Disagreements about the Atonement

[JonC]

Yea, like 'two peas in a pod'.

Now how long have you been waiting for that?

 

[JonC]

@DaveXR650

The question is still out there.

You have described the cross as the Father laying our sins on Jesus and punishing Him for our sins. You note that Jesus bore those sins, suffered God's punishment, and died.

Do you believe Christ Himself did anything to save us (other than passively exist)?

Also, how is your theory NOT God viewing Christ as if He were guilty and condemning Him to suffer His wrath for sins in order to clear the wicked? (How is it not an unjust abomination)

 

[DaveXR650]

The question is still out there.

You have described the cross as the Father laying our sins on Jesus and punishing Him for our sins. You note that Jesus bore those sins, suffered God's punishment, and died.

Do you believe Christ Himself did anything to save us (other than passively exist)?

Also, how is your theory NOT God viewing Christ as if He were guilty and condemning Him to suffer His wrath for sins in order to clear the wicked? (How is it not an unjust abomination)

Seriously Jon. You read like someone on the former fundy blogspot who has "deconverted" and left the faith.

Why I De-Converted from Evangelical Christianity

formerfundy.blogspot.com

I can find many of your arguments there, almost word for word. You need to be careful. Owen has a whole chapter on this type of stuff, written long before the modernist era.

One thing you can't say without looking like a blithering idiot is that Calvinists don't believe Jesus did anything to save us. That is the main argument they use against non-Calvinists. That being that Jesus did not make it possible for you to save yourself but they he actually did save the elect. Yet you go right ahead and keep affirming this and do so as a person who supposedly used to be a Calvinist.

There is an aspect of Jesus' work that was passive as well as active. Active speaking of his life of perfect obedience as well as his work as our high priest. Read Hebrews again.

As for this charge of God punishing the righteous being a contradiction of some sort, for a more complete explanation consult any of the modern apostate theologians or use the website I listed above. They make the exact same charge word for word. The fact is that we can't know how this was done precisely but we do know that we are given full explanation of the uniqueness of Jesus as fully man and fully God. A complete understanding of that will help realize that only Jesus could have done this and it explains in a sense how God is folding the just wrath for the one's he save back upon himself. And here you are saying he has no right to do this? Romans 8:32-34 explains this very well if you would just read it.

Honestly Jon, you have caused me to really look at this carefully and I do see that the case is even more convincing than I thought for the Calvinist explanation of the atonement verses the hopeful universalism or the idea of a potential atonement available to those who step forward to take it. But I still am concerned about you. You have an obviously high I.Q., seem to have time to think, and don't seem to be willing to rely on any type of pastor or teacher or mentor. You are a classic setup for deconstruction my friend.

 

[DaveXR650]

There is an aspect of Jesus' work that was passive as well as active. Active speaking of his life of perfect obedience as well as his work as our high priest. Read Hebrews again.

One other thing. In truth, even when you refer to the portion of Christ's work as passive, as in being the lamb slain, you have to remember he could not be passive like we would understand it. We could get into a situation where we would know that once beyond a certain point you are "in" for the duration. Jesus said himself he could at anytime have called legions of angels to stop everything. So, not one moment was truly passive even though it is true that it could be described as a passive thing in the sense of being done to him.

 

[kyredneck]

Now how long have you been waiting for that?

Is there anyone like @Salty, or @rsr, or @Dr. Bob, or @Scarlett O. that can compare the IP addresses of you and @easternstar besides you? That would put this to rest real quick.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

@Martin Marprelate

No, Penal Substitution Theory does not go back to the early church writers. Calvinists say they had the "elements", but make assumptions as we all believe those "elements".

The early church looked to the cross trusting God to treat them as He did Jesus. They associated their situation as being forsaken to suffer evil for God's glory trusting He would deliver them as He did Jesus.

Some think they were reading their circumstances into Scripture. But I do not. Point is you are creating a myth, and unnecessary so as antiquity does not mean correct.

But I was not replying to your. I know you do not believe what I posted. I was responding to @easternstar .

I quoted part of Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho the Jew. Someone else has quoted from Clement of Rome. Do I really have to dig them out and post them again? No, because all you will do is wait a couple of weeks and then post as if they didn't exist.

I was asking what you believed that Christ accomplished (if anything) on the cross. I asked because you seemed very focused on what the Father did to Jesus rather than anything Jesus did other than allowing it.

And I responded in considerable detail. Deal with it.

 

[JonC]

I quoted part of Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho the Jew. Someone else has quoted from Clement of Rome. Do I really have to dig them out and post them again? No, because all you will do is wait a couple of weeks and then post as if they didn't exist.

Yes, you quoted part. I provided the part you did not quote. And it was me who quoted Clement. No, this is not the place to hijack the thread. We went down this road before. You guys quote a part of their writings, assume, and dismiss the parts that disagree with your position.

Members can read their writings for themselves. But the entire thing, not just parts.

But not on this thread. Start your own and we can do what we did last time. I don't mind replying to the parts you post with parts you don't. It is a waste of time, though.

 

[JonC]

And I responded in considerable detail. Deal with it.

Yes, you always respond with considerable detail, I assume to conceal the fact you do not actually answer the question.

In the end you gave us Christ as dying and the Father accomplishing the punishment of our sins so that the Spirit could save us.

One other thing. In truth, even when you refer to the portion of Christ's work as passive, as in being the lamb slain, you have to remember he could not be passive like we would understand it. We could get into a situation where we would know that once beyond a certain point you are "in" for the duration. Jesus said himself he could at anytime have called legions of angels to stop everything. So, not one moment was truly passive even though it is true that it could be described as a passive thing in the sense of being done to him.

I agree that Jesus being the Lamb, not fighting back, is important.

I know that you believe Christ fied willingly. We all do.


But you speak of the atonement as the Father laying our sins on Jesus, the Father punishing Jesus, the Father doing this so we are not accountable, then the Father raising Jesus.

Your faith seems to present the Father rather than Christ as making salvation possible (as opening the way for the Spirit to save us).

I would agree that salvation is the work of the Trinity. But you seem to be leaving out Christ as one of those Persons who did anything.

I was just asking what you believed Christ acvomplished.

Seriously Jon. You read like someone on the former fundy blogspot who has "deconverted" and left the faith.

Why I De-Converted from Evangelical Christianity

formerfundy.blogspot.com

I can find many of your arguments there, almost word for word. You need to be careful. Owen has a whole chapter on this type of stuff, written long before the modernist era.

One thing you can't say without looking like a blithering idiot is that Calvinists don't believe Jesus did anything to save us. That is the main argument they use against non-Calvinists. That being that Jesus did not make it possible for you to save yourself but they he actually did save the elect. Yet you go right ahead and keep affirming this and do so as a person who supposedly used to be a Calvinist.

There is an aspect of Jesus' work that was passive as well as active. Active speaking of his life of perfect obedience as well as his work as our high priest. Read Hebrews again.

As for this charge of God punishing the righteous being a contradiction of some sort, for a more complete explanation consult any of the modern apostate theologians or use the website I listed above. They make the exact same charge word for word. The fact is that we can't know how this was done precisely but we do know that we are given full explanation of the uniqueness of Jesus as fully man and fully God. A complete understanding of that will help realize that only Jesus could have done this and it explains in a sense how God is folding the just wrath for the one's he save back upon himself. And here you are saying he has no right to do this? Romans 8:32-34 explains this very well if you would just read it.

Honestly Jon, you have caused me to really look at this carefully and I do see that the case is even more convincing than I thought for the Calvinist explanation of the atonement verses the hopeful universalism or the idea of a potential atonement available to those who step forward to take it. But I still am concerned about you. You have an obviously high I.Q., seem to have time to think, and don't seem to be willing to rely on any type of pastor or teacher or mentor. You are a classic setup for deconstruction my friend.

I did leave a cult (I was in the Calvinist camp). And yes, I have noticed that former cult members are strongly opposed to their former cult (I watched a show of former Scientologists and noticed that). But that is because those in the cult do not see their error, those who were never in the cult have more a passing interest, but former members recognize both the error and the danger.

Anyway, I already told you we would never agree because we hold different views of justice.

If I were to sum up justice I would repeat what God said and what is given throughout Scripture:

"He who justifies the wicked, and he who condemns ( וּמַרְשִׁ֣יעַ "declares guilty") the righteous, Both of them alike are an abomination to the Lord."

I believe that passage is true, not only because of God's words there but also because it is echoed throughout Scripture (sometimes as a plea for justice, sometimes as God's righteousness).

So obviously I believe your theory stands in opposition to God's righteousness. That is why I said we need to look at how we view justice. I trust God and His word. It has to be true because God said it.

 

[JonC]

Is there anyone like @Salty, or @rsr, or @Dr. Bob, or @Scarlett O. that can compare the IP addresses of you and @easternstar besides you? That would put this to rest real quick.

?? You seriously think he is me?

I'll show you via pm. Just 'cause I like you.

 

[JonC]

Penal Substitution theorists often extract one part of divine justice (God will not justify the wicked) from the second part of divine justice (God will not view as guilty the righteous) because these two truths cannot be reconciled with salvation in their philosophy.

But we know that God did not condemn Jesus to suffer and die, or treat Him as if He were a sinner. And we know that God did not justify the wicked.

One who justifies the wicked and one who condemns (literally views as guilty) the righteous are both an abomination to God (Prov 17:15).

It is not good to punish the righteous (Prov 17:26).

The evil man will not go unpunished, but the descendants of the righteous will be delivered (Prov 11:21).

God will punish the world for its evil and the wicked for their iniquity (Isaiah 13:11).

Scripture gives us how God is Just and the Justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts; let him return to the Lord and He will have mercy on him, and to our God, for He will abundantly pardon (Isaiah 55:7)

Amend our ways and your doings, and obey the voice of the Lord your God, and the Lord will repent of the evil that he has pronounced against you (Jeremiah 26:13)

Again, when a wicked man turns away from the wickedness which he committed, and does what is lawful and right, he preserves himself alive (Ezekiel 18:27)

The Lord, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness….forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, but who will by no means clear the guilty (Exodus 34)

He does not deal with us according to our sins, nor repay us according to our iniquities…so great is His steadfast love towards those who fear Him; as far as the east is from the west, so far does He remove our transgressions from us (Psalm 103:10-12)

You are a God ready to forgive, gracious and merciful, slow to anger in steadfast love, and did not forsake them (Neh 9:17)

The Lord is slow to anger…forgiving iniquity and transgression, but He will by no means clear the guilty (Num 14:18)

Return to Me with all your heart, and with fasting, weeping, and morning; and tear your heart and not merely your garments. Now return to the Lord your God, for He is gracious and compassionate, slow to anger, abounding in mercy and relenting of catastrophe (Joel 2:12-13)

Rid yourselves of all the offenses you have committed and get a new heart and a new spirit…for I take no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign Lord. Repent and live! (Ezekiel 18:31)

If my people who are called by my name will humble themselves and pray and will seek my face and will turn from their evil ways, then I myself shall hear from the heavens and will forgive their sins…(2 Chr 7:14)

We were once alienated from God, enemies of God. But God has reconciled us by Jesus’ physical body through death to present us holy in His sight. (Col 1:21-22) Jesus bore our sins bodily on the cross so we might die to sin and live for righteousness. (1 Pet 2:24) Because of Jesus’ suffering death He was crowned with glory so by the grace of God He might taste death for everyone. (Heb 2:9). Since the children have flesh and blood, He too shared in their humanity so that by His death He might break the power of him who hold the power of death – that is, the devil (Heb 2:14-15). What is mortal will be swallowed up by life… He died for all, so that those who live would no longer live for themselves, but for Him who died and rose on their behalf …Therefore if anyone is in Christ, this person is a new creation; the old things passed away; behold, the new things have come (2 Cor 5).

For those whom He foreknew He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, in order that He might be the Firstborn among many brothers (Rom 8:28). Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven (1 Cor 15:49). And we al, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory (2 Cor 3:18). I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me (Gal 2:20). And have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge after the image of its creator (Col 3:10). And to put on the new self, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness (Eph 4:24).

 

[JonC]

We know that Christ, while forsaken to suffer and die, was not abandoned by God.

We know that God did not forsake in terms of abandon or separate from Christ. Psalm 22 begins “My God, my god, why have You forsaken me? Far from my help are the words of my groaning. My God, I cry out by day, but You do not answer; and by night, but I have no rest”.

If you just take the first part of the verse (Psalm 22:1a) then you miss out on the way “forsaken” is being defined. Forsaken is referring to God not answering or delivering the cries for deliverance. But if you continue through the psalm you quickly realize that God is there, God has not abandoned him.

“For He has not despised nor scorned the suffering of the afflicted; nor has He hidden His face from him; But when he cried to Him for help, He heard” (Psalm 22:24)

For the Lord loves the just and will not forsake His faithful ones (Psalm 37:28). The eyes of the Lord are on the righteous, and His ears are attentive to their cry (Psalm 34:15). Be strong and courageous…He (God) will not leave you or forsake you (Deut 31:6).

 

[kyredneck]

?? You seriously think he is me?

I'll show you via pm. Just 'cause I like you.

Thank you VERY MUCH for the info. I feel better now, didn't want it to be true, sorry for being suspicious.....

 

[JonC]

Thank you VERY MUCH for the info. I feel better now, didn't want it to be true, sorry for being suspicious.....

No problem.

 

[DaveXR650]

But you speak of the atonement as the Father laying our sins on Jesus, the Father punishing Jesus, the Father doing this so we are not accountable, then the Father raising Jesus.

Your faith seems to present the Father rather than Christ as making salvation possible (as opening the way for the Spirit to save us).

You guys that hate PSA need to decide which way you want to go in refuting it. The standard argument is that God was overcome with wrath and had to punish someone. Luckily Jesus stepped forward to take the rap. So now I guess we swing over the other way to where Jesus does nothing but the Father does everything.

 

[DaveXR650]

If I were to sum up justice I would repeat what God said and what is given throughout Scripture:

"He who justifies the wicked, and he who condemns ( וּמַרְשִׁ֣יעַ "declares guilty") the righteous, Both of them alike are an abomination to the Lord."

I believe that passage is true, not only because of God's words there but also because it is echoed throughout Scripture (sometimes as a plea for justice, sometimes as God's righteousness).

So obviously I believe your theory stands in opposition to God's righteousness. That is why I said we need to look at how we view justice. I trust God and His word. It has to be true because God said it.

You keep going back to this for some reason. I don't know why because that is the very reason you have to have some aspect of penal substitution. Those scriptures explain God's high sense of justice. It's so high that in fact it is you - the one who says God can just forget about your sin as long as you repent - who is violating the principle taught in that portion of scripture.

 

[JonC]

You guys that hate PSA need to decide which way you want to go in refuting it. The standard argument is that God was overcome with wrath and had to punish someone. Luckily Jesus stepped forward to take the rap. So now I guess we swing over the other way to where Jesus does nothing but the Father does everything.

I think, just like Martin likes Beeke and Owen but disagrees with them, we do not need a camp.

If you can find a post of mine stating the Penal Substitution Theory holds God was overcome with wrath and had to punish somebody then by all means, post it and I will reply. But I do not feel a need to argue for a belief I never held.

In fact, I have never once heard of anybody making the claim that the theory holds God was overcome with anger and had to punish somebody (obviously you have read that several scholars opposed to the theory or you would not have posted it, but I have not). Or you could just be blowing smoke. Only you know, but I will offer the benefit of the doubt.

My refute is that it is illogical in how it treats sin (and inconsistent given the same language about righteousness), it is not in the biblical test, it is contrary to divine justice as described in the Bible (posted a couple of posts before this one), and it obscures what is God's words.

Where you get this weird strawman argument you cane up with is beyond me. What theologians said that the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement holds that God was overcome with anger and had to punish somebody? I mean, if God has to punish sins then why not spread them out on those who will remain lost and be done with it? Why violate His own justice to punish the righteous?

 

[DaveXR650]

In fact, I have never once heard of anybody making the claim that the theory holds God was overcome with anger and had to punish somebody (obviously you have read that several scholars opposed to the theory or you would not have posted it, but I have not). Or you could just be blowing smoke. Only you know, but I will offer the benefit of the doubt.

You must be joking. Are you really going to state that the primary argument against penal substitutionary atonement is not that it presents the Father as full of wrath so he takes it out on Jesus as in "cosmic child abuse". You've never heard of that? You've never heard that it portrays God as hateful and unforgiving and must have his revenge which fortunately he takes out on Jesus?

 

[DaveXR650]

Members can read their writings for themselves. But the entire thing, not just parts.

Are you saying that you have references of writings from early church fathers that refute penal substitution? That is the impression you are giving. If so I would at least like the references.

 

[JonC]

You keep going back to this for some reason. I don't know why because that is the very reason you have to have some aspect of penal substitution. Those scriptures explain God's high sense of justice. It's so high that in fact it is you - the one who says God can just forget about your sin as long as you repent - who is violating the principle taught in that portion of scripture.

I go back to it because it is one reason we know Penal Substitution Theory is wrong.

That was one verse stating two truths about justice. Justifying the wicked and condemning the righteous (literally calling the righteous guilty) are both abomination.

Penal Substitution Theory sees God as treating Jesus as if He were guilty (an abomination to God) in order to justify the wicked (another abomination to God).

Traditional Christianity views God as reconciling men through Christ, the wicked ceasing to be wicked and being made in the image of Christ before being justified, and God only as justifying Christ. It is a second act of Creation (alluded to in the Flood account, in Genesis 3, in Isaiah 53, in Psalm 22, etc.).

As far as I know the only theory that holds God became unjust per Scripture in order to save man is Penal Substitution Theory.

You even hear them misquote Scripture by saying "God is just and the justifier of sinners".

 

[DaveXR650]

As far as I know the only theory that holds God became unjust per Scripture in order to save man is Penal Substitution Theory.

The death of Christ on the cross enables God to forgive sinners. With what you are charging, men would be in no better of a position should they repent. It would violate that same passage for God to make someone unrighteous into someone righteous after what they had done as a sinner. That is the most obvious meaning of that passage. More importantly, no PSA does not say God became unjust, nor does it say Christ actually became unjust or sinful himself, but that he bore our sin.

You even hear them misquote Scripture by saying "God is just and the justifier of sinners".

You mean Romans 3:26 "... that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus"? Verses 23,24, and 25 explain why it is no misquote to say the justified are sinners. You are the one always saying not to take things out of context.