Featured Atonement theories?

None of these teach penal substitution. The earliest churches didn't see it in these verses or any others. No one saw it until Calvin, the legalist and murderer.

 

I didn't see it.

I didn't say that God could not be or never was angry. I said He did not torture, punish, and kill His innocent Son as the means to forgive guilty humans. That's what penal substitution teaches. I deny it, the early church knew nothing of it, and it was not known until Calvin invented it. And it fit right in with his character.

 

Look you are going to have to quit bringing up Calvin and stand on your own two feet.

 

It fits right in with the character of most Christians as most hold to that position. You seem to have your own moral code beyond what God does because those verses make it very clear. What part of "the Lord laid on Him our iniquity." does not apply to penal substitution.

Do you know what propitiation means?

 

Calvin did not persecute Jews like Marty Luther did, setting the tone in Germany for centuries & prepared its people for genocidal holocausts. ML was also a great friend of his fellow reformer Zwingli, right.

 

I have said earlier that don't adhere to any particular doctrine of the atonement. Rather I look to see what Scripture tells me. You keep whining about penal substitution. Why not address the multitude of Scripture that has been posted.

 

I agree that all the Magisterial Reformers were persecutors and murderers.

 

Most Christians hold to penal substitution? I beg to differ. The EOC does not; the RCC does not; most Anabaptists do not; most Wesleyans do not; many General Baptists do not; most Pentecostals do not; most Anglicans do not; most Quakers do not; most Lutherans do not.

 

I'm standing on my own two feet; that's why I don't believe penal substitution. It's those who believe in penal substitution who are leaning on Calvin, the originator of the theory.

 

I know you do but that does not change facts. But you still are not dealing with the scripture I presented.

 

No one is leaning on Calvin. And since Calvin is your whole argument means you cannot reasonably support your view scripturally.

 

Whining? Is that your accusatory word for anyone who dares to disagree with you?

I have addressed the scriptures. I said I don't see penal substitution there, just as the earliest churches did not and no one else did until Calvin.

But just to show you, and to repeat, that I do not just disagree with penal substitution, I also don't agree with the other Latin Western-contrived theories: Satisfaction, governmental, etc. All of these are based on the faulty presupposition that God is an angry vengeful feudal lord, monarch, or governor whose wrath must be appeased, and it could only be appeased by His torturing, punishing, and killing His innocent Son so He could forgive us and pardon us. Not only is this unscriptural, it gives a false picture of the nature of God, distorting His true character as a loving Father working through restorative justice and not punitive justice.

This is what penal substitution, satisfaction, and other Latin theories propose: God beat His Son unmercifully and then killed him; that satisfied his wrath against sin, so then he could forgive us since he took out all his anger and vengeance on Jesus. This is not only unscriptural, it is ridiculous and immoral.

 

That does not address the scriptures posted.

 

You are leaning on Calvin, and all those who believe penal substitution are because the theory is to be found nowhere else.

Christus Victor is all through the NT; I have cited scriptures that support it. The earliest churches found it there, and so did Christians for the first millennium. It is the oldest atonement view.

I've got to go to bed, Rev; will field more of your accusations tomorrow, Lord willing that I am still here.

 

Not usually!

 

I believe that you have identified the source of your problem. You have let your inadequate, perhaps false, belief regarding

obscure what Scripture teaches about the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ. That is the reason I asked you earlier to address the Scripture that many have posted in response to your emotional outbursts against

I have no idea where you got your ideas concerning Latin Western-contrived theories but you do yourself and all on this Forum a disservice when you paint all with the broad brush of your mistaken views. Forget penal satisfaction. I do! That concept is simply the attempt of fallible man to understand what God did for us in Jesus Christ! Consider those Scripture that have been presented and address them.

 

Well done....good discussion. No rancor, just an honest attempt to cut through & clarify. Thank you!

 

At this point you can respond or not. You have na inability to have a discussion without saying someone is attacking or accusing you. Yet it is your posts that get edited. Your liberal view is not orthodox and you have the right and freedom to be wrong as along as you want.