Featured JonC's view of Substitution in the Atonement

You agree means essentially reconciliation but disagree that atonement means reconciliation?

 

ATONEMENT: 1510s, "condition of being at one (with others)," a sense now obsolete, from atone + -ment. Theological meaning "reconciliation" (of man with God through the life, passion, and death of Christ) is from 1520s; that of "satisfaction or reparation for wrong or injury, propitiation of an offended party" is from 1610s.

 

Yet the theological meaning of Atonement is literally "reconciliation".

Reconciliation is a biblical word. Atonement is not. Atonement literally means reconciliation.

You add to this by saying reconciliation (atonement) was achieved by Christ satisfying the outraged justice of God but that is not in the Bible (you understand that, right?).

You have a theory about how our reconciliation was accomplished (how atonement was accomplished) and you allow your theory to dictate every aspect of your faith.

Why on earth do you believe our reconciliation is based in God satisfying God's justice? Why do you believe God's justice demands sins be punished in order to be forgiven?

See? You redefine words. You redefine reconciliation to be something brought on by our being made "at one" or in unity with God. You redefine forgiveness to mean punishment.

In fact, your theory is so far from the Christian faith handed to us, so far from Scripture, it is a miracle you are saved rather than damned because of it. But I am glad miracles occur (I was also saved believing your theory as well). People like us were saved not because of these theories but despite them. It just goes to show salvation is a work of God and not man.

But there comes a point when we really should lay aside these fables fit for old women, these myths and mythologies, and simply trust in God's Word. That's what I'd love for you, to see you grow in the Spirit and not be carried away by vain philosophies.

 

It is interesting that it is new to you. Even when I held the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement I knew of the "classic view", and I knew of it being held by conservative Baptists (at the time I just thought they were wrong).

Perhaps you would do well to learn about Baptist (beyond your tradition) and Christianity as a whole. You may never change your views, but I think you may find Christian History an interesting topic.

 

Put that on a chronological timeline and see how it looks. You may be surprised.

 

Yes, I know.

 

I prefer to be in the Biblical tradition of the Bible.

 

The Reformers did, for the most part, accept the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement.

A more fair comparison of my view would be Irenaeus or traditional Anabaptist Theology. The reason is the NPP, as expressed by NT Wright, is a Reformed doctrine. And the Greek Orthodox takes a more mystical approach. I hold closer to Ontological Substitution.

 

Obviously. That has been my main point - what matters is the doctrine written in the text of Scripture - NOT what we think might have been there in embryo, not doctrines in addition to Scripture that we feel the Bible teaches, and not what the Bible means to you.

The problem with the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement is that it cannot be verified with the text of Scripture. The best you can do is text what you believe Scripture teaches against what you believe is taught by Scripture. In other words, you have absolutely no test for your doctrine.

 

You have not presented ANY actual evidence for the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement. To do so you would have show a passage stating that God must punish sin in order to forgive sin (that is the philosophy of judgment you lay upon God, but it is foreign to Scripture).

You keep on posting passages that we agree on, claiming those passages as proof. The problem is you never prove the basis for interpreting those passages (which you interpret to be more than they actually say).

You do this with the ECF's as well. You can't find Penal Substitution Theory so you say it is there "in embryo" (to quote you). BUT the fact is, it is NOT there. You see "his flesh for our flesh, his life for our life" and say "There! That's Penal Substitution!" When we all believe it is his flesh for our flesh and his life for our life.