Penal Substitution Theology and the faith of those without it

[JonC]

Hi Jon, the reason you are having difficult is that you think my "definition of the atonement as "at-one-ment" but at the same time separate from reconciliation." Your understanding of my position is mistaken. In my view, Reconciliation and "at one with God" are the same thing. They are not separate. I almost never use the word "atonement" because you say it means more than "reconciliation." My translation (NASB) translated the Greek word as reconciliation.

This is from my prior post, "Reconciliation = Result of Salvation, at one with God."

And yes, my translation renders "katallage" as reconciliation all four places it appears.

So to repeat, Christ laid down His life as a ransom for all, becoming the propitiation or means of salvation for all mankind. Everyone, the saved and those who will be saved, and the lost and those who will remain lost were purchased with His blood.

When God puts believers into Christ, we undergo the circumcision of Christ and arise in Christ a new creation, regenerated, made alive together with Christ. This is our reconciliation. We are no longer separated from God.

Thanks for clarifying. If I'm on track then you are basically saying that Christ's death on the cross is not the atonement itself but the basis for the atonement. On the cross Christ became the sacrifice (the propitiation) which is the basis for atonement/reconciliation.

Your objection to PSA is that it takes atonement as the "payment" rendered at the cross (apart from faith) applied two thousand years ago to a specific group of people alone. Jesus died for A,B, and C but not for D, E and F. Therefore ABC are essentially "saved" before birth and DEF were never afforded the opportunity but still inherit condemnation for disbelief.

That is what I understand you to be saying, anyway (please correct me if I've misinterpreted your reply).

 

[TCassidy]

I was referring to your response to Hank's comments (post# 91).

I know what you were referring to.

It brought to mind a comment that someone (I think JamesL) made on another similar thread.

Then your question should have been directed to James as I never said anything that would cause you to question whether I believed in sinless perfection in this life.

I was asking a question.

But the question was a non-sequitur. By its very nature it insinuated something that is not true. If I were to ask you if you were a child molester, that question would indicate I considered it possible that you were, in fact, a child molester. As I have no reason, at all, to believe such to be the case, I could not, in all honesty, ask the question because I already know the answer.

This thread was about theories of the Atonement.

Uh, no, it is about penal substitution and the efficacy of the faith of those who disagree with it.

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.

Words have meaning. If you are not using the word in the historic, orthodox meaning you are not contributing to the discussion but rather you are obfuscating the issue. I have not misrepresented your words. I have suggested you are laboring under a false definition which is causing your confusion.

And I believe I have been responding to you in kind.

But you haven't. You seldom do. Your responses are often non sequiturs or rabbit trails that seldom address the issue being discussed or respond in a straight forward way to questions.

I still maintain that if expiation is a suitable meaning for the atonement then so is propitiation.

Except propitiation and Atonement are not the same thing! Propitiation is the appeasement of God's offended sense of righteousness. Atonement is the expiation of the cause of God's offended sense of righteousness.

Either we can disagree honestly or we can disagree dishonestly.

Correct. We can honestly try to answer questions straightforwardly and without dissimulation while avoiding non sequiturs and presenting paragraph after paragraph in an attempt to overwhelm with sheer volume of words.

I am not certain when dialogue shifted between us to hostility, but I cannot help but see it that way at every turn.

Well, if you harbor hostile feelings toward me there is not much I can do about it. I hold no such feelings toward you. I don't even know you. I do get frustrated with your repeated obfuscation and avoidance of simple, concise, straightforward responses, but there is a huge gulf between frustration and hostility.

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.

And therein lies the problem. No matter how often I ask, or how I word the question, I never get a straightforward, concise response.

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.

I don't know what else to call it when you confuse Atonement with propitiation, reconciliation, redemption, et alii, which are not the same thing but address different aspects of our complete salvation. What else do I call the confusion of those terms if not "confusion?"

 

[TCassidy]

And yes, my translation renders "katallage" as reconciliation all four places it appears.

Yes. That is the much better translation of the word. The KJV's use of "atonement" is a very poor translation. But in defense of the KJV translators they were up against a massive resistance to change. The poor reading comes from the Bishops' Bible, which they were revising, and goes back to Tyndale. Wycliffe gets it right with "recounceilynge" as does (surprisingly) the Rheims which reads "reconciliation."

I suspect, but have no facts to back it up, that the retention of "atonement" was more due to the Rheims' reading being "reconciliation" and the still strong anti-Catholic sentiment prevalent in England in the very early 17th century. Of course, it probably helped that the Latin Vulgate read "reconciliationem."

 

[JonC]

. What else do I call the confusion of those terms if not "confusion?"

I honestly don't care what you call it. For my part I was making a suggestion, not a demand. You can call my belief that the Doctrine of the Atonement includes and implies removing guilt, appeasing wrath, reconciliation, perfect obedience. and forgiveness (from the Incarnation to the Resurrection) anything you like. You can think it confusion, heterodox, or heresy. It simply does not matter to me, and the sentiments which arise towards you are far from hostility. Our discussion is not outside of brotherly love. That does not change the fact I believe you are horribly and sadly mistaken. I also believe you are making an error concerning the doctrine of Atonement.

 

[TCassidy]

Wow, Jon, you sound a little, well, a little hostile!

(I just couldn't resist!) Whistling

 

[JonC]

Wow, Jon, you sound a little, well, a little hostile!

(I just couldn't resist!) Whistling

Ok

 

[HankD]

You sure are working hard to avoid supporting your claims!

Not really Tom, I answered a second time for this one.
Besides, I'm a mugwump so I have to be both elusive and allusive.

HankD

 

[TCassidy]

Not really Tom, I answered a second time for this one.
Besides, I'm a mugwump so I have to be both elusive and allusive.

HankD

Not to mention amusive, collusive, effusive, exclusive, extrusive, illusive and inclusive.

 

[HankD]

Not to mention amusive, collusive, effusive, exclusive, extrusive, illusive and inclusive.

You have found me out!!
Tongue
HankD

 

[Van]

Thanks for clarifying. If I'm on track then you are basically saying that Christ's death on the cross is not the atonement itself but the basis for the atonement. On the cross Christ became the sacrifice (the propitiation) which is the basis for atonement/reconciliation.

Your objection to PSA is that it takes atonement as the "payment" rendered at the cross (apart from faith) applied two thousand years ago to a specific group of people alone. Jesus died for A,B, and C but not for D, E and F. Therefore ABC are essentially "saved" before birth and DEF were never afforded the opportunity but still inherit condemnation for disbelief.

That is what I understand you to be saying, anyway (please correct me if I've misinterpreted your reply).

Thanks very much for this post. We are much closer to being able to discuss the various theories of why Christ died on the cross. We agree that His death "enabled" reconciliation/atonement. His death resulted in Christ becoming the propitiation or means of salvation for the whole world, all of sinful humanity.

If you read about the various theories, they actually address the purchase, or what Christ accomplished with His suffering and death of the cross. To refer to these as "theories of atonement" is bass ackwards, they are theories of how His death enabled reconciliation.

Now lets discuss what Christ accomplished on the cross to enable reconciliation.

Did Christ die for sinful humanity? Yes.
Did Christ ransom sinful humanity? Yes. But to whom (God or Satan) and which of God's attributes required the ransom?
What was purchased with the blood of Christ? Individuals or the right to remove the sin burden from individuals?
Why does scripture indicate that without the shedding of blood, there can be no forgiveness of sin?
What was nailed to the cross?
Did Christ become sin or a sin offering?

What does scripture actually teach about the substitutionary ransom from the wages of sin?

 

[Van]

Yes. That is the much better translation of the word. The KJV's use of "atonement" is a very poor translation. But in defense of the KJV translators they were up against a massive resistance to change. The poor reading comes from the Bishops' Bible, which they were revising, and goes back to Tyndale. Wycliffe gets it right with "recounceilynge" as does (surprisingly) the Rheims which reads "reconciliation."

I suspect, but have no facts to back it up, that the retention of "atonement" was more due to the Rheims' reading being "reconciliation" and the still strong anti-Catholic sentiment prevalent in England in the very early 17th century. Of course, it probably helped that the Latin Vulgate read "reconciliationem."

Spot on Tom!

 

[kyredneck]

2 Peter 2:1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

44 The kingdom of heaven is like unto a treasure hidden in the field; which a man found, and hid; and in his joy he goeth and selleth all that he hath, and buyeth that field. Mt 13

 

[HankD]

44 The kingdom of heaven is like unto a treasure hidden in the field; which a man found, and hid; and in his joy he goeth and selleth all that he hath, and buyeth that field. Mt 13

I tried to respond and elucidate concerning your post kyredneck, but like myself you are sometimes somewhat evasive (you missed this one - evasive - Tom).

HankD

 

[kyredneck]

...lol, most of the time my 'evasiveness' is summed up in the words of Forrest Gump:

"And that's all I've got to say about that".

 

[JonC]

Thanks very much for this post. We are much closer to being able to discuss the various theories of why Christ died on the cross. We agree that His death "enabled" reconciliation/atonement. His death resulted in Christ becoming the propitiation or means of salvation for the whole world, all of sinful humanity.

If you read about the various theories, they actually address the purchase, or what Christ accomplished with His suffering and death of the cross. To refer to these as "theories of atonement" is bass ackwards, they are theories of how His death enabled reconciliation.

Now lets discuss what Christ accomplished on the cross to enable reconciliation.

Did Christ die for sinful humanity? Yes.
Did Christ ransom sinful humanity? Yes. But to whom (God or Satan) and which of God's attributes required the ransom?
What was purchased with the blood of Christ? Individuals or the right to remove the sin burden from individuals?
Why does scripture indicate that without the shedding of blood, there can be no forgiveness of sin?
What was nailed to the cross?
Did Christ become sin or a sin offering?

What does scripture actually teach about the substitutionary ransom from the wages of sin?

It is wrong, IMHO, to conclude that this “ransom” was “paid to” anyone. Within the Christus Victor motif there are different views. Some, like Origen, viewed this ransom being paid to Satan. This was the view of the medieval Church (and the view that Anselm strove to correct with Satisfaction). But others viewed this ransom being paid to God (Justin Martyr, for example), and others simply settled on a “ransom” being paid for mankind (not to anyone). And we can see Origen's conclusions being engaged from Anthanasius to Anselm.

The shedding of blood is necessary for the for the forgiveness of sins. This points to the sacrificial system (the sacrificial system was not implemented because it was the only way to forgive sins, but instead to point to the way that God would forgive sins).

Christ became a sin offering. He became "sin for us' and was presented by God as a "guilt offering".

Keep in mind, however, that we probably disagree in I that I believe the Atonement itself "removed guilt" from mankind in the sense that both salvation and judgment (mercy and wrath) are Christocenteric because of the obedience of the Son, the work of the Spirit, and the faithfulness of the Father. This is what I mean when I say that Christ "purchased" a legitimate offer of salvation to all men. Our biggest disagreement is probably going to be that Christ secured the salvation of the elect.

 

[HankD]

...lol, most of the time my 'evasiveness' is summed up in the words of Forrest Gump:

"And that's all I've got to say about that".

I hear you.

Well, I mean I read you.

HankD

 

[Van]

Yes, Joh, we have come to the end of the road. You continue to use the word "atonement" for Christ's purchase of blood. Not what the Greek word means. We agree that Christ's death enabled the reconciliation of those chosen and transferred into Christ. Obviously, we disagree on the rest.

In Matthew 20:28, Mark 10:45, and 1 Timothy 2:6, we see that Christ gave His life as a ransom for all mankind. Psalm 49:7 says no man can give a ransom to God, but does indicate if he or she could, it would be to redeem his sibling. In Isaiah 43:3, we get a hint a ransom can be in the form of an exchange, which might support the just for the unjust of the NT. In Hosea 13:14 we see that God can ransom people from the power of Sheol, from the power of Death. This reflects 1 Corinthians 15:55, where we are given victory over both the "sting of death" and the "power of sin" through our Lord Jesus Christ. The power and sting of sin separates us from God, and to be redeemed required the blood of the Lamb of God.

 

[JonC]

Yes, Joh, we have come to the end of the road. You continue to use the word "atonement" for Christ's purchase of blood. Not what the Greek word means. We agree that Christ's death enabled the reconciliation of those chosen and transferred into Christ. Obviously, we disagree on the rest.

In Matthew 20:28, Mark 10:45, and 1 Timothy 2:6, we see that Christ gave His life as a ransom for all mankind. Psalm 49:7 says no man can give a ransom to God, but does indicate if he or she could, it would be to redeem his sibling. In Isaiah 43:3, we get a hint a ransom can be in the form of an exchange, which might support the just for the unjust of the NT. In Hosea 13:14 we see that God can ransom people from the power of Sheol, from the power of Death. This reflects 1 Corinthians 15:55, where we are given victory over both the "sting of death" and the "power of sin" through our Lord Jesus Christ. The power and sting of sin separates us from God, and to be redeemed required the blood of the Lamb of God.

Yes, I am. But not because I believe that “atonement” means "Christ’s purchase of blood". Instead I am speaking of the Atonement as the work of Christ from the giving of the Son (the Incarnation) through the Cross (the shedding of blood) to the vindication It is because I believe that there is no atonement without that purchase and I still and stubbornly insist that God’s work of redemption cannot be separated into stand-alone doctrines.

There are several reasons for my choice of words. First, passages like Hebrews 10:4,11 come to mind (“It is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins…Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins”). While Hebrews clearly teaches that the OT animal sacrifices were incapable of securing atonement for sin, the author’s use of precisely those sacrifices forms a link to the “shedding of blood” in the “sacrificial system” with “atonement”. It would be incorrect to examine the Atonement apart from the blood of Christ shed as a purchase.

Second, and more importantly, “atonement” itself is an English word which has grown to encompass not only the “removal of guilt” or “reconciliation” but also the work of the Cross as a whole. As evidence, I offered Leon Morris’ book on the Atonement (If I recall, that was the title as well). Others who you could look to include John Murray, Paul Eddy, Thomas Torrance, John Piper, J.I. Packer, John Gill, John Owen, Jonathan Edwards (who identified atonement as propitiation in defending against “free grace”), pretty much all of the Early Church Fathers (sometimes a bit inventive), etc. My point is that historically the doctrine of the Atonement has entailed not only the reconciliation of the individual to God but also the work of God in bring about that reconciliation and implications in general in association with that work. Is it a sloppy use of the word? Maybe, I don’t know. But if our only disagreement is in my use of the word, then feel free to change it to “reconciliation” (I’m not sure that that will suit every OT usage, but that’s another topic).

 

[Van]

Obviously I disagree for the reasons stated. If it is not supported in scripture, it should not be taught as doctrine. I expect all those people you listed conflated Christ's sacrifice with the reconciliation, and created the confusion of today.

"For by a single offering He has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified." To confuse the offering with the sanctification misses the gospel in IMHO.
God Bless

 

[JonC]

Obviously I disagree for the reasons stated. If it is not supported in scripture, it should not be taught as doctrine. I expect all those people you listed conflated Christ's sacrifice with the reconciliation, and created the confusion of today.

"For by a single offering He has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified." To confuse the offering with the sanctification misses the gospel in IMHO.
God Bless

Yes, brother, we both suspect the same of each other. It is good, however, to discuss these differences and see exactly where the other stands (not only to understand another position but also to correct or strengthen our own).

Other than definitions, I do not see a wide division between our understanding of reconciliation being based on Christ's death rather than that death being the event that itself reconciles individuals to God. The Cross, in my understanding, reconciles humanity to God yet the ministry of reconciliation continues as we urge men to be reconciled. In this sense, the Cross made possible (or, as John Piper puts it, "purchased") the genuine offer of salvation to all men. Humanity is reconciled at the Cross, although individual men are not.

The sense by which I mean Christ secured on the Cross the salvation of the elect, or that He died to redeem only those who would believe, is a different perspective. The purpose for Christ's death was obedience to the Father and a laying down of His life for the Church. Does that mean Jesus died for my sins but not for those who won't believe? No, of course not. That is misunderstanding sin by actually equating it to the illustration of a "debt" and making it a business transaction. But it does mean that God had in mind those who would believe for a specific and unique purpose.

We disagree, but I really do not think that we disagree to the degree you take it on this point. Our disagreement is more along the lines of election and free-will. I believe in particular redemption, but not because I think that Jesus died for the sins of the elect and not the sins of the reprobate. I place the difference between the elect and the reprobate on God's election and drawing. The difference is that I believe the business transaction, or the divine courtroom setting, takes illustration to unbiblical proportions. When you look at Calvinism you'll see a sharp divide here. I believe that the majority of "five-pointers" now represent what was a minority a couple of centuries ago.
.