at me,
As a ravening and a roaring lion.
14 I am poured out like water,
And all my bones are out of joint;
My heart is like wax;
It is melted within me.
15 My strength is dried up like a potsherd,
And my tongue cleaves to my jaws;
And You lay me in the dust of death.
16 For dogs have surrounded me;
A band of evildoers has encompassed me;
They pierced my hands and my feet.
17 I can count all my bones.
They look, they stare at me;
18 They divide my garments among them,
And for my clothing they cast lots.
19 But You, O Lord, be not far off;
O You my help, hasten to my assistance.
20 Deliver my soul from the sword,
My only life from the power of the dog.
21 Save me from the lion’s mouth;
From the horns of the wild oxen You answer me.
22 I will tell of Your name to my brethren;
In the midst of the assembly I will praise You.
23 You who fear the Lord, praise Him;
All you descendants of Jacob, glorify Him,
And stand in awe of Him, all you of Israel.
24 For He has not despised nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted;
Nor has He hidden His face from him
;
But when he cried to Him for help, He heard.
25 From You comes my praise in the great assembly;
I shall pay my vows before those who fear Him.
26 The afflicted will eat and be satisfied;
Those who seek Him will praise the Lord.
Let your heart live forever!
27 All the ends of the earth will remember and turn to the Lord,
And all the families of the nations will worship before You.
28 For the kingdom is the Lord’s
And He rules over the nations.
29 All the prosperous of the earth will eat and worship,
All those who go down to the dust will bow before Him,
Even he who cannot keep his soul alive.
30 Posterity will serve Him;
It will be told of the Lord to the coming generation.
31 They will come and will declare His righteousness
To a people who will be born, that He has performed it.​


There are 10 points about God and Jesus' last words that are important to examine. Some people taught when Jesus said (My God My God why have Thou forsaken Me) that the Father departed, deserted, and turned His back upon His Son to bear God’s wrath on the cross. They teach from the pulpits that God is too Holy to look upon sin. However, is this teaching biblical? Is it true?
Well, finally, we begin to get to your thesis! I don't, for now, however, see how anything you have said before this, other than the quoted Scripture and your attempt to establish that love subsumes, envelopes and limits all other attributes and deeds of God, has to do with this thesis.
1-God is Triune- Tri-Unity

2- The Trinity cannot be broken, separated, or abandoned.

3- God does not send His wrath against God
Where do you get this, #3?
4- Jesus is God

5- Context has meaning, and all the gospel accounts work together along with the O.T. quotations

6-In Luke 23:46, Jesus' last words were," Father into Thy hands I commit my Spirit."

7- Within Psalm 22, there are numerous details regarding Jesus' crucifixion. For example, Psalms 22 and the gospels say He was mocked, despised, hurled insults, cast lots, divided His clothes, let God rescue Him. Further, Psalm 22:24 also says God has not despised Him nor hidden His face from Him and listened to His cry for help.

8- Psalm 22:24 coincides with Jesus' trust and relationship with the Father when he states, "Into your hands, I commit MY Spirit."

9- Psalm 22:1 was Jesus’ cry in response to his enemies' surrounding him like David, not about the Father turning away from him.
Why not both? If not both, then why would he have said it, and why is it said in Ps 22?
10- Psalm 22 and Jesus last words are a declaration, a proclamation that He is the promised Messiah described in great detail in this Psalm.
I agree completely that Jesus is the promised Messiah, but it is a stretch to say that his last words (#8) are a declaration that he is the promised Messiah. Many others have and do say the same thing. I'm not arguing against the point you are really after here, but this build-up to it is unsubstantial, unless there is something here you mean to point out that I can't see.

But I will read further, since this was only the second post of the OP
 
Back
Top Bottom