Martin has been posting great stuff on the atonement. Note the last bit he quotes.
Pop quiz: To what covenant(s) does he refer when he calls Christ a “surety”?
Martin has been posting great stuff on the atonement. Note the last bit he quotes.
Pop quiz: To what covenant(s) does he refer when he calls Christ a “surety”?
“And the “surety” of the covenant is he also…such a surety as paid that which he never took, made satisfaction for those sins which he never did…being made liable to them, he was punished for them. (449)”
This is Grace, Covenant of Grace.
Yes, but is that all?
conjecture:
Christ as the surion (?) which ties back to the pactum salutis
Did you mean “surety”? Yes, that’s right. See below.
Covenant of Redemption.
Ding, ding, ding. We have a winner!
Vaclav is not wrong, however, as WCF 8 relates (in substance) the covenant of redemption/pactum salutis/council of peace to the work of Christ as the 2nd Adam and the Larger Catechism relates it to the covenant of grace. They’ll complementary aspects of the PS.
Covenant of Grace and the Covenant of Redemption they are intricately liked by God’s justice. Can there be a CG without a CR? Could God pardon sinners without a payment? (WCF 8.5) Yes, Covenant of Redemption is the more precise answer.
Here is my comment to that blog, in case you missed it. He made some comments about scripture and such which I don’t believe square with Scripture:
Hi,
I am opposed to Penal Substitution because I don’t believe it fits Scripture. For example, I often see people quoting texts like Is 53:4, but the fact is Matt 8:16f quotes this very verse and it has nothing P-sub about it.
As for the scapegoat, the most astonishing thing happens in Leviticus 16: rather than kill this animal, it is sent off in the wilderness. There is nothing about killing the goat. That is certainly not what one would expect with Psub.
Nick,
There is so much to say and so little bandwidth to do it in. I will give pointers without directly replying to your statement. This will enable you to take a deeper look into it all.
1) Isa 53:4 is quoted in Matt 8:17 but look at the full context. Especially Isa all of 53. Also 1 Peter 2:24-25.
2) As for the scapegoat; Picture of Christ, but unlike Christ who died was buried and came alive on the third day, the scapegoat is only half the equation as there is also the sacrificial goat who had to die to fill the total picture of Christ. So, therefore, Christ is represented by both the dead and the live goat. Use all of Lev. 16.
Again, we have no redemption without penalty borne (Lord’s goat), and resurrection (the scapegoat) and we have the full picture of Christ’s surety.
Can I be reading this aright: a Roman Catholic says he doesn’t believe in penal substitution because it’s not biblical? Someone call an engineer, I think a wire got crossed somewhere.
Nick,
The one sin offering involves the killing of one goat and the bearing of sin by another that is sent to a remote place (a land of cutting off). There is one sin offering but two animals.
Both goats deal with sin in spacial categories, the one dealing with the holy place and the other bearing sin away to a remote place. The scape-goat isn’t sent to a lush pasture but to a land of cutting off where it will die.
To bear sin is to bear its punishment, this the animal will do vicariously. The sins of the people are confessed over it and the goat bears their sins instead of them.
Vaclav,
Thank you for your response. Here are my thoughts on what you said:
Vaclav: 1) Isa 53:4 is quoted in Matt 8:17 but look at the full context. Especially Isa all of 53. Also 1 Peter 2:24-25.
Nick: In my Opening Essay I take a good look at those passages. My point with Is 53:4 is that people often (eg in the very post that was linked to) read “carried our iniquities” as P-Sub, but Mat 8:16f shows the Apostles didn’t understand it that way.
Vaclav: 2) As for the scapegoat; Picture of Christ, but unlike Christ who died was buried and came alive on the third day, the scapegoat is only half the equation as there is also the sacrificial goat who had to die to fill the total picture of Christ. So, therefore, Christ is represented by both the dead and the live goat. Use all of Lev. 16.
Nick: I’m not sure what you mean here. The scapegoat never was killed, yet it was the ONLY one with sins confessed over it.
Vaclav: Again, we have no redemption without penalty borne (Lord’s goat), and resurrection (the scapegoat) and we have the full picture of Christ’s surety.
Nick: I don’t want to misread you, but are you saying the scapegoat corresponds to the Resurrection? I don’t think that fits.
Philip,
Yes you did read me right. After careful study of Scripture I honestly believe P-Sub is not to be found.
Martin,
Thank you for your response (I just responded on your own blog with a similar response). My two critiques was that the scapegoat is the only one with sins confessed, so I fail to see how it’s “one” sin offering. A sin-offering is a specific offering mentioned in Lev 5, but no mention of scapegoat.
Also, I was more concerned about you quoting Is 53:4 as support, when Mat 8:16f shows the Apostles never had P-Sub in mind there.