Satisfaction Atonement

[JonC]

This is what I find confusing and more than a little frustrating. Sometimes you say things that I would consider perfectly within a view of Christ's atonement as far concerns a Christian brother. ...

All of what I say are perfectly within a view od Christ's atonement as far concerns a Christian brother (as are what you say). There is not one single view of atonement held by all believers. There are, instead, many different understandings.

It's almost like two people are posting in your name.

This is because when you understand aspects that are similar to PSA to be PSA. You could say the same of the Early Church writings, or traditional Anabaptist theology. On one hand they state what you see as PSA, but on another they hold doctrines that oppose PSA.

The solution is to take my belief (and their beliefs) for what they are rather than how they would fit within a different framework.

I do not accept that there is a "Classic view".

You do not have to. But if it helps, no Christian theologian rejects that there is a Classic view.

Had I not been required to study Church history, the differences between the Latin (Western) and Greek (Eastern) Church writers, and historical theology then I would not know either.

But, ironically, you not believing there is a Classic view is one you hold in isolation from Christian theology. Are you a Landmark Baptist by chance?

But you disagree with us posting definitions of PSA that come from the major writings on PSA and from old and new sources.

No, I do not disagree with you posting definitions of PSA. I also posted the definition from Sproul, MacArthur, Enns and Beeke (all Reformed).

I told you that I am willing to acceot your definition of PSA, even though that means my belief falls under that definition.

I am just not sure how we discuss differences if we lump all of Christianity as PSA. You considered the Eastern Orthodox statement to be PSA, but we know that they hold a very different view.

May I suggest, from what you have just said, that since you have agreed that according to some of my definitions and descriptions of PSA you are in agreement with part of what is described as PSA.

I am in agreement with what PSA has in common with my belief.

1. On one page list all of the passages you provided, the ECF writings we both offered, take the theologians I offered.

2. On a second page list the definitions of PSA offered.

3. Erase everything from the second page that is not on the first page, and you have my belief.

you hit "like" and agree, and then turn around a few posts later in a conciliar mood and make a series of statements which to me at least agree with PSA!

We do not have an "agree" option. Like and agree ate not the same thing.

I agree with 90% of PSA (how it is traditionally defined) as it is common to every view of the Atonement. It is that 10% that you dismiss which I find wrong.

So per your definition I do hold PSA (but per your definition every Christian holds PSA).

 

[JesusFan]

A brief comment: I view Anselm's Satisfaction Theory as somewhat less objectionable than PSA, and if I had to choose between the theories of Aquinas and Anselm, I'd reluctantly choose Aquinas. But I reject all theories developed in the West, PSA being the most heinous, because they totally misrepresent the character of God.

No, Psa upholds the truth that for God to remain Holy Judge, and still eb able to freely justify the ungodly, someone must atone for personal sins

 

[JesusFan]

@Charlie24

What I have learned through these forums is Calvinists can only understand through Calvinism. When they read the Bible they read through that lens.

Think of our disagreement. I objected to PSA because, as you acknowledged, it is not in the Bible (the biblical text). But you said that reading the text you see PSA and cannot understand it differently.

You are in the shoes I wore when dealing with PSA.

Calvinists have been told the ink blot is a bat. They will never see the ink for what it really is. They will always see a bat.

You do the very same thing though Brother, as you have chosen to just see the atromement thru the lens of PSA must be false, so however Calvinists see it as being int he scriptures must also be false

 

[JesusFan]

PSA holds that God punished and killed Jesus. Isaiah 53 contradicts that. And the theory is an insult to God's character.

No, you have just strawman our views, as we hold that Isaiah 53 teaches to us that the promised messiah would come and die in the place of, and for the sin debt of His own people, to take upon himself what we deserved in order to atone for us, and to have the father now able to justify us forgive and save us due to Jesus being willing to take upon Himself what was meant to be for us

 

[JesusFan]

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.

Except the psa atonement view fist best the Pauline Justification theology inspired by the Holy Spirit

 

[JonC]

@DaveXR650

A lot of the disagreement we have is based on the presuppositions we hold. I tried to discuss these in the past but was "shouted down".

Everybody has presuppostions. These are based on our experiences, our cultures, our worldviews, etc. Every doctrine of the atonement carries its own presuppositions.


I disagee with PSA "proper" (the theological definition of "Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement") as it assumes several ideas I do not share.

One difference is justice. I hold a different philosophy of justice, which means I hold a different philosophy of divine justice.

Other differences are how we understand repentance and sin. I view sin as a more severe problem. I view repentance as more substantial than, to quote @Martin Marprelate , "saying I'm sorry". We also differ on what was accomplished on the cross. We hold a different focus (between the Father forgiving and Christ accomplishing).

On the surface we would use the same words, but beneath the surface there is a different understanding.

So yes, by your standard I do hold PSA. But coming from a theological background, to me I do not hold PSA.


The disagreements are substantial but not so substantial as to divorce either of us from being a child of God (which you imply to be the case).

I approach historical Christianity not to find "elements" that would become something else centuries later but to understand what they actually believed and why.

I approach Scripture the same way - to see what is being stated in the actual text and how it would have been received by the original audience rather than looking for biblical support of my belief.

 

[DaveXR650]

You do not have to. But if it helps, no Christian theologian rejects that there is a Classic view.

There is not a monolithic "Classic view". You have listed views all over the place yourself. Craig and Cooper say that there is no monolithic Classic view. I appreciate your input but I'm going with them rather than you

We do not have an "agree" option. Like and agree ate not the same thing.

I agree with 90% of PSA (how it is traditionally defined) as it is common to every view of the Atonement. It is that 10% that you dismiss which I find wrong.

So per your definition I do hold PSA (but per your definition every Christian holds PSA).

Which would be why I put "like" in quotations and not agree. Which you then reversed for some reason.
You hit the "like" button and by doing so indicate that you agree with the statement. If we are going to discuss this we have to use the definitions that are used. It is not acceptable to say that you agree with the given definition but that's not really what you think PSA is. If you cannot articulate that I guess we are done. Why in the world would I sit around with a piece of paper and write down all you believe about PSA. Everything that I have said, and @Martin Marprelate for that matter, seems to be easily verified and referenced. That doesn't make it necessarily right but you are all over the place and by doing what you do here with definitions make serious discussion impossible.

 

[JonC]

There is not a monolithic "Classic view".

There is a uniform Classic view. No credible theologian questions this (you are holding an isolated opinion divorced from Christian scholarship).

But it is a general view - the purpose of the atonement was to destroy the power of Satan and reconcile man to God.

What some question is how much their experience influenced their understanding. That said, this uniform view persists even to today.

I do not care who you decide to go with. Each of us have to make that decision for themselves. I do think if you would take the time to read the Ante Nicean writings rather than opinions about them you would have a different opinion.

You hit the "like" button and by doing so indicate that you agree with the statement.

No. I hit the "like" button to indicate that I like the comment. I liked presentations of PSA. I do not agree with them.

Sorry, but you do not get to dictate my motivations.

but you are all over the place and by doing what you do here with definitions make serious discussion impossible.

No, although I realize it seems that way to you.

My view is really simple and straight forward. Take the passages about the atonement and read them. Don't add what you think they teach, but pretend the only thing they teach is "what is written" (the faith once delivered). That is what I believe

Christ is the reconciliation of God and man. By faith we inherit the blessing of the New Covenant. We enter God's kingdom, and are predestined to be made into His image - the old passes away and we are made new.

PSA, as you and Martin have described, is all over the place. God cannot forgive sins so He transfers our sins to Jesus, laying them on Jesus He punishes them to satisfy the debt we owe. God looks at Jesus as if He were a sinner, but He knows Jesus is really righteous. God abandoned Jesus on the cross, seperated from Him as this is our penalty but not in such a way that there was a separation between the Father and Son as this would break the Trinity. But God judged Jesus as if He were guilty without violating His law not to judge the just as guilty in order to justify the wicked but not in a way that violates His law not to justify the wicked. Jesus is the propitiation for our sins, He propitiated God's wrath, but not really because God has to express His wrath so Jesus experienced that wrath. Then the Holy Spirit regenerates us so we have faith. We are unrighteous but God looks at us as if we are righteous. If we sin Jesus advocates for us, but He already paid for those sins. He is our High Priest who offers propitiation when we sin, but propitiation for sins that He has already paid. Sometime before or after judgment we will be incorruptible and righteous. But Martin says we will not be righteous because if only the righteous enter the kingdom of God it will be empty.

Have you even considered that you reason away over 1,000 verses about forgiveness?

 

[DaveXR650]

There is a uniform Classic view. No credible theologian questions this (you are holding an isolated opinion divorced from Christian scholarship).

I gave you two examples.

But it is a general view - the purpose of the atonement was to destroy the power of Satan and reconcile man to God.

Then to the extent that is true every advocate who wrote on PSA included those aspects also. This is simply fact. PSA only attempts specifically to explain the last part in detail, using mainly scripture.

No. I hit the "like" button to indicate that I like the comment. I liked presentations of PSA. I do not agree with them.

Sorry, but you do not get to dictate my motivations.

It seems that should work both ways.

PSA, as you and Martin have described, is all over the place. God cannot forgive sins so He transfers our sins to Jesus, laying them on Jesus He punishes them to satisfy the debt we owe. God looks at Jesus as if He were a sinner, but He knows Jesus is really righteous. God abandoned Jesus on the cross, seperated from Him as this is our penalty but not in such a way that there was a separation between the Father and Son as this would break the Trinity. But God judged Jesus as if He were guilty without violating His law not to judge the just as guilty in order to justify the wicked but not in a way that violates His law not to justify the wicked. Jesus is the propitiation for our sins, He propitiated God's wrath, but not really because God has to express His wrath so Jesus experienced that wrath. Then the Holy Spirit regenerates us so we have faith. We are unrighteous but God looks at us as if we are righteous. If we sin Jesus advocates for us, but He already paid for those sins. He is our High Priest who offers propitiation when we sin, but propitiation for sins that He has already paid. Sometime before or after judgment we will be incorruptible and righteous. But Martin says we will not be righteous because if only the righteous enter the kingdom of God it will be empty.

Have you even considered that you reason away over 1,000 verses about forgiveness?

My goodness. You have just done a good job of concisely (and cynically) putting forth the objections raised by Faustus Socinus. The way and tone of how you do that frankly scares me. It looks like a repudiation of the Christian faith. I think it was in Craig's book on the atonement that he points out how it is amazing that many of the modern day objections sound so much like that - even among some who don't know of Socinus. Have a good day.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

@JonC,
Once again, you are switching - away from Scripture alone, to your 'Classic View.' Now what do you want? Do you want to discuss what the Scriptures say or do you want to plough through the ECFs and others again?

I will repeat what I wrote earlier:

Now then. What will prove PSA in your eyes? It seems to me that there are three elements to the doctrine:
Firstly, that the Lord Jesus took our sins upon Himself and bore them.
Secondly, that He took and bore them in the way of undergoing the punishment of them.
Thirdly, that He did this in our stead (in our place, instead of us). These three things, it seems to me, are the basis of Penal Substitution, and I will undertake to prove them from the Bible in the hope of putting this seemingly endless discussion to bed.

Is there anything else that you would like to add to that? I am not interested in proving your theory about PSA, but I will try to satisfy any reasonable objections to the doctrine that you may have.

This will probably not be until after Christmas. I still have more stuff to do at church, and have my family around as well.

 

[JonC]

@JonC,
Once again, you are switching - away from Scripture alone, to your 'Classic View.'

No, I have only provided passages. You have denied them.

You are all over the place, Martin. You can't see it because nobody is carried away by philosophy all at once. It is a slow fade.

You pretty much disqualified yourself when you said if the unrighteous will not enter the kingdom of God then it will be empty.

You have been carried away from the faith once delivered by your philosophy, by leaning on your own understanding.

Step back and look at your philosophy.

 

[JonC]

You have just done a good job of concisely (and cynically) putting forth the objections raised by Faustus Socinus.

Lol...you do not know your history.

Socinus' main objection was a denial of the Trinity (on the cross the Father and Son were separated). He would have wholeheartedly embraced PSA.

Anyway, my post was not objections. It was observing what you would see if you could take a step back and look at your theory.

You are literally all over the place. Your philosophy is so chaotic it would make David Lynch cringe.

God forgives sins by punishing those sins.

Jesus appease God's wrath by experiencing God's wrath.

God expresses wrath that is also propitiated.

God cleared our debt of sin but Jesus mediates for us when we sin.

God will never punish the righteous, view as guilty the just, or clear the wicked but God viewed the Just as guilty and punished the Righteous to clear the guilty.

The unrighteous will not enter God's kingdom but if the unrighteous cannot enter God's kingdom it will be empty.

You have been carried away from dound doctrine step by step - not all at once as you would see the heresy. It was a slow fade, but you have been carried away from the fairh once delivered and are leaning on your own understanding.

On the cross God was reconciling man to Himself, not counting man's sins, in the Person of Jesus Christ. His blood cleanses from all unrighteousness. We are predestined to be made into His image.

Take a few steps back and see just how far you have drifted.

 

[DaveXR650]

Lol...you do not know your history.

Socinus' main objection was a denial of the Trinity (on the cross the Father and Son were separated). He would have wholeheartedly embraced PSA.

You win Jon. I honestly don't have any reply to such an argument.

 

[JonC]

You win Jon. I honestly don't have any reply to such an argument.

I know you do not have a reply. But my point is not winning or loosing. It is about learning of what you introduce. Your loss is more substantial than an argument, and it is of your own making.

Faustus Socinus was an Italian Renaissance humanist (like John Calvin was a French Renaissance humanist). He started the sect known as Socinianism. Like Calvin Socinus rejected the Satisfaction view of the atonement.

But between you and I, you are the only one holding any part of Socinus' beliefs, and this is limited to the Atonement where you present Jesus as being, on the cross, what Socinus believed Him to be all the time.


That said, the fact that Calvinism was rejected by Socinus, Lutherans, Anabaptists, the Eastern Orthodox, the RCC....anybody that was not a Calvinist....provides validity to it being problematic as all of those diverse groups identified the same mistake in his theory.


Bottom line is your theory is a mess. You are all over the place trying to cling to it. This is because you hold a Doctor Who framework.

You and Martin claim that it is the unrighteous who will enter the kingdom of God (Martin stated it, you liked it which you say is agreement).

You claim God forgives sins by punishing those sins.

You reject a substantial portion of God's words because God fails to meet what your philosophy demands (an easy-believism that treats sins as superficial, apart from the sinners).

You deny hundreds of passages about divine forgiveness, about divine justice, about redemption, and about the blood of Christ all because they do not fit into your philosophy.

You, by your own admission, were compelled by men. That was your downfall.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

No, I have only provided passages. You have denied them.

You are all over the place, Martin. You can't see it because nobody is carried away by philosophy all at once. It is a slow fade.

You pretty much disqualified yourself when you said if the unrighteous will not enter the kingdom of God then it will be empty.

You have been carried away from the faith once delivered by your philosophy, by leaning on your own understanding.

Step back and look at your philosophy.

One of us is all over the place, but if you search the Scriptures, you'll find it's you. Everyone else knows that. You never provide passages. Your posts are full of pathetic snidies.
You shift your ground constantly, but you can never find a place to stand.
It is easy to say, step back and look at your philosophy, but in fact it is your philosophy that is driving you away from the truth. This is shown by the fact that you will not tell me what I have to show from the Bible to prove PSA to you. You are scared to death that your philosophy will be shown to be wrong.

Now that's the easy insults out of the way on both sides. Do you want to discuss the Scriptures or not? A one word answer will do.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

You and Martin claim that it is the unrighteous who will enter the kingdom of God (Martin stated it, you liked it which you say is agreement).

You just make stuff up as you go along. It was I who brought Rev. 21:27 into the discussion. But I still say that Christ died for the ungodly, and God justifies them.

 

[DaveXR650]

Socinus' main objection was a denial of the Trinity (on the cross the Father and Son were separated). He would have wholeheartedly embraced PSA.

Faustus Socinus was an Italian Renaissance humanist (like John Calvin was a French Renaissance humanist). He started the sect known as Socinianism. Like Calvin Socinus rejected the Satisfaction view of the atonement.

But between you and I, you are the only one holding any part of Socinus' beliefs, and this is limited to the Atonement where you present Jesus as being, on the cross, what Socinus believed Him to be all the time.

"Even critics who evince no firsthand acquaintance with Socinus' work bear the unmistakable imprint of his influence, and their criticisms pale by comparison. Indeed, I should say that Socinus' critique of penal substitution remains today unsurpassed in terms of of its depth and breadth." William Lane Craig

And what do you get out of Socinus? That " he would have wholeheartedly embraced PSA". That's what I meant when I said that I just have no answers for your method of argument. It's so completely unhinged that yes is no and no is yes. What appears to be so for everyone else is the opposite to you. So continue on.

 

[JonC]

You just make stuff up as you go along. It was I who brought Rev. 21:27 into the discussion. But I still say that Christ died for the ungodly, and God justifies them.

No need to be dishonest, Martin.

I said that the wicked will be cast out, only the righteous will enter.

Well, if you prefer, when everything unrighteous is cast out, then the new heavens and new earth will be empty.

 

[JonC]

"Even critics who evince no firsthand acquaintance with Socinus' work bear the unmistakable imprint of his influence,

No, not really. Socinus did not come up with a new heresy. He stated an old one, just later in time.

It does not matter to me, of course, because nothing that I have said would remotely be confused with Socinus.

Are you saying you view the relationship between the Father and Son on the cross based on Socinus?

If so, that makes sence as he would agree with you about that separation.

 

[JonC]

@Martin Marprelate and @DaveXR650

The bottom line is you two are all over the place with your theory. You simply want an easy-believism doctrine of the cross that treats sins lightly and makes no demands of you.

My view is very simple.

On the cross God was reconciling man to Himself, not counting man's sins against them. Jesus is the reconciliation. By His blood we are cleansed from all unrighteous, predestined to be made in His image, to be righteous, to be glorified. He is the Firstborn of many brethren.


You two have been, in the words of @DaveXR650 , compelled by men to depart from Scripture. And your theory is a mess because of it.

You deny God forgives, or even is able to forgive, sins. Instead you say God has to punish sins. Why? Because of Scripture? No. Because of the men you find compelling, because of the philosophy you have chosen.

You two deny hundreds of verses telling you not only that God forgives sins but the basis of His forgiveness. And all because God falls short of your philosophy.

And even here you two are all over the place.

You say God forgives sins by punishing the sins He forgives.

You say God is just and will not view the just as guilty, clear the guilty, or punish the righteous but then say God viewed the Just as guilty, punished the righteous to clear the guilty.

You say God punished Jesus because of God's law, but when challenged you decide it is more like a financial debt

You say God collected the debt you owed on the cross, but then say Christ is your High Priest advocating for you when you sin.

You say Jesus appeased God's wrath but then turn around and say Jesus experienced God's wrath.

You act as if God punishing somebody else for your sins would magically make you right with God. You try so hard to treat sins as superficial, but you fall away from the faith once delivered.

You two are all over the place and have absolutely no idea what you believe.