Featured JonC's view of Substitution in the Atonement

It was mostly a figure of speech to say that the Reformers did not extract Paul from Scripture.

We have to look at Scripture as a whole. Paul's justification is Christ's justification.

 

This is a poor attempt at slander that you have repeated on this forum.

I understand that you disagree with my position, and many do. That is fair. But disagreeing with me does not grant you the right to post dishonestly.

We have had this discussion on the forum and then later via PM. So you know my view is unrelated.

That said, I do agree with Sanders that Paul's use of "works" was sometimes referring to works of the Law. That makes sense to me given the Jewish view of the Law. But this idea is not exclusive to the NPP. And not all of Paul's letters were to a primary Jewish audience.

I am really not sure what your fascination is with the NPP. I have personally not found it that interesting (I suppose perhaps in Reformed circles it may be intriguing, but I'm not Reformed ).

 

A lie is not a figure of speech.
What you do not understand is that a figure of speech is not a lie.

burn at the stake

This expression refers to a method used in the Middle Ages for putting heretics to death, but now it is used as a hyperbolic metaphor for harsh punishment, as in She was sure she'd be burned at the stake for losing the contract. In fact, the stake can be used loosely for any extreme punishment. William Makepeace Thackeray so used it in Henry Esmond (1852): “'I know I would go to the stake for you,' said Harry.”



I do not expect an apology from you for calling me a liar, as I think that would be above you. But I don't want you to think poorly of others when they use the metaphor.

Often learning English is via experience. We encounter an expression for the first time, explanation removes ignorance, and we learn. I am glad to have taught you something, even if it is related to the English language rather than Christianity.

 

As far as I can tell, I articulated my view of the Atonement clearly. I think it will s more that it does not meet your expectations. But I never claimed to be a wordsmith.

I'll simplify and offer a comparison of theories by allowing another articulate. You also struggled with understanding the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement. Here is Morrisons' summary of the two:

The Classic View

Classically, the Christus Victor theory of Atonement is widely considered to be the dominant theory for most of the historical Christian Church. In this theory, Jesus Christ dies in order to defeat the powers of evil (such as sin, death, and the devil) in order to free mankind from their bondage. This is related to the Ransom view with the difference being that there is no payment to the devil or to God. Within the Christus Victor framework, the cross did not pay off anyone but defeated evil thereby setting the human race free.


The Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement

Penal Substitutionary Atonement is a development of the Reformation. The Reformers, Specifically Calvin and Luther, took Anselm’s Satisfaction theory and modified it slightly. They added a more legal (or forensic) framework into this notion of the cross as satisfaction. The result is that within Penal Substitution, Jesus Christ dies to satisfy God’s wrath against human sin. Jesus is punished (penal) in the place of sinners (substitution) in order to satisfy the justice of God and the legal demand of God to punish sin. In the light of Jesus’ death, God can now forgive the sinner because Jesus Christ has been punished in the place of the sinner, in this way meeting the retributive requirements of God’s justice. This legal balancing of the ledgers is at the heart of this theory, which claims that Jesus died for legal satisfaction. It’s also worth mentioning that in this theory the notion of imputed righteousness is postulated.

 

Yes, I know the Reformers were both persecuted and persecutors.

But we speak and write in the contemporary vernacular.

 

It did. Study the various expressions of Ransom Theory in the 1st century. Aulen brought it to light in a setting where it was ignored.

 

I am not talking about Gustav Aulen. As you note, it was a theme - the Ransom Theory, Recapitulation, and Moral Influence Theory would fall into the "Classic view".

It is a bit dishonest to say "nobody believes in "Christ loser". That is like saying everybody believes Penal Substitution because nobody rejects that Christ died for our sins, suffered the consequences of sin on our behalf, etc.

My suggestion for you is to ether discuss honestly or don't discuss at all.

 

I see your error.

You read "the Reformers burned people at the stake for separating justification as expressed by Paul from justification expressed in Scripture".


For some reason you thought I was addressing dead people when in fact I was addressing JesusFan, who was not alive in the 16th century.

 

Sure it is dishonest. You are ake my position (specifically Ontological Substitution, which would fall under the "Classic view of Atonement" and pretend the opposite of the Christus Victor view is the Christ loser view.

That is dishonest because the Classic view (the Christus Victor view and the theories that fall within) is more than simply Christ was victorious just as the Penal Substitution Theory is more than Christ died for our sins and experienced the wages of sin for us.

For example, the Classic view presents the atonement completely different from the Latin view (Satisfaction Theory, Substitution Theory and Penal Substitution Theory). Where the Latin view sees Christ as appeasing some aspect of God the Classic view sees Christ as conquering the powers that culminated at the Cross.

They are competing views. If you indeed believe the Christus Victor position is true then you believe that Christ suffered and died under the powers of the World (of Satan) rather than Christ suffering under God's wrath.

It is extraordinary dishonest and foolish to dismiss other views (particularly one that has been the predominant Christian understanding) to simply "Christ was victorious". It shows an ignorance beyond reasonable expectation.