Satisfaction Atonement

[Charlie24]

I agree with much of your post. What I disagree with is the 'wrath of God' part -- that is PSA and unscriptural.

Well, you know how it is with us humans, we've had around 2000 years to mess it up.

We have to wade through a swamp of false doctrine to find the truth, and then can't agree on the truth.

It's a good thing for us that correct doctrine throughout the Scripture is not the requirement for our salvation.

 

[easternstar]

Well, you know how it is with us humans, we've had around 2000 years to mess it up.

We have to wade through a swamp of false doctrine to find the truth, and then can't agree on the truth.

It's a good thing for us that correct doctrine throughout the Scripture is not the requirement for our salvation.

Charlie, I believe you're a good person. You're don't come across as belligerent or aggressive. I believe we can disagree on some things without the hostility that I have encountered from some, and in other places. Discussion is possible with you because of that, and I'm enjoying the discussion. God looks at the heart, and motives. We don't even have to be right to be saved, thank God.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

They didn't move too far away from RC error when they (Calvin and Luther) took Anselm's Satisfaction Theory and expanded and worsened it into PSA. Also, the Magisterial Protestant view of God and man fits right in with the Roman/Latin/Western errors.

The Reformers corrected 'Satisfaction theory,' and by going back to the Bible were able to point to the truth of Penal Substitution. Not that PSA was a new doctrine; it was well-known in the early Church as I have shown elsewhere. I can post the relevant quotations from the ECFs again if anyone wants.

Anselm was a medieval theologian and lived under the Feudal System that was current at that time.
Suppose that two serfs get into a fight and beat each other up. In such a case, satisfaction can be achieved simply by them pardoning each other. But if a serf were to strike his feudal lord, or worse yet, the king, how much greater would the offense be considered? The serf would be most severely punished, and probably put to death. So how much greater would be the offense of sinning against God! To Anselm and his contemporaries, sin was 'not to render one's due to God.' Anselm argued that if God merely forgave sin it would be unbecoming of Him; it would be inconsistent with His character and dignity. He wrote, "It is necessary that satisfaction or punishment must follow all sin." Because of the greatness of God's character, only one who is of the status of God can make such satisfaction. The problem is that it is humans who need to make that satisfation; they are the offenders, not God. Only Jesus, the God-man, is able to make such a satisfaction, hence the cross.

The problem with Anselm's understanding is that it minimizes grace. In his presentation, what motivates God is not a loving desire to redeem sinners, but that His honour and dignity are satisfied. However, a younger contemporary, Bernard of Clairvaux (b. 1090), that it is not God's honour that is at stake but His justice. He wrote, "I was made a sinner by deriving my being from Adam ... Shall generation by a sinner be sufficient to condemn me and shall not the blood of Christ be sufficient to justify me? ... Such is the justice which man has obtained through the Redeemer' (The errors of Peter Abelard, 6,16-17). He continued: "If one died for all, then all were dead, that the satisfaction of onemight be imputed to all, as He alone bore the sins of all; and now he who offended [i.e. sinners] and He who satisfied divine justice, are found the same, because the Head and the body is one Christ" (ibid). In his famous hymn, "O sacred head sore wounded," Bernard's thoughts are still upon Christ's substitutionary death and he rightly glories in it:
I read the wondrous story,
I joy to call Thee mine.
Thy grief and Thy compassion
Were all for sinners' gain;
Mine, mine was the transgression,
But Thine the deadly pain.

 

[JonC]

This is an excellent post.
JonC, I don't need to say much, with you posting.

Yep. Probably because we are the same person.

 

[JonC]

The Reformers corrected 'Satisfaction theory,' and by going back to the Bible ...

Yes. Calvin tried to correct Satisfaction theory by going back to the Bible. That is why PSA could never reflect Biblical doctrine.
The Reformers were wrong to try and make unbiblical doctrine biblical. Satisfaction Atonement was a doctrine Calvin should have simply abandoned (the framework was wrong).

When we start with a doctrine and go back to the Bible to make it biblical we always end up with error.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Penal Subtitution was there in the Binle long before Calvin, and long before Satisfaction Atonement, as I have shown several times.

 

[JonC]

Penal Subtitution was there in the Binle long before Calvin, and long before Satisfaction Atonement, as I have shown several times.

You did try to show it. You ultimately could not show that it was IN the Bible itself as it is foreign to the biblical text.

I think most know PSA is not in the Bible itself but is instead what people have reasoned out of Scripture (their view of the sacrifice system, if justice, etc.).

This is why you - although you flood threads with Scripture - have been unable to provide any passage stating PSA. It simply is not there.

But you do provide the reason you see it.

Calvin tried to correct the doctrine of Satisfaction Atonement. You also go back to Scripture carrying this fransmework, so you see what is not there.

That is why I suggested that you try to highlight the words in your Bible that state the doctrine PSA teaches. You can't because those words are not in the biblical text.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

You cannot see PSA because you have persuaded yourself it's not there and have blinded your eyes to it, exactly as JWs and Unitarians do the the doctrine of the Trinity. I expect they call is the Theory of the Trinity. Penal Substitution is all over the Bible eg. Romans 3:25-26; Isaiah 53:esp. 5-6, 8, 10-12.

 

[DaveXR650]

You cannot see PSA because you have persuaded yourself it's not there and have blinded your eyes to it, exactly as JWs and Unitarians do the the doctrine of the Trinity. I expect they call is the Theory of the Trinity. Penal Substitution is all over the Bible eg. Romans 3:25-26; Isaiah 53:esp. 5-6, 8, 10-12.

This is true and it's amazing that whether it be the early church fathers, or more pertinent to this thread, Anselm, but whenever they had time to meditate and write about their personal journey of faith in Christ, you begin to see a natural move towards aspects of penal substitutionary atonement. Not as an argument of a system but just as a natural outflow of devotion.
"What, O Chosen Child of my Lord God, hadst Thou done to deserve such bitterness, to deserve such shame? Nothing, nothing. Undone mortal that I am, 'tis I that was the cause of all Thy tribularion and all Thy shame; 'tis I who ate the sour grapes, and Thy teeth were numbed, for Thou hast paid what Thou tookest not away."
Anselm (Ninth Meditation of the Humanity of Christ).

I think the contribution of Anselm was that he (from the writings we have) was first to systematically look at the idea that was always in scripture - that a big part of our problem is between us and God directly. This was mentioned in early church writings, but not deeply looked into. Anselm is attributed with the idea that God's sense of honor was abused and needed appeasement. However, I have read that, like Jon mentioned in post #1, Anselm was aware of and discussed that it was God's sense of justice. That God would not simply forgive sin outright because it was not his nature to do so.

 

[JonC]

You cannot see PSA because you have persuaded yourself it's not there and have blinded your eyes to it, exactly as JWs and Unitarians do the the doctrine of the Trinity. I expect they call is the Theory of the Trinity. Penal Substitution is all over the Bible eg. Romans 3:25-26; Isaiah 53:esp. 5-6, 8, 10-12.

You are wrong. I do see PSA exactly as you see PSA and in the same passages.

The difference is I also see God's words ("what is written") and have chosen His words over PSA.

The reason you see PSA all over those passages is you are bringing PSA into those passages (the biblical text does not state what you believe it teaches).

That is why you are unqualified to hold your view. Until you are able (until the scales fall from your eyes) to understand what the atonement would mean if it meant exactly "what is written" you have no way of evaluating what the Bible states vs what you believe it teaches.

 

[JonC]

This is true and it's amazing that whether it be the early church fathers, or more pertinent to this thread, Anselm, but whenever they had time to meditate and write about their personal journey of faith in Christ, you begin to see a natural move towards aspects of penal substitutionary atonement.

This is faulty logic. There is no move towards PSA, but instead - like Martin mentioned - Calvin sought to correct Anselm's doctrine.

Each of those views were complete in and of themselves.

The question is which one is correct.

The biblical text makes sence and is complete. I know you do not see that, but many do. Why should anybody who views God's words ("what is written") as perfectly explaining the Atonement exchange that for any view about what is really taught by the Bible...much less one 1500 years in tge making?

The logical conclusion is you do not believe God's words accurately explain the cross. So you look for theologies to give you the "truth".

Try writing down what the Bible states (the actual biblical text). If that still appears deficient to you, then follow which ever men tickle your ears (whether Calvin's PSA, Luther's Satisfaction, Anselm's Satisfaction, Aquinas' Substitution, Irenaeus' Recapitilation, or Abelard's Moral Influence).

There are plenty of men to choose from, and if the biblical text is too difficult for you to understand as a complete explanation in itself then it probably does not matter which men you decide to follow.

 

[DaveXR650]

This is faulty logic. There is no move towards PSA, but instead - like Martin mentioned - Calvin sought to correct Anselm's doctrine.

Not faulty at all. The cosmic aspects of Christ's work on earth are important and sometimes neglected in modern Christianity. But even reading early church writers, or Augustine era or Anselm and Aquinas, eventually devout men start thinking about their personal standing before God and what exactly did Christ's life and atonement do or have to to, with them. And then you start seeing thoughts which parallel penal substitution, like the one I quoted above from Anselm. It simply must be because it is true.

You have developed a deep and personal animosity towards what is a central aspect of our standing before God. Your logic and arguments are not convincing. I only hope that I don't contribute to your animosity because I believe it is spiritually dangerous.

There is and always will be a move towards some type of penal substitutionary motif in a full understanding of the atonement whenever men really look at the scriptures (which actually are the most compelling source for PSA), but also when earnest Christians write about their thoughts of their own sin and how they can come before a Holy God.

 

[JonC]

Not faulty at all.

It is faulty logic. You assume God's Word is imperfect (that it took 1500 years worth of steps to arrive at the truth...a truth which a minority of Christians hold).

This is no different from Mormonism in terms of logic. And Mormons also view their doctrine as the most compelling. Mormon scholars and theologians also write in earnest.

I find the explanation of the atonement as given in the actual biblical text the most compelling. So obviously I will not return to PSA.

Men are very compelling, on that we agree.

But put yourself in my shoes. I read what the biblical text states about the cross and find it does not need to be expounded upon - it does not need men to say what it really teaches. Why on Earth would I abandon that for what men teach, regardless of how compelling I find those men?


You are also wrong in pretending I am trying to convince anybody here by arguments. It is not on me to defend God's words. People either believe them or they don't. Those who don't look to men to teach them what tge Bible really means (whether PSA, the doctrine of Satisfaction Atonement, the Moral Influence doctrine, Mormon doctrine, JW doctrine....whatever).


I have simply encouraged members to write down what the biblical text states about the cross and at least pretend that is all to know. Once you understand how the atonement woukd look strictly by "what is written" then compare it to alternatives men have offered about what the Bible really teaches. Then choose who to follow.

 

[DaveXR650]

It is faulty logic. You assume God's Word is imperfect (that it took 1500 years worth of steps to arrive at the truth...a truth which a minority of Christians hold).

Saying that over and over won't make it true. PSA was not systematically explained in the early church writings but it is there. I don't know what you think you will accomplish by repeating something so foolish in spite of the effort people everywhere make to show you otherwise.

I find the explanation of the atonement as given in the actual biblical text the most compelling. So obviously I will not return to PSA.

The biblical text is full of God's reaction to man's sin as being wrath. It is full of the idea of man being unholy and the idea that it is dangerous for sinful man to even look directly at God in safety. The idea that we have a problem in facing God as sinful humans cannot be fully explained by Christ's victory over Satan, or tricking Satan.

But put yourself in my shoes. I read what the biblical text states about the cross and find it does not need to be expounded upon - it does not need men to say what it really teaches. Why on Earth would I abandon that for what men teach, regardless of how compelling I find those men?

You've shared your story and frankly I could not put my self in your shoes because I don't have enough self esteem to think I could figure this out all myself. I certainly will check and double check and evaluate and pray for wisdom but I do value "what men teach".

 

[JonC]

I don't have enough self esteem to think I could figure this out all myself.

You have more confidence in your own intellect than I. You chose which mem to trust - the ones you found compelling. I did at one time but set aside my own self pride and understanding to submit to God.

Ultimately it is about who we trust. You trust a specific sect of Reformers. I trust God.

I understand and would have just as soon kept PSA and that tradition. It is new, but we'll documented. It is simplistic and makes no demands of the believer. I did not want to abandon PSA.

But I could not trust in my own understanding.


Why don't you do as I suggested several threads ago? Write down what the Bible states (God's words, "what is written"). Read those words as if PSA is completely wrong. See what the atonement would mean if the biblical text itself said all there is to know.

Then choose between God's words and which ever men you fond compelling.

That way at least you would understand the difference, then decide. I am pretty sure you will be held accountable whether you do this or not, so you have nothing to loose.

 

[DaveXR650]

I did at one time but set aside my own self pride and understanding to submit to God.

Every single cult and new split has done exactly what you describe. As a human, it is a fact that what you really mean above is simply that you have changed your mind and gone in a different direction. And then you go on about how you do right but of course I couldn't possibly have done like you.

Why don't you do as I suggested several threads ago? Write down what the Bible states (God's words, "what is written"). Read those words as if PSA is completely wrong. See what the atonement would mean if the biblical text itself said all there is to know.

There are verses in Hebrews, Peter, and Romans that simply cannot be accounted for without some form of penal substitution or at least vicarious satisfaction. You have been confronted with verses for years on here by @Martin Marprelate , me, and several others and you respond by just blowing us off.

In addition, you completely refuse to acknowledge what is commonly understood by everyone else, that the early church fathers did not have a detailed and unified view of the atonement, and some of the views they did hold are obviously in error. I've said before and I'll say it again, there are indeed other things going on with Christ's atonement than PSA, but you do have PSA as a central facet.

 

[JonC]

Every single cult and new split has done exactly what you describe. As a human, it is a fact that what you really mean above is simply that you have changed your mind and gone in a different direction. And then you go on about how you do right but of course I couldn't possibly have done like you.

There are verses in Hebrews, Peter, and Romans that simply cannot be accounted for without some form of penal substitution or at least vicarious satisfaction. You have been confronted with verses for years on here by @Martin Marprelate , me, and several others and you respond by just blowing us off.

In addition, you completely refuse to acknowledge what is commonly understood by everyone else, that the early church fathers did not have a detailed and unified view of the atonement, and some of the views they did hold are obviously in error. I've said before and I'll say it again, there are indeed other things going on with Christ's atonement than PSA, but you do have PSA as a central facet.

I did change my mind. I chose God's words. The reason was I believe God's Word is His revelation to us about redemption (that is my personal belief as well).

My point is we need to understand before we choose who to follow.

I do not know why you try to keep God's words at arms length. You could simply read "what is written" without adding PSA and then decide. But you will not.


Those "elements" you see in Christianity for the first 1000 years are elements we all believe. They were not pieces of truth waiting 1000 years for Anselm to construct a framework and another 500 years for Calvin to correct.

As far as the passages are concerned, they do not depend on PSA. Nobody has questioned the penal and substitution asoects of the cross. It is dishonest to look back and pretend those are elements of PSA (they are elements common to every position).


Why won't you take the time just to read God's words as if PSA were wrong and "what is written" is everything we can know about the atonement (just pretend)?

That way you would understand PSA and the atonement per only the biblical text. Then choose PSA if you desire. If you do then you can read the conclusions of other men as well (who knows, you may side with Luther or Ellen White).

 

[JonC]

You have been confronted with verses for years on here by @Martin Marprelate , me, and several others and you respond by just blowing us off.

This is dishonest.

You and @Martin Marprelate have provided verses, but the passages you provide do not support PSA any more than they support my view....or other views.

If you provide a passage stating the doctrine of PSA (without men you find compelling telling us what those passages "really" mean) then I will address them. But so far you have not even provided one.


Do you believe that viewing the just as guilty, clearing the guilty, and punishing the righteous are all abominations to God?

Do you believe that God can forgive sins on the basis of true repentance?

 

[DaveXR650]

My point is we need to understand before we choose who to follow.

We do the best we can. Like you did before you became enlightened. Give the rest of us the same grace. Maybe develop a little humility. Guys like you and Dr. Flowers crack me up because you boldly teach what is now stupid error on my part, yet suddenly, after enlightenment, you go on - with the same sureness of your new position you had before. You know, the same position that is dishonest and ridiculous in me. I'm reasonably sure you will move on from this too. And don't feel too bad. I do it too.

Those "elements" you see in Christianity for the first 1000 years are elements we all believe. They were not pieces of truth waiting 1000 years for Anselm to construct a framework and another 500 years for Calvin to correct.

At least we've moved it back 500 years. Maybe there is still hope. But you're right in that the elements were indeed there all along and I think most people did indeed believe them. Also, keep in mind that there was a lot we had to correct in the early church fathers. They had too high a view of Satan and his rights to ransom and so on.

Do you believe that viewing the just as guilty, clearing the guilty, and punishing the righteous are all abominations to God?

Yes

Do you believe that God can forgive sins on the basis of true repentance?

Yes. And because of the atonement for sin God can do so and still satisfy his own sense of justice. Remember he also functions as supreme judge. This is a role that a lot of you guys try to pretend is not in scripture. That's why you have to read scripture and keep everything in mind when you read another passage. Otherwise you will make the Socinian error above of acting like there is something wrong with God for demanding justice in the forgiveness of sins.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

You are wrong. I do see PSA exactly as you see PSA and in the same passages.

The difference is I also see God's words ("what is written") and have chosen His words over PSA.

The reason you see PSA all over those passages is you are bringing PSA into those passages (the biblical text does not state what you believe it teaches).

That is why you are unqualified to hold your view. Until you are able (until the scales fall from your eyes) to understand what the atonement would mean if it meant exactly "what is written" you have no way of evaluating what the Bible states vs what you believe it teaches.

This is just too pathetic to deserve an answer. The Biblical text says exactly what I believe it says, and I have given two examples to prove it. I have explained those texts, but you are blinded by your own prejudices.