God is Just and the Justifier of Sinners (Continuation)

[JonC]

@DaveXR650

If you really are interested in historical theology, this may help (especially since you were unaware this even existed):

"The terms "Latin" and "classical" in the context of atonement refer to distinct theological persoectives on the meaning and effect of Jesus' death. The Latin or Anselmic view emphasizes that Christ's death satisgied God's justice by paying the penalty for human sin. The "classical" view focuses on Christ's victory over evil, particularly sin and death, liberating humanity from their bondage."

​

"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 . . .
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." (Morrison)


"the Latin view teaches an ‘objective’ Atonement, according to which God is the object of Christ’s atoning work, and is reconciled through the satisfaction made to His justice” . . .the classic idea or dramatic view of atonement, sometimes glossed as the ransom theory. . . .The classic idea differs from the objective theory or Latin view in that it is from first to last a work of God Himself, rather than an offering made to God by Christ as man and on man’s behalf.” (Banack)


Those are just three examples - not my words, and one is from somebody who favors Reforned theology - simply to demonstrate that there is a world of Christian history you and @Martin Marprelate are unaware exists. Knowing the past helps us understand the present.

 

[DaveXR650]

Jesus bore our sins bodily, our sins were laid on Him, Jesus died for our sins, and by His stripes we are healed.

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

I mean two things. First, that I am satisfied that you are not a modern Socinian or a member of the modern theological school that makes the cross not directly essential for dealing with our sin as individuals. That belief is common and those that hold to such a belief, while they may still be involved in churches and seminaries are not Christians.

Second, the first quote above is essentially penal substitution. As soon as you say "our sins were laid on Him" and that "Jesus died for our sins" and "by His stripes we are healed" you have penal substitution. To try to claim some kind of distinction where if our sins were laid on him instead of left on us changes the meaning is meaningless. If you want to keep arguing that it's OK with me but I don't see the distinction and feel like you are simply causing yourself needless consternation.

 

[DaveXR650]

Those are just three examples - not my words, and one is from somebody who favors Reforned theology - simply to demonstrate that there is a world of Christian history you and @Martin Marprelate are unaware exists. Knowing the past helps us understand the present.

I can't speak for Martin but there is certainly a world of Christian history that I am not familiar with. But what I am finding as I read Torrance, or McKnight, or the early church fathers, is that they seem to never refute penal substitution. McKnight flat out says it's an essential part of understanding the atonement, Torrance dovetails and somewhat merges the Christ as Victor, the Ransom, and penal substitution together, and the early church fathers seemed in some cases to not be aware of it, but some seem to be developing it and once again, none refute it, although some of the early church fathers seemed to have some strange ideas as I have mentioned earlier. I keep reading as I have time but so far have not seen any refutation of penal substitutionary atonement and I think as Schreiner (I think it was) said, that it is a core doctrine of Christianity, as did Packer, for sure.

 

[JonC]

I mean two things. First, that I am satisfied that you are not a modern Socinian or a member of the modern theological school that makes the cross not directly essential for dealing with our sin as individuals. That belief is common and those that hold to such a belief, while they may still be involved in churches and seminaries are not Christians.

Second, the first quote above is essentially penal substitution. As soon as you say "our sins were laid on Him" and that "Jesus died for our sins" and "by His stripes we are healed" you have penal substitution. To try to claim some kind of distinction where if our sins were laid on him instead of left on us changes the meaning is meaningless. If you want to keep arguing that it's OK with me but I don't see the distinction and feel like you are simply causing yourself needless consternation.

On the first point:

That you would claim I am rejecting the Trinity and the truth that Jesus is God (Socinianism) or that the Cross does not deal with our sins as individuals is evidence that you are merely employing ad hominem to score a "win". I am going to ignore your first point because it is stupid and intended merely as an insult.

On the second point:

You are demonstrating my point. Far too many theologians have read "Jesus bore our sins" and understood it as solidarity rather than Penal substitution.

I am not saying that you have to believe the Classic position correct.

I am saying that you cannot read "Jesus bore our sins" without seeing "instead of us" because of indoctrination.

Once you can read "Jesus bore our sins, God laid our iniquities on Him, by His stripes we are healed" AND grasp both views (penal substitution's conclusion, which you understand AND the historical view that most Christians have held) THEN you can determine which is correct.

But until you are able to understand both you will not be able to defend your own view.

 

[JonC]

I can't speak for Martin but there is certainly a world of Christian history that I am not familiar with. But what I am finding as I read Torrance, or McKnight, or the early church fathers, is that they seem to never refute penal substitution. McKnight flat out says it's an essential part of understanding the atonement, Torrance dovetails and somewhat merges the Christ as Victor, the Ransom, and penal substitution together, and the early church fathers seemed in some cases to not be aware of it, but some seem to be developing it and once again, none refute it, although some of the early church fathers seemed to have some strange ideas as I have mentioned earlier. I keep reading as I have time but so far have not seen any refutation of penal substitutionary atonement and I think as Schreiner (I think it was) said, that it is a core doctrine of Christianity, as did Packer, for sure.

With the Early Church fathers you will not find that they refute Penal Substitution Theory- even though each taught that Jesus died under unjust oppression, Jesus died under the powers of evil, Jesus died for the sins of the "human family", Jesus suffered the consequences of sin which is a physical death (Penal Substitution Theory focuses on a fictional form of spiritual death) with "the wrath to come" being Christ-centered and because of the Cross.

The reason you think their virw is Penal Substitution even though a lot of their view negates Penal Substitution is because you read Penal Substitution into "Jesus died for our sins".

Even @Martin Marprelate acknowledged Penal Substitution did not exist as such prior to the Refornation (@Martin Marprelate claimed the elements were there...he also said ot was "in embryo").

 

[DaveXR650]

First, that I am satisfied that you are not a modern Socinian or a member of the modern theological school that makes the cross not directly essential for dealing with our sin as individuals. That belief is common and those that hold to such a belief, while they may still be involved in churches and seminaries are not Christians.

That you would claim I am rejecting the Trinity and the truth that Jesus is God (Socinianism) or that the Cross does not deal with our sins as individuals is evidence that you are merely employing ad hominem to score a "win". I am going to ignore your first point because it is stupid and intended merely as an insult.

How nice of you to ignore my first point - since it was never made. Notice the seventh word, "not"? That means I am not accusing you of being in that group. I don't need to do anything to score a win with you because your position is untenable and you push a strange and non-existent nuanced version of some form of a classic theology that never did exist. You're weird. You take offense where none was offered. I think you know your constant attempt on here to mess up a teaching that so many hold is not working so you try this stuff. I'm done with discussion with you.

 

[JonC]

How nice of you to ignore my first point - since it was never made. Notice the seventh word, "not"? That means I am not accusing you of being in that group. I don't need to do anything to score a win with you because your position is untenable and you push a strange and non-existent nuanced version of some form of a classic theology that never did exist. You're weird. You take offense where none was offered. I think you know your constant attempt on here to mess up a teaching that so many hold is not working so you try this stuff. I'm done with discussion with you.

Lol.....sorry. I have not been awake long. I misread asked misunderstood your post.

History is actually interesting. Christian history and how doctrines developed is also fascinating. These developments, many of which posed opposing conclusions, are a part of our history as Christians.

I am not "trying to mess up" ANY teaching...quite the opposite. I am defending these beliefs - EVEN Penal Substitution Theory - not that they are all true but that each has a right to be viewed as they are.

Penal Substitution Theory is more than "Jesus bore our sins, died for our sins, and by His stripes we are healed". YOU are messing with Penal Substitution Theory.

Penal Substitution Theory also includes other beliefs which stand in contrast to the understanding others who affirm "Jesus bore our sins, died for our sins, by His stripes we are healed" hold.

You are messing with Penal Substitution Theory by trying to hide things the Theory affirms but are not found in God's Word.

These include:

1. Jesus suffered instead of us
2. Jesus suffered God's wrath
3. Jesus' death satisfied the demands of divine justice
4. God cannot forgive sins and must punish sins
5. The wages of sin Christ suffered is spiritual death
6. Sins are materialistic in nature (things to be transferred)
7. The primary issue the Cross addressed is sinful actions

Those are just a few things present in Penal Substitution Theory but absent in the passages we all believe.


Far too many Christians have understood "our sins are laid on Him" to mean solidarity (Jesus being the Second Adam or "Son of Man") rather than "our sins were transferred from us" for your second point to be logical.

 

[JesusFan]

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).

Where did that wrath that God must exercise in divine judgement and condemnation towards our sins go then?

 

[JesusFan]

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.

Do think the very framework of Pauline Justification and the OT sacrificial system pointed towards Penal substitutionary atonement of the Promised Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53

 

[JesusFan]

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.

Your view is NT Wright, so that is why we needed to address that , as He has divorced Himself from both Reformed and Baptist theologies regarding Atonement

 

[JesusFan]

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.

Jesus as the Mesiah sin bearer born within Himslf and received and accepted from God the father what He experiences, not form "worldly injustice"

 

[JesusFan]

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.

Again, you are speaking as if you are able to discern your view is the right view, ours are all wrong, did the Holy Spirit give to you revelation knowledge on this issue then?

 

[JesusFan]

Lol.....sorry. I have not been awake long. I misread asked misunderstood your post.

History is actually interesting. Christian history and how doctrines developed is also fascinating. These developments, many of which posed opposing conclusions, are a part of our history as Christians.

I am not "trying to mess up" ANY teaching...quite the opposite. I am defending these beliefs - EVEN Penal Substitution Theory - not that they are all true but that each has a right to be viewed as they are.

Penal Substitution Theory is more than "Jesus bore our sins, died for our sins, and by His stripes we are healed". YOU are messing with Penal Substitution Theory.

Penal Substitution Theory also includes other beliefs which stand in contrast to the understanding others who affirm "Jesus bore our sins, died for our sins, by His stripes we are healed" hold.

You are messing with Penal Substitution Theory by trying to hide things the Theory affirms but are not found in God's Word.

These include:

1. Jesus suffered instead of us
2. Jesus suffered God's wrath
3. Jesus' death satisfied the demands of divine justice
4. God cannot forgive sins and must punish sins
5. The wages of sin Christ suffered is spiritual death
6. Sins are materialistic in nature (things to be transferred)
7. The primary issue the Cross addressed is sinful actions

Those are just a few things present in Penal Substitution Theory but absent in the passages we all believe.


Far too many Christians have understood "our sins are laid on Him" to mean solidarity (Jesus being the Second Adam or "Son of Man") rather than "our sins were transferred from us" for your second point to be logical.

God the Father indeed cannot forgive sins without shedding of blood and someone bearing his wrath and judgement towards their sins, and we never stated Jesus died a spiritual death, as that is akin to Word of Faith teaching, not Calvinism

 

[Martin Marprelate]

"The terms "Latin" and "classical" in the context of atonement refer to distinct theological persoectives on the meaning and effect of Jesus' death. The Latin or Anselmic view emphasizes that Christ's death satisgied God's justice by paying the penalty for human sin. The "classical" view focuses on Christ's victory over evil, particularly sin and death, liberating humanity from their bondage."

Unfortunately this is wrong right from the start. Anselm, in his book Cur Deus Homo, did not teach that Christ's death "satisgied" God's justice, but His outraged honour. Therefore some writers on the subject do not include Anselm among the many Church Fathers who supported Penal Substitution.
The fact is that for several hundred years after the apostles, there was very little discussion about the Atonement. The ECFs were taken up with refuting Gnosticism and Arianism, and these topics dominated their writings. When they did write about PSA, they certainly presented it at times as Christ's victory over Satan, and as the payment of a ransom. Both these are true, but neither of them refute PSA. Christus Victor is certainly true - who believes in Christus Loser? - but His victory over Satan was in paying the penalty for our sins so that the devil can no longer accuse God's people of sin (Rev. !2:10). The ransom, of course, was paid to God's justice and not to Satan as Origen taught. Even the 'moral Influence' theory is valid, so long as it does not supersede PSA. Of course, when we think of what Christ has done for us as our Divine substitute, it should fill us with love and a desire to live for Him.
But right from the start, there was an understanding among the ECFs that Christ had paid the penalty for our sins as a substitute for us:

'In love the Ruler took us to Himself. Because of the love He had for us, Christ our Lord gave His blood for us by the will of God; His flesh for our flesh, His life for our life' [1 Clement:: xlix]

Irenaeus is remarkably similar. 'The Lord redeemed us by His blood and gave His life for our life, His flesh for our flesh, and poured out the Spirit of the Father to unite us and reconcile God and man.' 'Adversus Haereses,' v. i. 1-2]

Now where is Christus Victor in either of those extracts? It's not there. What is there is Substitution: 'His flesh for our flesh, His life for our life.' The word 'for' is capable of a number of meanings, but if you buy a car for $5,000, there is an exchange. You get the car, and the seller gets $5,000 instead of the car - as a substitute for it.

One thing is abundantly certain; unless Christ has paid the just penalty for your sins as a substitute - His flesh for your flesh, His life for your life - you will have to pay it yourself.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Even @Martin Marprelate acknowledged Penal Substitution did not exist as such prior to the Refornation (@Martin Marprelate claimed the elements were there...he also said ot was "in embryo").

That is utterly false and you know it! You need to withdraw and apologize. I stated that ONE ECF gave Penal Substitution in embryo. Other Early Church Fathers give much more detail as I have shown over the years..

 

[Martin Marprelate]

@Martin Marprelate

It isn't sad at all.

I'm still waiting to learn from you what I wrote was sad, or failing that, for an apology. Please get on with it.

 

[JesusFan]

That is utterly false and you know it! You need to withdraw and apologize. I stated that ONE ECF gave Penal Substitution in embryo. Other Early Church Fathers give much more detail as I have shown over the years..

Those really adamant against Penal substitution atonement always seem to just see wrath of God as being a pagan concept, and that for God to pour out His divine arath upon Jesus would be "pagan and barbaric"

 

[JonC]

I'm still waiting to learn from you what I wrote was sad, or failing that, for an apology. Please get on with it.

I did. The quote in the OP. You said it was "sad".

 

[JonC]

That is utterly false and you know it! You need to withdraw and apologize. I stated that ONE ECF gave Penal Substitution in embryo. Other Early Church Fathers give much more detail as I have shown over the years..

Let's make it simple - quote an ECF that stated Jesus suffered God's wrath so we wouldn't. If you can, great...I'll apologize and admit I was wrong. I'm sure you'd do the same if you can't.

NOTE..
Don't quote somebody and tell me what opinion is about what they thought (I do not care about your opinion)
Just give a quote or an apology. Thanks.

 

[JonC]

Where did that wrath that God must exercise in divine judgement and condemnation towards our sins go then?

Again, you are viewing wrath and sin as materialistic things.

When you are angry at a friend, your friend apologizes, and you forgive him where do you put your wrath
..where does it go?

Do you believe that God is able to forgive sins, or is that a superpower man alone has (that man is greater than God when it comes to forgiveness)?