In support of Penal Substitutionary Atonement

[Van]

Van.
SNIP.

Yet another taint so post using "Calvinists are not monolithic" absurdity.
Limited Atonement is not held by many if not most Baptists, especially General Baptists.

1) PSA says God has been propitiated for every individual chosen before creation, Christ dying for the specific sin penalties of those individuals only. See post #50.

2) PSA says God has reconciled every individual chosen before creation. See post #56

3) DaveXR650 says some Calvinists believe reconciliation occurs when a person believes. Not before belief when they are "regenerated" (quickened) by Irresistible Grace and their faith instilled (the gift of faith), or after God transfers them into Christ where they undergo the washing of regeneration.

Who are we to believe, the published doctrines found in article after article by well known Calvinists, or our poster? PSA is a Trojan horse for Limited Atonement whether any posting Calvinist offers denial.

The biblical doctrine of Christ's sacrificial death is that His sacrifice provides the means of reconciliation such that everyone God subsequently transfers into Christ is at that time reconciled. So God is actually reconciling the world, one sinner at a time, as He transfers them into Christ. That is why we have the ministry of reconciliation. The opportunity of the lost to be chosen and reconciled exists today.

Christ was treated with the punishment of sin on the cross as the Lamb of God, such that when an individual undergoes the washing of regeneration, the removal of the individual's sin burden (what God had against the individual) is just in God's eyes as His lamb has taken those decrees and nailed them so to speak on the cross. Colossians 2:14.

 

[DaveXR650]

3) DaveXR650 says some Calvinists believe reconciliation occurs when a person believes. Not before belief when they are "regenerated" (quickened) by Irresistible Grace and their faith instilled (the gift of faith), or after God transfers them into Christ where they undergo the washing of regeneration.

Who are we to believe, the published doctrines found in article after article by well known Calvinists, or our poster?

"But because this absolution or pardon of sin is to be received by faith, whereby the soul is really made partaker of it and all the benefits belonging thereunto, and that faith is the radical grace which we receive in our regeneration, - for it is by faith that our hearts are purified, as an instrument in the hand of the great purifier, the Spirit of God - I place these two together, and shall not dispute as to their priority in nature, but in time the one doth not precede the other." John Owen
Looks like we can chalk up another one for "our poster" as to who we are to believe.

 

[Van]

"But because this absolution or pardon of sin is to be received by faith, whereby the soul is really made partaker of it and all the benefits belonging thereunto, and that faith is the radical grace which we receive in our regeneration, - for it is by faith that our hearts are purified, as an instrument in the hand of the great purifier, the Spirit of God - I place these two together, and shall not dispute as to their priority in nature, but in time the one doth not precede the other." John Owen
Looks like we can chalk up another one for "our poster" as to who we are to believe.

LOL,

"Except the timing of the reconciliation doesn't occur until the individual believes."

So we have (1) receive faith in regeneration and (2) reconciliation when we receive faith from Calvinist and
(1) God credits our faith as righteousness, (2) God then transfers us into Christ, (3) the individual undergoes the washing of regeneration, resulting in "receiving reconciliation." The second view is based on scripture, the first is incoherent Calvinism.

Look at it this way, the un-reconciled are spiritually dead, separated from God due to their unholiness, but upon undergoing the washing of regeneration, they are "made alive together with Christ" (i.e. together with Christ = reconciled). Recall that regeneration results is being born anew, as a new creation created for good works.

 

[DaveXR650]

LOL,

I'm missing the LOL. Was there some kind of point in that post?

 

[Van]

I'm missing the LOL. Was there some kind of point in that post?

More effort to avoid the topic of PSA being a Trojan horse for limited atonement and lacking actual support from scripture concerning regeneration and reconciliation.

Look at it this way, the un-reconciled are spiritually dead, separated from God due to their unholiness, but upon undergoing the washing of regeneration, they are "made alive together with Christ" (i.e. together with Christ = reconciled). Recall that regeneration results is being born anew, as a new creation created for good works.

And there, once again you have it, folks. Go figure...

 

[DaveXR650]

Look at it this way, the un-reconciled are spiritually dead, separated from God due to their unholiness, but upon undergoing the washing of regeneration, they are "made alive together with Christ" (i.e. together with Christ = reconciled). Recall that regeneration results is being born anew, as a new creation created for good works.

Van, I don't know what you are trying to say. You are restating the basic Calvinist position in the quote yet for some reason seem to feel the need to just slightly reword it to make it a half step different. Jon does that with PSA, too.

More effort to avoid the topic of PSA being a Trojan horse for limited atonement and lacking actual support from scripture concerning regeneration and reconciliation.

I have already sited two prominent Calvinist theologians who state that PSA and limited atonement are linked and cannot be separated. Since they are prominent, and published, your charge that this is some kind of Trojan horse is false. I happen to believe that they are wrong in this case. The reason I say that is that I have been reading some Arminian based literature and early general Baptist theologians and I can tell you that they also embraced PSA. They would argue that it is not exclusively a Calvinist doctrine.

Would it be possible for you to actually respond to a point I make rather than this bizarre tendency to play to some imaginary audience?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Van, I don't know what you are trying to say. You are restating the basic Calvinist position in the quote yet for some reason seem to feel the need to just slightly reword it to make it a half step different. Jon does that with PSA, too

Yep!

 

[Van]

Van, I don't know what you are trying to say.
SNIP
Would it be possible for you to actually respond to a point I make rather than this bizarre tendency to play to some imaginary audience?

I think you know what I am saying.

There is no need to address that PSA is indeed a Trojan Horse for Limited Atonement. You claimed most Baptists believe in PSA but I say most Baptists do not believe Christ died only for the elect, individually chosen before creation. Sounds like something hazardous is hiding in something thought to be benign, like a horse.

PSA when defined by Calvinists is lacking actual support from scripture concerning regeneration and reconciliation.

Look at it this way, the un-reconciled are spiritually dead, separated from God due to their unholiness, but upon undergoing the washing of regeneration, they are "made alive together with Christ" (i.e. together with Christ = reconciled). Recall that regeneration results is being born anew, as a new creation created for good works.

And there, once again you have it, folks. Go figure...

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Sorry, I assumed you knew the reference. Origen and Gregory are the two most often mentioned for holding Ransom Theory when studying Christian history . . . Augustine's "trap" is another classic example (although his theology was a combination of Ransom Theory and Recapitulation).

It is in Gregory's "Address on Religious Instruction".

I asked for a reference three times.
I have searched the internet for even a reference to an 'Address on Religious Instruction' and I cannot find it. That doesn't mean it isn't there - I'm not the best with the internet, but this summary of G of N's life and theology makes no mention of his holding that Christ's death was a 'ransom to Satan.
https://medium.com/@postmodern.pala...oduction-to-his-life-and-thought-ad5677a40d27

My point is Gregory also believed that Christ bore our sins bodily, that He suffered on our account, that Christ was wounded for our sins and that the chastisement for our well being, our peace, was upon Him. That it is by His stripes that we are healed. And that the Lord was pleased to crush Him, to put Him to grief. The Father offered His Son as a offering for us, forsook Him to suffer and die on a Roman cross, and He died for our sins. He is the Propitiation for the sins of the world, and in Him we escape the wrath to come. He knew no sin but was made sin for us. He became a curse for us. His flesh for our flesh.

That is what I believe as well, although I disagree with Gregory's understanding of Ransom and your Penal Substitution Theory.

So you don't agree with G of N. Nor do I if he believed that Christ's death was a ransom to Satan, though I have still not read that he did..
However, where I do agree with him is where he says, For my sake He was called a curse, who destroyed my curse; and sin who taketh away the sin of the world, and became a new Adam to take the place of the old, just as He makes my disobedience His own as Head of the whole body. As long then as I am disobedient and rebellious, both by denial of God and by my passions, so long is Christ called disobedient on my account.
It seems to me that in that paragraph he shows his agreement with the definition of Penal Substitution that I have posted. Whether or not he says something different elsewhere is interesting but does not alter the fact of the matter.

All Christians throughout history believe that Christ bore our sins bodily, that He suffered on our account. ALL of us believe Christ was wounded for our sins and that the chastisement for our well being, our peace, was upon Him. We ALL believe that it is by His stripes that we are healed.
ALL of us believe the Lord was pleased to crush Him, to put Him to grief. And that Father offered His Son as a offering for us,forsook Him to suffer and die on a Roman cross, and He died for our sins. He is the Propitiation for the sins of the world, and in Him we escape the wrath to come. He knew no sin but was made sin for us. He became a curse for us. His flesh for our flesh.
.That is doctrine common to ALL Christians - those who believe in Ransom Theory, Recapitulation, Moral Influence Theory, Substitution Theory, and Penal Substitution Theory.

This is simply not the case, either now or in the past. Peter Abelard was one who hotly denied any sort of penal substitution, and such denial is all about us today, not least in the writings of Steve Chalke, though there are many others

BUT the majority of Christians do not hold to Penal Substitution Theory.

I couldn't care less about your penal substitution theory. Nor does it concern me in the least whether I am in a minority.

@Van made a great observation. You take common Christian belief and say it is Penal Substitution while ignoring what distinguishes Penal Substitution from other Christian views.[/QUOTE]
Do you want me to quote the definition again?

 

[DaveXR650]

You claimed most Baptists believe in PSA but I say most Baptists do not believe Christ died only for the elect, individually chosen before creation.

That is correct. The idea that Christ died only for the elect, individually chosen before creation is not what penal substitution is. Owen and Ferguson argued that the two were tied together but I know that most modern non-Calvinist Baptists believe PSA to be the underlying best explanation for the atonement. Early classical Arminians and general Baptist founders also believed it.

I agree that most Baptists are not Calvinists. Last I heard, about 35% of the Baptist seminary students are Calvinist. But I bet a lot of the other 65% do view penal substitution as the best explanation of the atonement. You are mixing up the question of what did the atonement do verses who benefits from it and how.

Now you might be right in that I honestly don't know of anyone who claims to be a Calvinist who rejects penal substitution. @JonC , maybe you could jump in here. You said some reformed folks were moving away from it. Point Van in their direction. Me too for that matter.

 

[atpollard]

Now you might be right in that I honestly don't know of anyone who claims to be a Calvinist who rejects penal substitution. @JonC , maybe you could jump in here. You said some reformed folks were moving away from it. Point Van in their direction. Me too for that matter.

Me. I am a 5 point Calvinist that leans towards Christus Victor rather than the Father punishing the Son as a prerequisite to enabling forgiveness. I see a Forgiveness of those who are drawn to the Son and a Punishment of enemies … rather than a punishment to enable forgiveness. (I recognize two great truths … 1. That is a subtle distinction; 2. You were looking for someone important and not a theological peon like me.)

 

[DaveXR650]

Me. I am a 5 point Calvinist that leans towards Christus Victor rather than the Father punishing the Son as a prerequisite to enabling forgiveness. I see a Forgiveness of those who are drawn to the Son and a Punishment of enemies … rather than a punishment to enable forgiveness. (I recognize two great truths … 1. That is a subtle distinction; 2. You were looking for someone important and not a theological peon like me.)

Not at all. I like to listen to Martyn Lloyd-Jones's sermons and he covers many of the aspects of the atonement, and he has a sermon on Christus Victor. What the atonement accomplished covers all it accomplished and the truth of one aspect doesn't mean that another aspect is false.

My only concern here is that it seems that if you look at places in scripture where God shows a desire for love and forgiveness it is always in conjunction with the sacrificial work of Christ. The most well known would be John 3:16. You don't see God just loving us in a vacuum. He gave His only son. You find that as an underpinning of all God's love for us. But in no way does that negate the many things that were shown in the atonement. I don't think we have to say "This is the reason, and all other aspects are false".

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Further to my last post, Origen (c. 185-c. 254) is generally agreed to have been the origin (pun intended) of the idea that Christ was the ransom paid to Satan to free mankind.
This is true, but it is not the whole of Origen's belief on the atonement.
In his commentary on John's Gospel, he discussed how the Lord Jesus is 'the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.' He linked this verse to 1 John 2:2 and to the O.T. 'There was a type in the inmost part of the temple, the Holy of Holies, namely, the golden mercy seat placed between the two cherubim.'
Not to take to long on this, he demonstrates a link between the picture of Christ being a ransom for sinners, and the teaching of propitiation. finding, 'something even more sublime......."God put Him forward as an expiation on behalf of men."'

And in his commentary on Romans 3:25-6, he writes, 'In the most recent times, God has manifested His righteousness and given Christ to be our redemption. He has made Him to be our propitiator .... for God is just, and therefore could not justify the unjust. Therefore He required the intervention of a propitiator, so that by having faith in Him those who could not be justified by their own work might be justified.'

So even Origen believed in Penal Substitution. My reading of the ECFs is perfunctory, but I have found that very often they are perfectly able to hold two views at the same time, and the way to gain from reading them is to suck on the meat and to spit out the gristle.

 

[Van]

That is correct. The idea that Christ died only for the elect, individually chosen before creation is not what penal substitution is. SNIP

Once again this poster denies the obvious. The Calvinist version of PSA is that Christ died only for the elect, as He was punished for the specific sins of the elect, chosen before creation.

Christ died as a ransom for all, not as a ransom for some.

There are no (zero, zip, nada) 5 Point Calvinists who do not embrace Limited Atonement, the idea Christ died only for the previously chosen elect, and not as a ransom for all humanity.

The opportunity of the lost to be chosen and reconciled exists today because Christ provided the means of reconciliation for all humanity.

 

[DaveXR650]

Once again this poster denies the obvious. The Calvinist version of PSA is that Christ died only for the elect, as He was punished for the specific sins of the elect, chosen before creation.

Yes. A Calvinist who believes in penal substitution will also believe that he was punished for the elect. But those are two different things. A Calvinist who believes in penal substitution will also believe that the elect will persevere but that does not mean they are the same.

Christ died as a ransom for all, not as a ransom for some.

That's your opinion. There are strong arguments for it. I may even agree with you.

There are no (zero, zip, nada) 5 Point Calvinists who do not embrace Limited Atonement, the idea Christ died only for the previously chosen elect, and not as a ransom for all humanity.

That would be obvious since it's one of the 5 points. That does not mean that there are people who embrace some of the points of Calvinism or none of them, who still hold the the idea of penal substitution.

Look. If you stand back and look at the whole picture of the human fall and our redemption, and try to get your human mind around all of it at once (which can't be done), I think what we call Calvinism, the whole system involved and not just the TULIP, is the best theology to explain it. I do not put it up as primary doctrine. I believe that for each individual there will come a time when you will be confronted with the claims of the gospel and will either repent and believe or not. If you do you will be saved. You have a direct promise from God's word that backs that up. Whether you were elect from the foundation of the world or whether you just decided at the time on your own or whether the Holy Spirit irresistibly drew you or if you were convicted but the final choice is yours are all worth discussing but they are not foundational. Some Calvinists on here don't like me saying that but I don't care.

I think penal substitution is actually far more important. Not that there are not many beautiful and important aspects of the atonement that are true and worth studying but if you reject the idea of penal substitution I think you are in danger of losing the gospel. So while I don't think it necessary that someone say that penal substitution is the only thing you are allowed to mention regarding the atonement I do think that those that reject the whole idea of Christ dying and shedding his blood as essential for our salvation are not Christians. And just to be clear, @JonC does not do this. I get frustrated with his method of argument but he clearly does not fit into that camp. And I don't think you do either.

 

[Piper]

Once again this poster denies the obvious. The Calvinist version of PSA is that Christ died only for the elect, as He was punished for the specific sins of the elect, chosen before creation.

Christ died as a ransom for all, not as a ransom for some.

There are no (zero, zip, nada) 5 Point Calvinists who do not embrace Limited Atonement, the idea Christ died only for the previously chosen elect, and not as a ransom for all humanity.

The opportunity of the lost to be chosen and reconciled exists today because Christ provided the means of reconciliation for all humanity.

John Owen provides an explanation in his massive work "The Death of Death in the Death of Christ" to show that the word all in 1 Tim 2:6 does not necessarily mean all humanity without exception.

 

[37818]

John Owen provides an explanation in his massive work "The Death of Death in the Death of Christ" to show that the word all in 1 Tim 2:6 does not necessarily mean all humanity without exception.

A denial does not refute a Biblical truth. And his rhetorical question, "To what purpose serves the general ransom, but only to assert that Almighty God would have the precious blood of his dear Son poured out for innumerable souls whom he will not have to share in any drop thereof, and so, in respect of them, to be spilt in vain, or else to be shed for them only that they might be the deeper damned?" Allowing for the general atonement.

 

[JonC]

I asked for a reference three times.
I have searched the internet for even a reference to an 'Address on Religious Instruction' and I cannot find it. That doesn't mean it isn't there - I'm not the best with the internet, but this summary of G of N's life and theology makes no mention of his holding that Christ's death was a 'ransom to Satan.
https://medium.com/@postmodern.pala...oduction-to-his-life-and-thought-ad5677a40d27

So you don't agree with G of N. Nor do I if he believed that Christ's death was a ransom to Satan, though I have still not read that he did..
However, where I do agree with him is where he says, For my sake He was called a curse, who destroyed my curse; and sin who taketh away the sin of the world, and became a new Adam to take the place of the old, just as He makes my disobedience His own as Head of the whole body. As long then as I am disobedient and rebellious, both by denial of God and by my passions, so long is Christ called disobedient on my account.
It seems to me that in that paragraph he shows his agreement with the definition of Penal Substitution that I have posted. Whether or not he says something different elsewhere is interesting but does not alter the fact of the matter.

This is simply not the case, either now or in the past. Peter Abelard was one who hotly denied any sort of penal substitution, and such denial is all about us today, not least in the writings of Steve Chalke, though there are many others

I couldn't care less about your penal substitution theory. Nor does it concern me in the least whether I am in a minority.

@Van made a great observation. You take common Christian belief and say it is Penal Substitution while ignoring what distinguishes Penal Substitution from other Christian views.

Do you want me to quote the definition again?[/QUOTE]
I gave you the reference. I had no problem finding it....in my library. But I'm sure it is in the internet as well (especially since it is a well known quote).

I may try to help you find it online. Didn't you study Christian history, at least associated with theology, at University? Or was it another discipline?

 

[Van]

John Owen provides an explanation in his massive work "The Death of Death in the Death of Christ" to show that the word all in 1 Tim 2:6 does not necessarily mean all humanity without exception.

1 Peter 2:1 says the Master "bought" those heading for destruction. Thus a ransom for all, those to be saved and those never to be saved.

 

[JonC]

I asked for a reference three times.
I have searched the internet for even a reference to an 'Address on Religious Instruction' and I cannot find it. That doesn't mean it isn't there - I'm not the best with the internet, but this summary of G of N's life and theology makes no mention of his holding that Christ's death was a 'ransom to Satan.
https://medium.com/@postmodern.pala...oduction-to-his-life-and-thought-ad5677a40d27

Great source.....it's so.....you.

The author you are now relying on from medium.com:

"Berlin-based philosopher and political scientist, writing in my spare time about theology, philosophy and spirituality. | am eclectic, mystic, radical, queer."