Featured Penal Substitution Theology and the faith of those without it

You believe that you are absolutely sinless?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G530A using Tapatalk

 

I agree. I just don't agree that this is all that was accomplished.

 

The disagreement that I have with you, Van, is one of definition (the same as I have with TCassidy except that I think his is also being a bit mendacious with some of his objections).

You are referring to the Atonement specifically as Christ's death on the cross. I believe that the Atonement itself covers much more. Pointing to the Cross, Paul tells us in 2 Corinthians 5 that God was through Christ reconciling the world to himself (and this is a ministry that continues through us). If you point to Christ's death alone, then it does not save a soul. We cannot separate the Cross from the Incarnation, nor either from the Resurrection. That is precisely what so many seem to do. Reconciliation cannot be divorced from atonement, partly because atonement is reconciliation.

 

Did you ever think that perhaps the reason I cannot find support that the "purchase" and the "redemption" are separate actions is that I have never tried because that is not what I believe? If not, then maybe you should simply ask, and I'll say again that I do not believe that salvation can be segmented into mini-doctrines that stand alone in isolation. They can be discussed and studied but not apart from the whole.

To spell it out:
1. Christ's death is as I indicated and Scripture has affirmed, the purchase of all mankind. As the quote I offered stated, the Cross "makes possible and purchases a bonafide offer for every person on the planet." Do you deny this?

2. When we are saved, we are placed "in Christ". We are regenerated and made alive (I used the word "re-created". Do you deny this?

 

Careful with the assumptions. I understand positional righteousness but did not want to assume you had the same understanding (I already made the erroneous assumption that you were aware of "the Atonement" as indicating a broader doctrine and did not want to repeat the mistake). When we say that we are absolutely sinless and do not specify this is "Christ in us" or "positional" then there is room for misunderstanding. Words, after all, have specific meanings.

 

I was referring to your response to Hank's comments (post# 91). It brought to mind a comment that someone (I think JamesL) made on another similar thread. And no, it was not something that existed in my own mind, and it was not something that I am saying you claimed. I was asking a question.

All "combativeness" aside, I am not confused on my own position and I am not confused on your position. I believe that you also understand both of our positions very well. Everything we've discussed here so far has been fairly elementary and basic. I am not uneducated. Your education exceeds mine. There is no reason we should play the other as a fool. There are doctrines that we can unite under, and doctrines on which we will never agree.

This thread was about theories of the Atonement. I do believe that you purposely misrepresented my words to create an argument by diverting from the OP and into the meaning of the word itself. And I believe I have been responding to you in kind.

I still maintain that if expiation is a suitable meaning for the atonement then so is propitiation. I believe both to be examining different aspects of the same event, the same thing, the same atonement. We disagree. My position is not, as you have said, outside of orthodox Christianity. It may be outside of what you call "orthodox", which frankly should be a concern to neither of us. We simply disagree.

Either we can disagree honestly or we can disagree dishonestly. I am asking that you will consider honest disagreement when we don't see eye to eye. I am not certain when dialogue shifted between us to hostility, but I cannot help but see it that way at every turn. If you have a question about something I have said, or want explanation of my view, then certainly ask and I will try my best to offer a coherent explanation. If you cannot do this without accusations of confusion, ignorance or unorthodox then perhaps the issue is not with the people with whom you disagree.

 

Hey Brother,

I do not know how much we disagree (we do, certainly, in terms of election but in terms of the Atonement I am not certain). I apologize if it appears that I did not read your post. It is quite the opposite, I assure you. You and I have been arguing the same thing against each other to a great extent. I was trying to point that out.

One thing that I am having difficulty following is your definition of the atonement as "at-one-ment" but at the same time separate from reconciliation.

"The word atonement, is almost the only theological term of English origin. It was likely first used in Tyndale's English translation as derived from the adv. phrase atonen, meaning "in accord," literally, at one. In the English Bible, it is mainly used to translate theHebrew word kipur, although it is used once in the King James New Testament to translate the Greek word katallage (see Romans 5:11). Most modern translations render this word "reconciliation" in its other occurrences throughout the N.T."