God is Just and the Justifier of Sinners (Continuation)

[JonC]

God IS Just and thr Justifier of sinners. All views recognize this (I'm not saying that Latin positions ignore this).

But each comes to very different conclusions.

Reformed theology can be superficial, as can any depending on the one holding the theology. By "superficial" I mean in comparison to classic Christianity when it comes to sin.


All Latin positions are based on moralism and a materialized view of sin. As such, the often view God as Just and the Justifier of sinners as almost a problem to be solved (how can a just God justify sinners).

Man committed sins. God must punish sins. God either punishes sins transferred to Christ or He punishes sins that remain on the sinner. Forgiveness is the result of satisfaction (Satisfaction, Substitution Theory) made by Jesus or punishment experienced by Jesus in our stead (Penal Substitution Theory) that the punishment we deserve is remitted.


Classic Christianity also believes that God is Just and the Justifier of sinners. But this group (of diverse views) sees sin as a greater offense not only to God but also to man. Sins are not materialistic. Sin is much more than a moral issue. Simply punishing sins is not justice because it does not clear, or even address, guilt. Sin is much greater than Reformed theology will allow, or solve, in their view of Atonement. It embodies an entire body of evil powers, and is most often grouped with death (a physical death). Sins are merely the manifestation of this type of sin. Men do not need a Savior to be punished for their sinful actions but they need a way of being made "not-guilty", to no longer be under condemnation regardless of past acts. This is impossible under the Old Covenant, but is made under the New. Sin and death are defeated, not by punishing sins but by deliverance from sin and death and an entrance into life.

@Martin Marprelate

It isn't sad at all. People contextualize and interpret Scripture in accordance with their experiences, their culture, and their worldview. It was natural for Calvin to interpret the Atonement in the context of humanistic law because he had devoted himself to studying that judicial philosophy. It was natural for the Early Christians to be so focused on deliverance through physical death because they were experiencing such persecutions.

The gospel is as such that men are not saved by believing a theory of Atonement within either the Classic or Latin views. We are saved by Christ.


Your comment did remind me of one of my favorite Flannery O'Connor short stories. It's in Everything that Rises Must Converge and is titled "Revelation".

In the story Ruby Turpins is a Reformed older woman who holds all the "right" beliefs. She also looks down on pretty much everybody (ironically, the Ruby and her husband Claud are pig farmers).

At the end of the story Ruby has a vision. She saw a streak extending to Heaven and upon it were large groups of all the people she considered inferior. They were shouting, clapping and jumping as they ascended to God.

At the very end of the procession were people like her and Claude. They were marching behind the main group with dignity. They were the only ones on key, yet Ruby could see by their shocked faces that even their virtues were being burned away.

 

[JonC]

To clarify - I mentioned two classifications. These primarily deal with understanding the Atonement.

Classic Chriatianity are those theological distinctions that grew out of the early church understanding of Jesus' work. These groups include the Early Church (obviously), Amish, Mennonites, various 15-16th century Anabaptist sects, a minority of Western Baptist churches, and in many doctrines the Orthodox Catholic Church.

Latin Christianity are those theological distinctions that grew out of the Roman Catholic Church. These include the Roman Catholic Church (obviously), Reformed churches, the majority of Baptist churches, Lutheran, Episcopalian, Presbyterian, and the like.

So Classic Christianity would hold theories of atonement such as Ransom Theory, Moral Influence Theory, Recapitulation, etc. These positions can blend together with distinctions being on focus, but at some point they often disagree.

Latin Christianity would hold theories of atonement that deal with Satisfaction Theory, Substitution Theory, and Penal Substitution Theory. These are very closely related theories as the latter Theory sought to correct the former.

The reason Atonement theories are divided in this way is theories within Classic Christianity holds a similar framework while theories within Latin Christianity hold a similar framework. These two types stand in opposition to each other (one cannot hold Penal Substitution Theory AND Ransom Theory, for example, because they deny one another. But one could hold Moral Influence and Recapitulation (Orthodox Catholic does).

 

[Martin Marprelate]

@Martin Marprelate

It isn't sad at all.

What isn't sad at all? Why can you not quote whatever it is I have written that you disagree with?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Classic Chriatianity are those theological distinctions that grew out of the early church understanding of Jesus' work.

You mean people like Clement of Rome?
'They [the patriarchs] all therefore were glorified and magnified, not through themselves or their own works or the righteous doing which they wrought, but through His will. And so we, having been called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified through ourselves or through our own wisdom or understanding or piety or works which we wrought in holiness of heart, but through faith, whereby the Almighty God justified all men that have been from the beginning; to whom be the glory for ever and ever. Amen.' ['To the Corinthians' Para. 32]

Or to quote from someone a little later:
''When an ungodly man is converted, God justifies him by faith alone, not on account of good works, which he possessed not; otherwise, on account of his ungodly deeds, he ought to have been punished ... Christ, who "knew no sin," the Father "made sin for us," that, as a victim offered for sin was called "sin," so likewise Christ, being offered for our sins, received the name of "sin" that "we might be made the righteousness of God in Him" - not our righteousness, nor in ourselves." [Jerome, commenting on Romans 5:6. Quoted by James Buchanan, Justification page 109]]

 

[JonC]

You mean people like Clement of Rome?
'They [the patriarchs] all therefore were glorified and magnified, not through themselves or their own works or the righteous doing which they wrought, but through His will. And so we, having been called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified through ourselves or through our own wisdom or understanding or piety or works which we wrought in holiness of heart, but through faith, whereby the Almighty God justified all men that have been from the beginning; to whom be the glory for ever and ever. Amen.' ['To the Corinthians' Para. 32]

Or to quote from someone a little later:
''When an ungodly man is converted, God justifies him by faith alone, not on account of good works, which he possessed not; otherwise, on account of his ungodly deeds, he ought to have been punished ... Christ, who "knew no sin," the Father "made sin for us," that, as a victim offered for sin was called "sin," so likewise Christ, being offered for our sins, received the name of "sin" that "we might be made the righteousness of God in Him" - not our righteousness, nor in ourselves." [Jerome, commenting on Romans 5:6. Quoted by James Buchanan, Justification page 109]]

Yes. And this is an excellent "test" to see in which general area one stands.

Those who hold to Classic Christianity could agree with Clement of Rome. Clement wrote about Jesus bearing our sins, bearing our iniquities, and about how precious to God is the blood of Christ. This was also written in a context dealing with Jesus solidarity and unity with the human family (mankind).

Latin Christianity, however, extracts snippets from Clement of Rome because they hold a different theological framework. They ignore Clement of Rome's theology about how Christ dealt with sin (Christ bearing our sins to purge sins from Himself as a representative giving way to the opportunity men will purge their hearts in Him) and read into Clement the Latin materialization of sins and because of that assume that these sins were removed from man by being transferred from man.


To be fair, those holding a Latin view are so steeped in Roman Catholic ideologies that they do not recognize what they add to the Early Church writers or to Scripture. They assume a materialistic understanding of sins, add sins being transferred from man, etc. without even realizing it.


As evidence this is true - consider the Penal Substitution theorists who think that the Early Church writers affirmed their theory without realizing that these writers never once wrote of our sins being transferred from us, or that God punished Jesus. They see that Jesus died for our sins. They see that Jesus' blood was precious to God. BUT they assume this is Penal Substitution because they are so indoctrinated into a Roman Catholic or reformed Roman Catholic theology that they can't even recognize what they assume.

 

[DaveXR650]

I have read enough of the early church fathers at this point to realize that there is no "classic view". The early church was everywhere from what looks like penal substitution (and a lot of theologians see it that way) to a ransom paid to Satan, to God tricking Satan into going too far and killing someone sinless, thus overstepping his bounds, and so on. It is simply incorrect to try to present an early classic view as a unified or systematically agreed upon view.

It is true that many of these views can be simultaneously true, and yes, they can overlap. A ransom view can definitely be linked to penal substitution. You were held within the camp of sinners, for whom it would be impossible to have peace with God, and the substitutionary atonement paid the ransom that held them within that camp. You have been bought with a price and at the same time the blood has washed away your sins. Also, there was a victory and a defeating of the kingdom of darkness, Satan's kingdom on Earth, and Jesus has set things right. Penal substitution does not require one to abandon that. That is why Bunyan, in Pilgrim's Progress, when he encounters Apollyon is asked "Aren't you a citizen of my kingdom" and Bunyan replies that he was, but is not anymore, and Apollyon should beware because he is on the King's highway.

It is true that when you are defending one particular aspect of the atonement you cannot simultaneously discuss all other aspects even though they may be also and even equally true. But I maintain that penal substitution is an aspect at the most basic core level and while it doesn't seem that part of the requirement of saving faith is that you understand it I think an actual denial of it with full knowledge of what you mean, is incompatible with Christianity.

Even Scott McKnight, who has been listed as one who does not believe in penal substitution, if you read what he wrote on the subject, turns out to admit that you cannot get through Romans without seeing it and that the doctrine as a "theory" has been mischaracterized deliberately by some. Similarly, T.F. Torrance, in his last book on the atonement, where all his writings were gathered in one place, definitely teaches it, and agrees with it as an aspect of the atonement. Once again, there is a huge difference between saying the atonement can be studied and marveled at for years and even disagreeing with the oversimplified way some advocates have reduced it to one single concept, and even the improper way some critics and even some advocates have misrepresented it as a petulant Father who has to have the Son step in and placate him; but still, what is overlooked in these discussions is that the same writers who point that out do not refute the concept of penal substitution as being true!

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Latin Christianity, however, extracts snippets from Clement of Rome because they hold a different theological framework.

I have no desire to hold specifically to Clement's 'theological framework.' I agree with him, and the other Church Fathers just so far as they are in accord with the Bible and no further. The apostasy had set in by the time, or very shortly after, of the death of the apostles (Jude 4; 2 Tim. 1:15; 4:14; Acts 20:29-30).

@Martin Marprelate

It isn't sad at all.

You still haven't told me what it is that I said is sad. Kindly get on with it. Please quote what I said is sad so I can make a proper reply.

 

[JesusFan]

Yes. And this is an excellent "test" to see in which general area one stands.

Those who hold to Classic Christianity could agree with Clement of Rome. Clement wrote about Jesus bearing our sins, bearing our iniquities, and about how precious to God is the blood of Christ. This was also written in a context dealing with Jesus solidarity and unity with the human family (mankind).

Latin Christianity, however, extracts snippets from Clement of Rome because they hold a different theological framework. They ignore Clement of Rome's theology about how Christ dealt with sin (Christ bearing our sins to purge sins from Himself as a representative giving way to the opportunity men will purge their hearts in Him) and read into Clement the Latin materialization of sins and because of that assume that these sins were removed from man by being transferred from man.


To be fair, those holding a Latin view are so steeped in Roman Catholic ideologies that they do not recognize what they add to the Early Church writers or to Scripture. They assume a materialistic understanding of sins, add sins being transferred from man, etc. without even realizing it.


As evidence this is true - consider the Penal Substitution theorists who think that the Early Church writers affirmed their theory without realizing that these writers never once wrote of our sins being transferred from us, or that God punished Jesus. They see that Jesus died for our sins. They see that Jesus' blood was precious to God. BUT they assume this is Penal Substitution because they are so indoctrinated into a Roman Catholic or reformed Roman Catholic theology that they can't even recognize what they assume.

God the Father did Not "punish" jesus for something sinful that he had done, but that he vented out upon Jesus as the Sin bearing Lamb of God the stored up wrath due to us as sinners/

God was not judging Jesus at that time, but bring forth wrath and judgement against all of us whose sin debt had been placed upon Jesus as our substitute

 

[JesusFan]

I have read enough of the early church fathers at this point to realize that there is no "classic view". The early church was everywhere from what looks like penal substitution (and a lot of theologians see it that way) to a ransom paid to Satan, to God tricking Satan into going too far and killing someone sinless, thus overstepping his bounds, and so on. It is simply incorrect to try to present an early classic view as a unified or systematically agreed upon view.

It is true that many of these views can be simultaneously true, and yes, they can overlap. A ransom view can definitely be linked to penal substitution. You were held within the camp of sinners, for whom it would be impossible to have peace with God, and the substitutionary atonement paid the ransom that held them within that camp. You have been bought with a price and at the same time the blood has washed away your sins. Also, there was a victory and a defeating of the kingdom of darkness, Satan's kingdom on Earth, and Jesus has set things right. Penal substitution does not require one to abandon that. That is why Bunyan, in Pilgrim's Progress, when he encounters Apollyon is asked "Aren't you a citizen of my kingdom" and Bunyan replies that he was, but is not anymore, and Apollyon should beware because he is on the King's highway.

It is true that when you are defending one particular aspect of the atonement you cannot simultaneously discuss all other aspects even though they may be also and even equally true. But I maintain that penal substitution is an aspect at the most basic core level and while it doesn't seem that part of the requirement of saving faith is that you understand it I think an actual denial of it with full knowledge of what you mean, is incompatible with Christianity.

Even Scott McKnight, who has been listed as one who does not believe in penal substitution, if you read what he wrote on the subject, turns out to admit that you cannot get through Romans without seeing it and that the doctrine as a "theory" has been mischaracterized deliberately by some. Similarly, T.F. Torrance, in his last book on the atonement, where all his writings were gathered in one place, definitely teaches it, and agrees with it as an aspect of the atonement. Once again, there is a huge difference between saying the atonement can be studied and marveled at for years and even disagreeing with the oversimplified way some advocates have reduced it to one single concept, and even the improper way some critics and even some advocates have misrepresented it as a petulant Father who has to have the Son step in and placate him; but still, what is overlooked in these discussions is that the same writers who point that out do not refute the concept of penal substitution as being true!

Basic problem of any view other then penal substitutionary one is what happened to the wrath of God, and on what basis if not the shed blood of Jesus as our sin bearer can sins be forgiven and guilty sinners be justified?

 

[JesusFan]

I have read enough of the early church fathers at this point to realize that there is no "classic view". The early church was everywhere from what looks like penal substitution (and a lot of theologians see it that way) to a ransom paid to Satan, to God tricking Satan into going too far and killing someone sinless, thus overstepping his bounds, and so on. It is simply incorrect to try to present an early classic view as a unified or systematically agreed upon view.

It is true that many of these views can be simultaneously true, and yes, they can overlap. A ransom view can definitely be linked to penal substitution. You were held within the camp of sinners, for whom it would be impossible to have peace with God, and the substitutionary atonement paid the ransom that held them within that camp. You have been bought with a price and at the same time the blood has washed away your sins. Also, there was a victory and a defeating of the kingdom of darkness, Satan's kingdom on Earth, and Jesus has set things right. Penal substitution does not require one to abandon that. That is why Bunyan, in Pilgrim's Progress, when he encounters Apollyon is asked "Aren't you a citizen of my kingdom" and Bunyan replies that he was, but is not anymore, and Apollyon should beware because he is on the King's highway.

It is true that when you are defending one particular aspect of the atonement you cannot simultaneously discuss all other aspects even though they may be also and even equally true. But I maintain that penal substitution is an aspect at the most basic core level and while it doesn't seem that part of the requirement of saving faith is that you understand it I think an actual denial of it with full knowledge of what you mean, is incompatible with Christianity.

Even Scott McKnight, who has been listed as one who does not believe in penal substitution, if you read what he wrote on the subject, turns out to admit that you cannot get through Romans without seeing it and that the doctrine as a "theory" has been mischaracterized deliberately by some. Similarly, T.F. Torrance, in his last book on the atonement, where all his writings were gathered in one place, definitely teaches it, and agrees with it as an aspect of the atonement. Once again, there is a huge difference between saying the atonement can be studied and marveled at for years and even disagreeing with the oversimplified way some advocates have reduced it to one single concept, and even the improper way some critics and even some advocates have misrepresented it as a petulant Father who has to have the Son step in and placate him; but still, what is overlooked in these discussions is that the same writers who point that out do not refute the concept of penal substitution as being true!

JONC makes it seem as if he was given insight and revelation from God to declare the view of the reformation to now be null and void

 

[DaveXR650]

Basic problem of any view other then penal substitutionary one is what happened to the wrath of God, and on what basis if not the shed blood of Jesus as our sin bearer can sins be forgiven and guilty sinners be justified?

The Atonement did many things and illustrated many things but there is, at the center, the aspect of something actually being done about our sin that satisfies God who by nature, hates sin. Only penal substitution does this and without it you do not have Christianity. You can confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart God raised him from the dead and be saved, but I don't see how someone who looks into this, and understands it, and then rejects penal substitution can claim to be saved. Now, am I saying that Wright or @JonC are not saved? No. Jon C says clearly that he believes Jesus bore our sins and to me that's close enough. Socinians, and some theological liberals do deny that the cross is actually necessary for salvation. They are not Christians.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

God punished Jesus.

Oh dear, oh dear! @JonC and I have threshed this matter to death over ten or more years, and I have absolutely no desire to do so again. Over those ten years I have explained time after time that God did not punish the Lord Jesus; He had done nothing worthy of punishment. God punished us for our sin in Him (Isaiah 53:6; 1 Peter 2:24) Therefore it is no surprise that the Church Fathers do not mention it. However, Penal Substitution is found in many places in the Church Fathers' works as I have shown many times.

 

[JonC]

I have read enough of the early church fathers at this point to realize that there is no "classic view".

Then you have not read enough of our Christian history. It would be like me simply saying I have read enough of Reformed theology to realize Reformed theology does not exist. It's a fairly benign but childish argument (especially since scholars have written extensively about both views).

The difference is not in what passages they accepted (you already said you consider anybody who believes Jesus died for our sins to hold the Penal Substitution Theory).

The difference is in the context.

The Classic Christianity (regardless of atonement theory) always looks to solidarity rather than substitution (e.g., Clement of Rome). Christ bearing our sin is Christ sharing our infirmity rather than taking our infirmity away from Himself. Jesus bears our sins, but these are not taken away from us (they are forgiven, but not by Christ's death....men still need to be reconciled). Classic Christianity also views Jesus as the Second Adam, or type of man (Representative Substitution) dying for the "human family". Classic Chriatianity does not materialize sins but instead take sins as a deeper problem. Classic Christianity also does not view Jesus dying spiritually (instead Jesus died for our sins, delivers us through death, and in Him we escape a future Judgment based not on our sins but on Christ Himself.

The Latin view does not focus on this solidarity in Christ's death. Instead it denies this unity in His death. Our sins were transferred from us to Him (an impossibility in other theories because the Latin view considers sins in a materialistic manner).

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I have read enough of the early church fathers at this point to realize that there is no "classic view".

Exactly right. It is, I suppose, very self-satisfying to describe one's own view as the 'classic' one, but in reality there is no such thing.

 

[JonC]

JONC makes it seem as if he was given insight and revelation from God to declare the view of the reformation to now be null and void

No. You are not being honest here.

I DO believe that Reforned theology is wrong when it comes to the Atonement (Calvin missed the mark, Luther stuck with Thomas Aquinas...which I believe was also wrong).

But this thread is discussing two major contextual elements. I disagree with some theories in Classic Christianity as well.

My point is that there are two very different contexts in which these theories developed.

@Martin Marprelate believes this is "sad". But I am saying this is normal. John Calvin was trained in humanistic judicial philosophy. It is expected that Calvin's life influence his attempt in reforming Catholic doctrine. Luther's focus was on justification. He never even challenged Aquinas. This was based on his experience.

It is not sad because we are not saved by our theology.

 

[JonC]

Exactly right. It is, I suppose, very self-satisfying to describe one's own view as the 'classic' one, but in reality there is no such thing.

Now you are being silly....playing the fool to score a point.

You know very well that I did not come up with those terms. You also know that I disagree with several theories that fall in that category.

I don't care which category my view falls in. My criteria is what is written in God's Word. Your criteria is what you believe is taught by God's Word. These are not the same.

 

[DaveXR650]

Then you have not read enough of our Christian history. It would be like me simply saying I have read enough of Reformed theology to realize Reformed theology does not exist. It's a fairly benign but childish argument (especially since scholars have written extensively about both views).

I gave enough examples to make my point in post #6. Those can be referenced. And they have not been refuted. You don't seem to be able to show this unified, well thought out unity of "classic" thought with any references which leads me to believe it is not really there. I'm not going to go back though all this with you again. Apparently it is a thing with you and people have to just read up on it themselves.

I will say this. There doesn't seem to be works done by early churchmen where they are refuting penal substitution. I can't say that means they all believed it but if you can't show this you can't say they were against it. They seemed to have other priorities like whether Jesus was God and how did this work, for example. In modern times the arguments against penal substitution seem to be mostly from theological liberals or Socinians who are simply not fellow believers. The ones that do not fall into that camp, the Anabaptist and Mennonites and guys like Torrance, McKnight seem to, when I actually read them - not to be so much against penal substitution but they want to add other aspects of Christ's work on the cross as well as refute some of the admittedly extreme statements some advocates of penal substitution have made in the past.

 

[JonC]

I gave enough examples to make my point in post #6. Those can be referenced. And they have not been refuted. You don't seem to be able to show this unified, well thought out unity of "classic" thought with any references which leads me to believe it is not really there. I'm not going to go back though all this with you again. Apparently it is a thing with you and people have to just read up on it themselves.

I will say this. There doesn't seem to be works done by early churchmen where they are refuting penal substitution. I can't say that means they all believed it but if you can't show this you can't say they were against it. They seemed to have other priorities like whether Jesus was God and how did this work, for example. In modern times the arguments against penal substitution seem to be mostly from theological liberals or Socinians who are simply not fellow believers. The ones that do not fall into that camp, the Anabaptist and Mennonites and guys like Torrance, McKnight seem to, when I actually read them - not to be so much against penal substitution but they want to add other aspects of Christ's work on the cross as well as refute some of the admittedly extreme statements some advocates of penal substitution have made in the past.

Your examples fall short.

What you are addressing are aspectsmartinhas missed in our million plus conversations.

Classic Christianity and Latin Christianity both (every theory in those groups) believe Jesus bore our sins bodily, our sins were laid on Him, Jesus died for our sins, and by His stripes we are healed.

Think of it this way -

All atonement theories in Classic Christianity view Jesus as dying for our sins, bearing our sins, but our sins not being transferred from us. These theories view Christ bearing our sins as solidarity, not "instead of us", thus becoming the Second Adam and legitimately having the title "Son of Man". These all view Jesus as suffering unjust oppression by the powers under which mankind suffers unjust oppression.

All atonement theories in Latin Christianity view Jesus as dying for our sins instead of us. Our sins are transferred from us to Him. Satisfaction and Substitution theory limits this to "original sin" while Penal Substitution Theory focuses on sins. But each of these theories view sins in a materialistic way. Penal Substitution Theory is an exception in terms of Jesus actually experiencing a just punishment for sins by God. But the overall motif is the same.

 

[DaveXR650]

Classic Christianity and Latin Christianity both (every theory in those groups) believe Jesus bore our sins bodily, our sins were laid on Him, Jesus died for our sins, and by His stripes we are healed.

Jon. Maybe I'm not precise enough in theology. But when you say that you completely satisfy me at least and I don't really know how or even care to argue the further distinctions.

 

[JonC]

Jon. Maybe I'm not precise enough in theology. But when you say that you completely satisfy me at least and I don't really know how or even care to argue the further distinctions.

I do not understand what you mean by "when you say that you completely satisfy me".

My point is when I believed Penal Substitution Theory I also knew how that Theory developed and that it was Latin in category (it was a reworking of Aquinas). Knowing how the position came into being did not make me disbelieve it.

I do understand that you do not understand how Christians can say "Jesus died for our sins, God laid our iniquities on Him, by His stripes we are healed" in one breath and deny that Jesus died instead of us, that God punished Jesus, and that Penal Substitution Theory is unbiblical.

And that is exactly my point. Until you understand how and why you cannot determine if your position is correct because those other positions strongly believe Scripture as well.

Thus far we have not argued distinctions. I brought them up. You gave your opinion that they do not exist. To argue historical theology or theological development requires knowing historical theology and theological development.