Divine punishment? Is it needed?

[Der Alte]

I agree that He probably has purpose that go beyond humans but the only way He can achieve His purpose of saving humankind is by saving humankind, not just some of them.
It's as if Neil Armstrong had said, "It's one small step for man, one giant leap for some of mankind". Mankind means all of mankind. And it's not a matter of argument: it's what the word means.

See my post #258, above.

 

[Mark Quayle]

If you want to receive forgiveness, absolutely. You can't know forgiveness unless you are in a relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ. It is why unbelievers will never know the forgiveness that is in Christ because they reject Him. It is the ultimate evil from which all sin is derived.

Then you are contradicting what you said before, concerning the unbelievers being forgiven, to wit, "All sins are covered by the Cross including the sins of unbelievers" (post #235, because here you claim repentance is absolutely necessary to receive forgiveness, and, yet, the unbelievers will not repent, lacking both faith and regeneration.

 

[Mark Quayle]

And if by Gehenna you mean the lake of fire? Then again you have not heard what I said. People go to hell because they reject Christ which is evil. Sin is derived from evil, they are not the same thing (Jam.1:14&15). The wages of sin is death, not the lake of fire. People are not "paying for their sin" in hell. Sin is no longer the issue. What God looks for is how one responds to the Son not what sins you have committed and checking them off against a list to see if they are covered by the Cross. All sins are covered by the Cross including the sins of unbelievers. Even if no-one believed in Christ, all sins would still be paid for. It's an unalterable fact. If it were not so, The Lord would have no justification in releasing the unbelievers from death and hades. (Rev.20:13) Christ holds the keys (Rev.1:18) because He won the victory over death. He did not die for His own rejection, the rejection of truth which, is evil, He died for sin. Learn the difference then you might be in a position to correct me.

Let me see if I am getting this straight. Rejecting Christ is not sin? Can you show from Scripture including James 1:14-15, how this particular evil is not sin?

You say, "If it were not so, The Lord would have no justification in releasing the unbelievers from death and hades." Ignoring for the moment that you have not proven that the language Scripture uses in, "death and hades gave up the dead in them", describes "the Lord...releasing the unbelievers from death and hades", why would the Lord need justification in doing anything that he does? If you mean purpose, rather than justification, it is at the simplest, to fulfill his word, because he said death and hades would give up the dead in them. But more than that, so that justice could be done. Is the White Throne judgement of their deeds a different scripture context, from them being thrown into the LOF? (I.e., hermeneutically speaking, is there some reason to think Rev 20:11-15 is talking about two completely unrelated events?)

 

[Mark Quayle]

Let me ask you something.

Did Christ die for sin before or after the world (or any part thereof) repented?

Does "slain from the foundation of the world" ring a bell? How about "chose us in him, before the foundation of the world"?

 

[Mark Quayle]

Wow. Wouldn't that mean that God is withholding forgiveness for some?
What happens if we do that? Is God held to a lower standard than we are?

Withholding forgiveness? You are looking at it backwards again. This is not about us, but about Christ. ALL have sinned and fallen short. ALL are under the condemnation. But he had mercy on those to whom he chose for his own. Forgiveness is not withheld; it was never theirs. They get what they bargained for.

Remember the parable of the workers in the field. Does not the master have to right to be generous with whom he will? The rest of them get what they bargained for.

 

[Hmm]

I dunno'. . .

"Few there are that find it." (Matthew 7:14)

Romans 9:22-23 seems to indicate otherwise.

The difference in our views stems ultimately on whether we think death in this life represents the end of our developing relationship, our chances if you like, with God. If it does, then I agree with you that we won't all be saved because clearly many and perhaps most people die when they are barely aware of Christ, let alone reconciled to Him.

But the idea that our state at the point of death on Earth is the irrevocable determiner of our eternal fate is just that, an idea. I don't believe it is supported scripturally at all and it actually goes against much of scripture such as the Harrowing of Hell as.has been recently discussed in this thread and all the many verses where God tells us that He will one day be all in all. Jesus died for the sins of the world, not just the parts of it that go to the right church or those who sign up to the right intellectual beliefs.

 

[Mark Quayle]

The difference in our views stems ultimately on whether we think death in this life represents the end of our developing relationship, our chances if you like, with God. If it does, then I agree with you that we won't all be saved because clearly many and perhaps most people die when they are barely aware of Christ, let alone reconciled to Him.

Well, that assessment serves well enough. So now all you have to do is show robust Scriptural support for the notion that one party is not resurrected to life, and the other to death, but that they are resurrected to another choice, apparently neither one of them now a slave to sin.

But the idea that our state at the point of death on Earth is the irrevocable determiner of our eternal fate is just that, an idea. I don't believe it is supported scripturally at all and goes against much of scripture such as the Harrowing of Hell as.has been recently discussed in this thread and all the many verses where God tells us that He will one day be all in all. Jesus died for the sins of the world, not just the parts of it that go to the right church or who sign up to the right intellectual beliefs.

You may have noted that you have just now counted value in those who will be relegated to the Lake of Fire. Is there any value to any of us apart from God, particularly, considering that he has entirely withdrawn all graces from those in the LOF?

 

[Der Alte]

Withholding forgiveness? You are looking at it backwards again. This is not about us, but about Christ. ALL have sinned and fallen short. ALL are under the condemnation. But he had mercy on those to whom he chose for his own. Forgiveness is not withheld; it was never theirs. They get what they bargained for.
Remember the parable of the workers in the field. Does not the master have to right to be generous with whom he will? The rest of them get what they bargained for.

But they have to go into the field and work. They don't get paid for doing nothing.

 

[Mark Quayle]

But they have to go into the field and work. They don't get paid for doing nothing.

It is not a parallel. It is a parable.

 

[Hmm]

Well, that assessment serves well enough. So now all you have to do is show robust Scriptural support for the notion that one party is not resurrected to life, and the other to death, but that they are resurrected to another choice, apparently neither one of them now a slave to sin.

A lot of scripture that supports, overwhelmingly IMO,
UR has already been given in this thread so I see little point in repeating it here.

You may have noted that you have just now counted value in those who will be relegated to the Lake of Fire. Is there any value to any of us apart from God, particularly, considering that he has entirely withdrawn all graces from those in the LOF?

Two questions:

1. Do you consider it a possibility that your children, if any, or your parents, siblings or friends may end up in the LOF, as you call it?

2. If any of them actually do, will they therefore no longer have any value to you?

 

[Der Alte]

It is not a parallel. It is a parable.

Parables are based on real life. The unknown/not understood is revealed by comparing it to something known/understood. From this parable one would very likely come to the conclusion I expressed.

 

[Der Alte]

Posted previously this thread:
Except for 1 John 4:18 all verses spoken by Jesus, Himself.
…..Some people claim that “aionios” never means eternity/eternal because it sometimes refer to something which is not eternal.
However, “aionios” is never defined/described, by adjectives or descriptive phrases, as meaning a period of time less than eternal, in the New Testament, as in the following verses.
…..Jesus used “aionios” twenty eight [28] times. He never used “aionios” to refer to anything common, ordinary or mundane that was not or could not be eternal.
…..In the following ten [10] verses Jesus defines/describes “aionios” as “eternal.”

[1] Luke 1:33
(33) And he shall reign [basileusei][Vb] over the house of Jacob for ever; [aionas] and of his kingdom [basileias][Nn] there shall be no end.[telos] ​

In this verse the reign/basileusei, which is the verb form of the word, is "aionas" and of the kingdom/basileias, the noun form of the same word, "there shall be no end.” “Aionas” by definition here means eternity.

[2] John 6:58
(58) This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.[aionios]​

In this verse Jesus juxtaposes “aionios life” with “death.” If “live aionios” is only a finite period, a finite period is not opposite “death.” Thus “aionios” by definition here means “eternal.”

[3] John 10:28
(28) I give them eternal [aionios] life, and they shall never [aion] perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand. ​

In this verse Jesus parallels “aionios” with “[not] snatch them out of my hand.” If “aionios” means “age(s), a finite period,” that is not the opposite of “[not] snatch them out of my hand’” “Aionios life” by definition here means “eternal life.”

[4]John 3:15
(15) That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal [aionion] life.
[5] John 3:16
(16) For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting [aionion] life. ​

In these two verses Jesus parallels “aionion” with “should not perish.” Believers could eventually perish in a finite period, thus by definition “aionion life” here means eternal or everlasting life.

[6]John 5:24
(24) Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting [aionios] life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. ​

In this verse Jesus parallels “aionios” with “shall not come into condemnation” and “passed from death unto life.” “Aionios” does not mean “a finite period,” by definition here it means “eternal,” unless Jesus lets His followers come into condemnation and pass into death.

[7]John 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting [aionios] life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.​

In this verse Jesus juxtaposed aionios life with “shall not see life.” If aionios means an indefinite age that is not opposite “shall not see life” By definition aionios means eternal.

[8]John 4:14 But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never [ου μη/ou mé] thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting [aionios] life.​

In this verse Jesus paralleled aionios with “shall [ου μη/ou mé][fn] never thirst.” If aionios means an indefinite age that is not opposite “shall never thirst.” By definition aionios means eternal. See footnote [fn] on “ou mé” below.

[9]John 6:27
(27) Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting [aionios] life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed. ​

In this verse Jesus contrasted “aionios meat” with “meat that perishes” If aionios means an indefinite age that is not opposite “meat that perishes.” By definition aionios means eternal.

[10]John 8:51
(51) Very truly [amen amen] I tell you, whoever obeys my word will never [ou mé eis ton aiona][fn] see death."​

In this verse Jesus juxtaposes “unto aion” with “never see death.” By definition “aion” means eternity.
In the above 10 vss. Jesus defines/describes "aionios" as meaning, eternal. everlasting, unending.

Matthew 25:46
(46) And these shall go away into everlasting [aionios] punishment:[kolasis] but the righteous into life eternal.​

In this vs. Jesus said that those on His left shall go away into everlasting punishment and that is exactly what He meant.
The word translated "punishment," Matt 25:26, "kolasis" occurs only one other time in the N.T. 1 Jn 4:18

1 John 4:18
(18) There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. [kolasis]He that feareth is not made perfect in love.​

The one who has "kolasis" is not made perfect i.e. "is not corrected."

 

[Mark Quayle]

A lot of scripture that supports, overwhelmingly IMO,
UR has already been given in this thread so I see little point in repeating it here.



Two questions:

1. Do you consider it a possibility that your children, if any, or your parents, siblings or friends may end up in the LOF, as you call it?

2. If any of them actually do, will they therefore no longer have any value to you?

1. Yes, often, and I'm not at all sure some of them won't.
2. It may have fleetingly occurred to you before this but perhaps the only thing good in any of us is God's doing, and not of ourselves. And the only thing real, in the end, is what lasts.

 

[Hmm]

2. It may have fleetingly occurred to you before this but perhaps the only thing good in any of us is God's doing, and not of ourselves. And the only thing real, in the end, is what lasts.

But that's not answering my question

 

[Fervent]

Then you are contradicting what you said before, concerning the unbelievers being forgiven, to wit, "All sins are covered by the Cross including the sins of unbelievers" (post #235, because here you claim repentance is absolutely necessary to receive forgiveness, and, yet, the unbelievers will not repent, lacking both faith and regeneration.

He's not contradicting himself, in fact he is echoing what John said in "not only ours, but the sins of the world." The sins themselves are no longer what is condemning, what is left is unbelief.

 

[Fervent]

That's exactly the issue with ECT and satisfaction/substitution (S/S) atonement theories: They overemphasize the cross to the neglect of the whole picture, i.e. the incarnation, life, death, resurrection, and ascension of the Son of God/Son of Man.

S/S theories aren't interested in transformation, only transaction. God must be appeased by some transaction. They assume that God is adversely affected in some way or other; either God's honor is hurt (satisfaction), God's wrath must be satisfied (substitution), or God has to free humanity from a source that somehow is in competition with God (ransom-in the old "sold to the devil" theories). All of these present a weak, anthropomorphic image of God, a God who must make a transaction to save God's own creation. That's pitiful.

First, whatever theories we come up with we must assume 1. They are inadequate to describe, in all its fullness, what God is doing in Christ. We don't know God's side of things; we only know what God reveals. That revelation (Christ) is sufficient for what we need, but our theories about that revelation are just that: theories. 2. Therefore, we should take all atonement theories with a grain of salt, they are human constructs.

That said, I think a combination of theories works best:
1. Recapitulation Theory (Ireneaus): Christ became like us so that we could become like him. To recapitulation is to bring everything under one principle. All things are being reconciled to God through Christ. The mechanism for doing this is the incarnation, life, death, resurrection, ascension. That is- the whole package, not just the cross.

The cross reveals the epitome of the destructive nature of evil, i.e., we sought to destroy our own Creator-deicide. The resurrection reveals evil's impotence in relation to the God of love and life.

2. Christus Victor: Christ takes the consequences of human sin and evil on himself, not to repay the Father or be punished, as if God needs anything or has a wrath that must be satisfied, but to transform death into life, despair into hope, sorrow into joy, corruption into everlastingess. I know the historical connection between CV and ancient ransom theories. Initially, we were being ransomed from the devil. Eventually, it shifted to us being ransomed from the powers of sin, death, and hell. That's fine as long as we acknowledge the dualistic notions the metaphor of "paying a ransom" can give rise to. We might be overpowered by sin, death, and hell; but these have absolutely no power over God. God is not paying anyone or anything. God is simply revealing the reality of the situation so that we can trust and go forward in faith. In other words, the cross reveals God's power and love (John 3:16). But the goal of all of it is union between God and humanity, which is achieved in his own person before one single nail is driven.

3. Moral influence (Abelard): The Holy Spirit uses the revelation of Christ (the whole thing, not just the cross) to transform our hearts and minds so that we become like Christ (Recapitulation). The power is not in our belief in theories but in the Spirit working in us. transforming us.

Abelard was right; Anselm's theory (and Calvin's by association since he basically copied Anselm) is too anthropomorphic. God is like a feudal warlord, which was Anselm's experience and superimposed on the cross. More than that, there is no shadow of turning with God. Divine love and the divine will are not connected to a switch that is turned on and off by the cross.

While I agree, in principal, about satisfaction theories your analysis doesn't appear to fully understand penal substitution. Penal substitution in the parts named(that Christ died as a substitute for us on account of the law) is essentially a concentrated statement of Paul's argument in Romans. The addition of satisfaction of wrath is theological(and in my opinion garbage that gives God a bad name), but it is unnecessary for penal substitution if we only understand it on the basis of the words involved.

As for the relative weight of atonement theories, it seems to me we should give them space based on their relative importance in the Bible. At the center of all 4 gospels is the crucifixion narrative, in fact all 4 gospels give a considerable narrative weight to the crucifixion placing it prominently in the narrative and dedicating a great deal of narrative space to it. As important as the resurrection is, it is given somewhat less narrative space especially in that it is simply implied in Mark. So while it is an indispensible part of the atonement, it is less weighty than the crucifixion. This is bolstered by the fact thatt Paul strove to know nothing but "Christ and him crucified." The nativity is given even less narrative space, with only 2 gospels featuring it. Luke is the only gospel that seems to place a great deal of emphasis on Jesus' teachings with its travel narratives and numerous parables while the rest place some emphasis but most of the teaching within them is to highlight the movement to the cross and emphasize the lack of understanding among his disciples of where the ministry was headed. So ultimately, if we are to build an atonement theology with the Bible as our principal guide we must give the most emphasis to the crucifixion(and resurrection) with the rest of the theories providing augmentation and supplementation. It is by way of the cross that we are transformed, entering His death through baptism, and consuming His body broken on the cross and the blood of the covenant through Eucharist. In every way the cross is the meeting point and focus of our humble religion.

 

[sawdust]

Then you are contradicting what you said before, concerning the unbelievers being forgiven, to wit, "All sins are covered by the Cross including the sins of unbelievers" (post #235, because here you claim repentance is absolutely necessary to receive forgiveness, and, yet, the unbelievers will not repent, lacking both faith and regeneration.

I bolded the part where you are confusing the issue. I have never said "unbelievers are forgiven". I have said their forgiveness is in Christ. Just like saying there is water in the bucket for you to drink, doesn't mean you have automatically slated your thirst. If you want to receive that forgiveness then you will need to repent and believe. Christ died for sin, not for salvation. Christ's victory on the Cross doesn't automatically save everyone but it does remove the sin barrier and bondage to death for everyone so that "whosoever" may now come to Christ.

Let me see if I am getting this straight. Rejecting Christ is not sin? Can you show from Scripture including James 1:14-15, how this particular evil is not sin?

2 Tim.2:13
if we are faithless, he remains faithful, for he cannot disown himself.

If Christ can't reject Himself (and He can't), then He can't die for it. And if He died for all sin (and He did), then rejecting Christ is the ultimate evil from which all sin springs. Sin is wrongdoing, that can be corrected by the truth. What can't be corrected is what causes the wrongdoing in the first place because the underlying evil is the rejection of truth and replacing it with a lie. That can't be changed, it can only be abandoned and left behind (repentance). Reject truth often enough and long enough and you become the evil you desire. That is where your view of reality is so distorted that you think good is evil and evil good. That's the point where Christ said there is no forgiveness and it's not because God has stopped being merciful or forgiving, but because the person is beyond reasoning. If God forced them to repent against their will? It would be a violation of the very likeness He originally created them in.

You say, "If it were not so, The Lord would have no justification in releasing the unbelievers from death and hades." Ignoring for the moment that you have not proven that the language Scripture uses in, "death and hades gave up the dead in them", describes "the Lord...releasing the unbelievers from death and hades", why would the Lord need justification in doing anything that he does? If you mean purpose, rather than justification, it is at the simplest, to fulfill his word, because he said death and hades would give up the dead in them. But more than that, so that justice could be done. Is the White Throne judgement of their deeds a different scripture context, from them being thrown into the LOF? (I.e., hermeneutically speaking, is there some reason to think Rev 20:11-15 is talking about two completely unrelated events?)

The Lord has to keep His word right, otherwise how could we trust Him? If He says the wages of sin is death and then lets some people out of death without any basis, He is hardly just. Christ dying for their sin is the basis for their release.
The Lord Jesus Christ holds the keys to death and hades, so I don't know who else you think unlocked those doors.
Not 100% sure I know what you are getting at re White Throne judgement. Everyone is still to be judged on their works and the work the Lord requires is to believe in Him. Those whose names were not found in the book of life (ie. unbelievers) go into the fire.

John 6:29
Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”

Does "slain from the foundation of the world" ring a bell? How about "chose us in him, before the foundation of the world"?

Sounds like we are on the same page here.

 

[Fervent]

I bolded the part where you are confusing the issue. I have never said "unbelievers are forgiven". I have said their forgiveness is in Christ. Just like saying there is water in the bucket for you to drink, doesn't mean you have automatically slated your thirst. If you want to receive that forgiveness then you will need to repent and believe. Christ died for sin, not for salvation. Christ's victory on the Cross doesn't automatically save everyone but it does remove the sin barrier and bondage to death for everyone so that "whosoever" may now come to Christ.



2 Tim.2:13
if we are faithless, he remains faithful, for he cannot disown himself.

If Christ can't reject Himself (and He can't), then He can't die for it. And if He died for all sin (and He did), then rejecting Christ is the ultimate evil from which all sin springs. Sin is wrongdoing, that can be corrected by the truth. What can't be corrected is what causes the wrongdoing in the first place because the underlying evil is the rejection of truth and replacing it with a lie. That can't be changed, it can only be abandoned and left behind (repentance). Reject truth often enough and long enough and you become the evil you desire. That is where your view of reality is so distorted that you think good is evil and evil good. That's the point where Christ said there is no forgiveness and it's not because God has stopped being merciful or forgiving, but because the person is beyond reasoning. If God forced them to repent against their will? It would be a violation of the very likeness He originally created them in.



The Lord has to keep His word right, otherwise how could we trust Him? If He says the wages of sin is death and then lets some people out of death without any basis, He is hardly just. Christ dying for their sin is the basis for their release.
The Lord Jesus Christ holds the keys to death and hades, so I don't know who else you think unlocked those doors.
Not 100% sure I know what you are getting at re White Throne judgement. Everyone is still to be judged on their works and the work the Lord requires is to believe in Him. Those whose names were not found in the book of life (ie. unbelievers) go into the fire.

John 6:29
Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”



Sounds like we are on the same page here.

From an outside perspective, it seems you two have different views over what was accomplished in the atonement itself, as you seem to be saying that the barrier between God and man created by sin was removed and Christ began drawing all men to Himself. On the other hand, the Reformed view holds that men are incapable of even responding to the drawing so Christ had to not only pay the price of sin but also move the sinner into repentance. And part of the issue is you're not debating/discussing with a couple of individuals you are contending with a dogmatic system with all kinds of checks against its inconsistencies and pretzel logic.

 

[public hermit]

While I agree, in principal, about satisfaction theories your analysis doesn't appear to fully understand penal substitution. Penal substitution in the parts named(that Christ died as a substitute for us on account of the law) is essentially a concentrated statement of Paul's argument in Romans. The addition of satisfaction of wrath is theological(and in my opinion garbage that gives God a bad name), but it is unnecessary for penal substitution if we only understand it on the basis of the words involved.

As for the relative weight of atonement theories, it seems to me we should give them space based on their relative importance in the Bible. At the center of all 4 gospels is the crucifixion narrative, in fact all 4 gospels give a considerable narrative weight to the crucifixion placing it prominently in the narrative and dedicating a great deal of narrative space to it. As important as the resurrection is, it is given somewhat less narrative space especially in that it is simply implied in Mark. So while it is an indispensible part of the atonement, it is less weighty than the crucifixion. This is bolstered by the fact thatt Paul strove to know nothing but "Christ and him crucified." The nativity is given even less narrative space, with only 2 gospels featuring it. Luke is the only gospel that seems to place a great deal of emphasis on Jesus' teachings with its travel narratives and numerous parables while the rest place some emphasis but most of the teaching within them is to highlight the movement to the cross and emphasize the lack of understanding among his disciples of where the ministry was headed. So ultimately, if we are to build an atonement theology with the Bible as our principal guide we must give the most emphasis to the crucifixion(and resurrection) with the rest of the theories providing augmentation and supplementation. It is by way of the cross that we are transformed, entering His death through baptism, and consuming His body broken on the cross and the blood of the covenant through Eucharist. In every way the cross is the meeting point and focus of our humble religion.

I would say the focus of all four is the cross and resurrection. I don't think the shorter ending of Mark can be isolated as somehow downplaying the resurrection. The tomb is empty, enough said. However, if you read the sermons in Acts, their focus is always centered on the resurrection. There is no good news without it. I don't know that the two can be separated, or any of it, for that matter. I think one way to frame it is to see the cross as the mechanism that makes it all work. I get that and understand why that might be the claim. But you can't have the cross without the resurrection, and you can have neither of those without the incarnation. It's a package deal. Of course, I'm repeating myself now.

 

[Clare73]

That's exactly the issue with ECT and satisfaction/substitution (S/S) atonement theories: They overemphasize the cross to the neglect of the whole picture, i.e. the incarnation, life, death, resurrection, and ascension of the Son of God/Son of Man.

That being in the eye of the beholder.

The bedrock of Christianity is the cross. . .everything follows from the cross.
And it's not satisfaction/substitution. . .it's penal substitution.

S/S theories aren't interested in transformation, only transaction.

Again. . .in the eye of the beholder.

False dichotomy. . .the two are not mutually exclusive, it's not either/or, it's both/and,
both S/S and Christus Victor.

S/S doctrine is about the how and why of Christ's atonement which ground one's understanding in spiritual reality, as distinct from lofty notions connected to no bases of their reality.

And one can realize the very bedrock of Christianity is the cross and treat it as such, while at the same time apprehending the whole picture.

Are not the NT Scriptures as replete with the sacrifice of Christ as they are with the life in Christ?
What is the source of this dichotomy you allege?

God must be appeased by some transaction.

You bring God down to your level (diminishing the gravity of sin), rather than apprehending God as revealed in Scripture.
So unless you think you are in a position to improve on the Scriptures, this is what you are stuck with; i.e.,

Bible 101:
Sin cannot come into the presence of God because it defiles the purity of his presence.
God cannot tolerate sin. . .it is an affront to his holiness, and coming into his presence defiled by sin will necessarily invoke the wrath of divine justice on that sin (Exodus 19:22-24).
Sin is to God as streptococcus is to the operating room--to be destroyed.
And we are covered over with sin!

So how can sinful man come into the presence of a holy God and be received in mercy instead of wrath?
There is only one way--by the blood of sacrifice, offered by the priest, to cleanse (forgive/remove) sin.
All other ways of approaching God leave you exposed to divine justice and eternal death (John 14:6) because of your sin.

God spent over 550 years teaching these divine truths to Israel in his instruction manual on sacrifice, not because they were incidental, but because they were critical to everything! . . .including Christus Victor.

They assume

But you do not also in all of this?

that God is adversely affected in some way or other; either God's honor is hurt (satisfaction), God's wrath must be satisfied (substitution)

And you just made satisfaction and substitution the same thing.

or God has to free humanity from a source that somehow is in competition with God (ransom-in the old "sold to the devil" theories).

Your "more wise than God" is showing.

No, not "sold to the devil," which must be one of the "human constructs" in which you traffic,
but rather to redeem (ransom) them from God's just condemnation to eternal death on their sin (Matthew 20:28).

All of these present a weak, anthropomorphic image of God, a God who must make a transaction to save God's own creation. That's pitiful.

Funny that. . .I was thinking the same thing about your bringing God down to your anthropomorphic level in diminishing the gravity of sin.

First, whatever theories we come up with

False premise. . ."we" did not "come up with" penal substitution, it's not a "theory," it is divine fact from God's manual on sacrifice (sacrificial laws).

we must assume 1. They are inadequate

Speaking of "weak, anthropomorphic images of God". . .this exposition is insipid.

to describe, in all its fullness, what God is doing in Christ. We don't know God's side of things; we only know what God reveals. That revelation (Christ) is sufficient for what we need, but our theories about that revelation are just that: theories. 2. Therefore, we should take all atonement theories with a grain of salt, they are human constructs.

BALONEY!!!

There is no "human construct" in the God's sacrificial system which clearly foreshadows penal substitution.

"Human construct" is just a human construct to justify denial of Biblical teaching because one favors human construct.

(con't. in next post, #281)
.