What type of Christian?
-
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!
Debt vs. Penal Substitution
- Thread starter Brooksntea
- Start date
- Status
Yet here you are, holding a position that could never possible exist apart from it. It was not until the eleventh century that ANYONE questioned divine simple forgiveness.
How do you think that this development (of denying divine simple forgiveness) occurred in the works of Anselm? What influences do you think that this had on the Theory of Penal Substitution? Do you see a difference between how Anselm's view of of debt in Satisfaction Theory and the view under Penal Substitution Theory? How does this compare to Abelard?
Are you suggesting that Abelard's view is another version of Penal Substitution Theory?
Again, I will not engage in a discussion where the final Authority are Catholic Heretics and traditions. When a person cites tradition for when a Doctrine began or did not begin it is absolutely worthless to enter into a conversation when that is the final Authority being cited. I do not recognize the church Fathers as credible but as
Heretics
Heretics
37818
Well-Known Member
Truth is not theory.
". . . the soul that sinneth, it shall die. . . ." -- Ezekiel 18:4.
". . . For the wages of sin [is] death; . . ." -- Romans 6:23.
". . . All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. . . . when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, . . . because he hath poured out his soul unto death: . . ." -- Isaiah 53:6; Isaiah 53:10; Isaiah 53:12.
". . . For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead: . . ." -- 2 Corinthians 5:14.
". . . he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for [the sins of] the whole world. . . . " -- 1 John 2:2.
". . . while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. . . ." -- Romans 5:8.
". . . Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. . . . " -- 2 John 1:9.
". . . And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He that hath the Son hath life; [and] he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. . . ." -- 1 John 5:11-12.
"Anyone" according to who? Catholic tradition! Church history according to who? Roman Catholics. There are three absolute truths about the church Fathers:
1. They are not inspired
2. They are not comprehensive of actual history and so to say "anyone" is a joke.
3. They are often inaccurate
To claim that one must be dependent upon Catholic Tradition due to terms is simply false as there is more than sufficient Biblical evidence to support the same terms or synonyms.
1. They are not inspired
2. They are not comprehensive of actual history and so to say "anyone" is a joke.
3. They are often inaccurate
To claim that one must be dependent upon Catholic Tradition due to terms is simply false as there is more than sufficient Biblical evidence to support the same terms or synonyms.
Well of course they would. It is entirely wrong to say that God was wrathful towards Christ. Such a thing is unthinkable. As I have pointed out to you many times, the Lord Jesus never ceased to be the beloved Son. That Christ suffered for our sins is surely beyond doubt (Isaiah 53:5; 1 Peter 2:24), but God's wrath against sin was poured out on Christ.
I think that if you are going to argue against Penal Substitution, you should at least express it properly.
Here are samples of irrational and unbiblical thinking. We have one man admitting that Christ "bore our punishment" but then in the same breath repudiating it by saying it was unnecessary for the forgiveness of sins when in reality the punishment was the direct result of sin and sin is the barrier between God and man - spiritual separation. The other heretic claims that sins are forgiven "because of the presence of love in us through Christ" a sloppy agape that has no foundation in scripture when it comes to sin, law, forgiveness or salvation, but rather is the consequence of forgiveness rather than the cause. Love as the cause precedes love in us as it is love grounded in the eternal purpose of God to provide the way of salvation. Love as the cause precedes the cross and makes atonement possible.
Simply not correct.
Not that it matters, because Biblical truth is still true whether people before the 11th Century believed it or not.
Apparently some on this board in very high places believes that scholarship and scholarly thinking was confined to Roman Catholics in the first 15 hundred years and that nothing existed outside of Roman Catholic church history during that period. I believe during that time existed a free church, a non-related governmental church and I believe this based upon inspired predictive history (the Bible) and what constitutes the essence of true Christianity promised until the end of the age. Roman Catholicism repudiated the very essence of Christianity from a very early date (embracing fully "another gospel") and the so-called "church fathers" is in reality the "history of heresy and heretics" existing in a state church union that controlled the selecting, gathering and writing of "church history" while those who opposed them were persecuted, killed, and their writings burned.
The question of the OP (the topic) is that “if Anselm and Abelard were as much against one another as it seems, and that their standings on this topic were as heated as it seems, how is it we are being taught both now-adays at the same time?”
My answer, in short (without the explanation) is that we are not being taught both at the same time. Penal Substitution Theory is different from both Satisfaction Theory and Moral Influence Theory. Penal Substitution Theory is a far newer theory that grew out of an attempt to reform the ideas of Thomas Aquinas.
Your answer? You have not addressed the topic at all except to interject your opinion of Catholic theologians.
Well, I've got some bad news for you Sunshine. Neither Anselm or Abelard were Baptists. If you don't want to discuss them, and are not willing to discuss their doctrines, and are not interested in looking at how their ideas may be taught today....well, you have nothing to say on this thread.
Either you are trolling or you have not read the OP.
It does not matter.....except that it is very much true.
But the issue of the OP is how these competing views (Anselm and Abelard) became the amalgamation we teach today.
I say it hasn't. Neither taught Penal Substitution Theory. And Penal Substitution Theory is different from what they taught (it is not a combination of the two ideas, although the Theory obviously is indebted to Anselm to an extent).
Please address the OP and interact with my points regarding the OP. The fact that simple forgiveness was not challenged until the eleventh century was a simple side note or observation not necessarily the focus of my argument (I mentioned it to show that some elements were carried forward, but there is still enough of a distinction to show Anselm would have strongly opposed Penal Substitution Theory).
Complete derogatory, and demeaning statement. No call for this. I mistakenly thought the thread which I began my comments on were the same but I see a change was made and this thread was brought up. My mistake and you are right, I have no use for commenting on heretics.
No one has denied those passages. The issue that separated Abelard (I take it you are speaking of his ideas) was that he held a different view of justice. Retributive Justice is not the only view held by people throughout history.
To illustrate Abelard's more Justinian concept of justice as opposed to the Aquinian concept (the philosophical basis for the Theory of Penal Substitution):
Mike kills a man when he is 18 years old. At 19 years old he has repented and became saved. He confesses the sin to the family of the victim and they forgive him, telling him to go on with his life instead of destroying it in a corrupt legal system. Mike tells his pastor and congregation. They agree, no need for two lives to be destroyed. Mike is now 51 years old. He has a 9 year old daughter, a 14 year old son. He is happily married, a leader in his community and his church. He has led many to Christ, has helped the poor, and is held in high esteem. Last month a breakthrough came in that old murder case.
Under a Justinian concept of Justice (rendering to each his due), Mike has already been forgiven of the crime. The crime is not against the law but against the family of the man killed. What is due Mike? Punishment? No, of course not. Mike is a Christian, a leader in his community, well liked, respected and loved.
Under an Aquinian concept, the family and the community can very well forgive Mike. But Mike's crime is against the law, and the law demands a punishment be rendered. THIS is the basis for Penal Substitution Theory - NOT the passages you present but this idea through which those passages are interpreted (all of the theories accept the passages you present, but they use them differently).
So, you see, the difference between Anselm and Abelard when compared to those who hold the Theory of Penal Substitution is not passages of Scripture (which all affirm) but the worldview each holds.
Not derogatory or demeaning (and I'm sorry you took it that way). I was referencing a song ("In the Flesh" by Pink Floyd ). Again, I am sorry that you took offense.
Not everyone is acquainted with "in the flesh" by Pink Floyd, and I doubt you would use that expression with those you do respect as it does not show respect. However, I accept your apology even though this apology on this thread is not an apology of any wrong doing but merely a tactic that says "i don't have any problems, you are the one that has the problem - it is your problem - "you took offense."
I actually agree with your assessment in terms of Penal Substitution Theory.
This is why I say that the Theory, while obviously a benefactor of Satisfaction Theory, is not an amalgamation of the two. Anselm's Satisfaction Theory and Abelard's Moral Influence Theory stand in opposition not only to each other but also to the Theory of Penal Substitution..
That said, each view is far from irrational. The logic does not fit in today's worldview - BUT today's worldview was not shared by the past. From the early Church to the last part of the Medieval Church it would be irrational to claim God could not simply forgive sin without exercising punishment. The reason is that the ideas of justice have changed.
For Anselm, Christ world bear our punishment and taking on what it means to be man He would restore that honor which was lost. Punishment had a purpose, but it was not to redemptively pay our sin debt. People simply did not think of justice in those terms. For Abelard, Christ would bear our sins and by taking upon Himself a human nature suffer the wages of sin on our behalf as the ultimate and supreme act of love.
Both of these theories (like the Theory of Penal Substitution) have a biblical basis. They go wrong elsewhere.
How can you make such an absolute statement? Such an absolute statement demands that source materials selected and collected by Catholics are comprehensive for "anyone" living during this period when the historical facts based upon the confessions by the very collectors of these source materials admit the contrary. They admit they conviscated and burned the writings of non-Catholics which they called "heretics" (BTW those they called "heretics" returned the favor by calling them heretics as well).
Yet, one leg of your position rests solidly upon this assumption as you keep repeating no other view existed, when honest evaluation can only say no other views were selected and collected by Roman Monks concerning this debate, which was between Catholics.
You are ignoring the obvious fact that with the ideas discussed here....these competing views...they are well documented and contrary to each other (and the Catholic view). Since we have them they were obviously not burned. We know how much of the philosophies concerning justice came about and we can see how they were built. We know the context of Jewish justice was not the same as Roman justice. We can see and read arguments of the past (in your conspiracy theory there would be none because they would have been burnt).
Thank you for accepting my apology. And yes, I'm not saying I was wrong or promising I won't do it again. I just wanted you to know that I did not mean my comments offensive. Whether you accept that as a tactic or a genuine expression that I am sorry my words were taken as offensive...well....that has nothing to do with me.
"Is this not what you expected to see?"....
But again you are straying from the topic.
Anslem was a Benedictine monk while Abelard was a French monk = both Catholics, so no, the catholic views were not burned. I did not say the Catholic views were burnt. What was burnt was the writings that were not recognized by Rome, both Anselm an Abelard were made "saints" by Rome - hardly non-Catholics. Your treating Rome as orthodox and claiming that only Rome's views of the atonement between the fourth and sixteenth are definitive and binding in this study.
Average:
a number expressing the central or typical value in a set of data, in particular the mode, median, or (most commonly) the mean, which is calculated by dividing the sum of the values in the set by their number.
"the housing prices there are twice the national average"
- Status