I am not an Arminian. I agree that they were wrong. I am merely pointing out that they saw no inconsistency.
You seem to believe that everyone who disagrees with you is some sort of half-wit. It is one of your less agreeable features.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
What is Penal Substitution Atonement
- Thread starter JonC
- Start date
- Status
You seem to believe that everyone who disagrees with you is some sort of half-wit. It is one of your less agreeable features.
I agree they saw no inconsistency. John Wesley was both a godly man and a scholar. Had he viewed his understanding as inconsistent (at least as inconsistent with Scripture) I think that he would have changed his view.
You have misunderstood my comments.
I don't believe anyone who disagrees with me is some sort of half-wit. In fact, they may very well be right and me wrong. My less agreeable feature is that I believe those who can't or won't discern distinctions (regardless as to which side they find correct) are half-wits.
(Wesley, Calvin, Arminius, Luther....all of these men disagreed with one another but they were all godly, intelligent men who were seeking to understand God's Word. Those who can't discern the differences in their teachings have not truly read their writings...or can't read).
Last edited:
No, he was not godly. You need to know how he conducted himself with Hervey and Toplady.
True. We can look at all of those men and find moral fault.
Whitefield didn't seem to think so, and there is a good chance some of those slaves heard of his benefits of slavery were inclined to disagree as well since his view was ungodly.
Calvin took an ungodly stance against Baptist doctrine.
I guess which one stood head and shoulders above the others is a matter of opinion.
I have never seen anything from you that would give me that indication.
I try to assume everyone has at least as much wit about them as I (usually more so). Perhaps if I didn't I'd be pleasantly surprised more often and sadly disappointed less frequently.
I try to assume everyone has at least as much wit about them as I (usually more so). Perhaps if I didn't I'd be pleasantly surprised more often and sadly disappointed less frequently.
I wholeheartedly believe that without reservation.
Of course you do. Great minds think alike.
This is a view that was not uncommon in times past (it is in the 'Apostles' Creed'), but I do not take the view that Christ descended into hell. The cross and the three hours of darkness was His hell.
I understand the change. To Calvin it was a more literal penal substitution while now PSA typically holds the punishment Christ received to be a satisfaction (not exactly our punishment but close enough). And that may be, I grant, closer to Luther's view than Calvin's.
I guess the question is whether or not one can believe the punishment was Christ's physical death on the cross, bearing our sins as our representative, and through the merit of His blood turning aside God's wrath towards us (instead of God punishing Jesus with our punishment) and still hold to PSA.
If the answer is "yes", then both Luther and I hold to PSA. Maybe Martyr. I don't believe either of us would agree with Athanasius' view of the atonement, or that it is really PSA (I hope not, anyway)...or with Origen's view. But if the answer is "no", that one must believe God punished Jesus with our punishment (the punishment we would have experienced at Judgment) then the people who held/hold that position is much smaller than some imagine.
Sorry if any of this is redundant, but I read the OP then skipped to the end.
The reason there is so much confusion concerning the Reformed view of PSA is doublespeak. Did Christ die for our sins? Yes. Therefore PSA is biblical! See the leap. Prove "A" then claim "B" has been proved!
RPSA (Christ died for the sins of the previously chosen elect only) is really a Trojan Horse for Limited Atonement.
Did Christ become "sin" for us or did Christ become a "sin offering" for us? Lots of verses indicate Christ became our sin offering, but only one (a mistranslation in my view) says He became sin. The support for this mistranslation is all agenda driven.
The reason there is so much confusion concerning the Reformed view of PSA is doublespeak. Did Christ die for our sins? Yes. Therefore PSA is biblical! See the leap. Prove "A" then claim "B" has been proved!
RPSA (Christ died for the sins of the previously chosen elect only) is really a Trojan Horse for Limited Atonement.
Did Christ become "sin" for us or did Christ become a "sin offering" for us? Lots of verses indicate Christ became our sin offering, but only one (a mistranslation in my view) says He became sin. The support for this mistranslation is all agenda driven.
Last edited:
So where did we end up?
Is holding that Jesus suffered a punishment as our representative in his sufferings and bodily death, bearing our sins in his flesh, offered as a guilt offering for us, a propitiation for our transgressions turning aside God’s wrath towards us and satisfying the demands of the Law by virtue of his blood (by virtue of who Christ is) without believing that God punished Jesus with the punishment we would have endured PSA?
I absolutely agree. There is much assumed in the leap, and it seems no one but about three of us even see the leap being made. That's been my frustration with this (and a couple more) threads. It always goes back to "see, Christ died for our sins....that's penal substitution".
We spoke of this before (about PSA being a Trojan Horse for Limited Atonement) and I still disagree (depending, I suppose, on how Limited Atonement is defined). The reason I disagree is not that Limited Atonement to the Calvinist depends on PSA (although this is true) but that others have believed in Limited Atonement without holding to PSA. Quite simply, God has chosen to forgive only those who believe (the atonement is limited). But the normal context (the normal argument of Cal vs Arm, of "for whom did Christ die") assumes a Calvinistic trajectory from both sides of the argument.
Yes, because of so much doublespeak, we end up going in circles. Limited Atonement coveys the Calvinist view Christ died for the specific sins of the previously chosen elect. But, as you correctly observe, limited atonement could refer to reconciliation being limited to those God puts into Christ. So the exact same phrase has at least two completely different meanings. Christ's sacrifice accomplished a limited capacity to forgive sin - only the sins of the elect and on the other hand Christ's sacrifice established an unlimited capacity to forgive sin - with the sins of anyone God puts into Christ being forgiven.
Addi tonally atonement carries two completely different meanings as well Atonement conveys the Calvinist view that Christ's death paid the penalty for the specific sins of all the previously (before creation) chosen elect, and on the other hand, atonement (meaning at-one-ment) refers to our individual reconciliation when God puts us individually into Christ.
Unless a discussion only uses the term to mean one of these two vastly different concepts, the discussion goes round and round with truth being suppressed by doublespeak.
Addi tonally atonement carries two completely different meanings as well Atonement conveys the Calvinist view that Christ's death paid the penalty for the specific sins of all the previously (before creation) chosen elect, and on the other hand, atonement (meaning at-one-ment) refers to our individual reconciliation when God puts us individually into Christ.
Unless a discussion only uses the term to mean one of these two vastly different concepts, the discussion goes round and round with truth being suppressed by doublespeak.
And what happens when a thread is started asking for a concise definition? "It's arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. A difference without distinction."
And across threads they see (or claim to see) no difference between Martyr's view of the atonement, Luther's view of the atonement, and Calvin's view of the atonement. It's all the same, PSA, the difference never being defined except as one without distinction. When you talk specifics they argue from a more concise but undefined definition. When asked for a definition we get a thread with 21 replies and no concise definition.
The non-Calvinistic version of PSA is just a reformed view of the Calvinistic one. Same framework, same context; both provided by Calvin. But that contextual framework itself seems to be what separates PSA from Substitution Atonement (it is what separates many contemporary views from anything that existed for the first 15 centuries of the church). Does that mean it is wrong? No. But it does mean that we should at least be able to see it exists if we have even a little hope of objectively looking at the topic.
I am not sure if this is intentional doublespeak or double-think (to borrow from Orwell). What if they truly don't realize the distinction or the differences between views of the atonement and the impact it has on how one thinks about what Christ did on the Cross?
Last edited:
The standard of justice administered by God is precisely measured by the statement "he shall reward every man according to his works." That demands each person receives penal consequences that is precisely equivalent to the totality of their own works or what they actually deserve by this just standard. In other words, the degree of punishment must differ with each individual or else the phrase "according to his works" is rendered meaningless. The only possible way the atonement of Christ could satisfy such precise judicial equivalency for the totality of all that will be saved is that his sufferings are regarded infinite in judicial value.
Therefore, this phrase proves that the Father had a judicial standard that must be administered and must be satisfied, or else justice would not be served. Isaiah clearly states that what Christ suffered is viewed by God as an "offering for sin" and therefore the penal sufferings of Christ FOR OUR SINS (not for his) satisfied the Father, meaning he satisfied the penal standard against sin.
10 ¶ Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he has put him to grief: when you shall make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.
11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied:
Significantly in both verses above it is his "soul" that is made "an offering for sin" and it is the "travail of his soul" which provides the satisfaction of the Father with regard to OUR SINS.
Therefore, this phrase proves that the Father had a judicial standard that must be administered and must be satisfied, or else justice would not be served. Isaiah clearly states that what Christ suffered is viewed by God as an "offering for sin" and therefore the penal sufferings of Christ FOR OUR SINS (not for his) satisfied the Father, meaning he satisfied the penal standard against sin.
10 ¶ Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he has put him to grief: when you shall make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.
11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied:
Significantly in both verses above it is his "soul" that is made "an offering for sin" and it is the "travail of his soul" which provides the satisfaction of the Father with regard to OUR SINS.
There are two things here. The demands are a judicial equivalency (I agree) and what is provided is infinitely greater than the equivalency demanded (which is where PSA stops being PSA....it not our punishment that is experienced but the blood of Christ which outweighs any punishment a judicial construct could demand that is offered).
You are definitely wrong! The "travail of his soul" is punishment and it is that specified punishment which Isaiah says satisfies God's justice toward sin. Indeed, if you remove the "punishment" factor then you make a mockery of "according to his works" and any just consequences for sin.
- Status