Atonemet (Not PSA....my position)

[JonC]

"God is our creditor and we are His debtors by virtue of our sins. But every creditor has the absolute right to forgive the debtor his debt - either in whole or in part - without receiving satisfaction." Socinus
From William Lane Craig's "Atonement and the Death of Christ"
"For Aquinas, as for Anselm and the Reformers, God satisfies the demands of retributive justice through Christ; but for Aquinas He does so contingently. By contrast, Socinus thinks that God's contingent choice to forgive sinners is independent of justice's demands. God gratuitously extends to repentant sinners forgiveness of their sins and reserves His punitive justice for the unrepentant. Just as Socinus opposed Anselm's view that satisfaction of divine justice is necessary, he would be equally oppose to Aquinas' view that God through Christ contingently satisfied divine justice."
Now, this is important. Craig goes on to say that "Socinus proceeds to argue that satisfaction is actually logically incompatible with the remission of sins,..."

In other words, where have we heard someone argue that where satisfaction is made already, there is therefore no need for forgiveness. Anyway, that is just a further exploration into Socinus nuanced view. Any similarities with any arguments made on this site are I'm sure, coincidental.

Exactly.

And that is why it is sinful for you to compare Christus Victor or anything I have posted to Socinianism.

Your view of God's justice in the Atonement is actually central to the Mormon understanding of the Atonement. Are you linked to Mormonism? I do not think so. So it woukd be dishonest for me to make that connection. Just as it is dishonest of you here.


Anselm did not center the Atonement on justice. He believed Adam had, on behalf of mankind, robbed God of His honor and sin is a theft of honor. You have your history mixed up.


Either way, my position that the New Covenant in Christ's blood is God's righteousness manifested apart from the Law is not Socinianism.


I never once said the Atonementis not centered in divine justice. I said that you have attributed a failed judicial philosophy to God.


I think we can see the problem you have. You are unable to deal with anybody's words - whether mine (which do not matter) or God's with any faithfulness to what was actually said.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

You have to remember I am careful with my words. I said I reject PSA as a heresy. @Martin Marprelate and @DaveXR650 both called me a heretic (holding an individual snd unorthodox belief).

Just to be clear: I have NEVER called anyone a heretic on any discussion forum, or even used the word, except possibly in a historical context.
If one says that a certain belief is a heresy, one is ipso facto saying that anyone who believes it is a heretic.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

@Martin Marprelate always goes down this path when I finally say we should put aside all of our theories and understsndings and let's go verse by verse discussing the text. It is nothing new.

No. I go down this path when you break your own rules on the B.B. and call people heretics. It is something that you do when you are conscious of losing debates.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Do you believe that you were forgiven when Christ suffered and died on the cross?

Do you believe that God punished the Just?

Do you believe that God clears the guilty?

This is the stuff we are talking about.

Again.... let's set aside Christus Victor and PSA. Let's just discuss God's words.

I do not understand why you find that idea so offensive.

Where are God's words in this post then? If you want to discuss Scripture, get on and post some instead of posting "Have you stopped beating your mother yet" posts.

 

[DaveXR650]

Who said I rejected Christ bearing our sons in His own body on the tree as substitutionary atonement???!!!!

You seem to love twisting people's words.

So after all this everyone had you wrong in that in truth, you believed in substitutionary atonement all along?

All of the theories of Atonement believe in substitutionary atonement.

That's a pretty broad expansion of "substitution" to now make it anything done instead of you doing it. Surely you don't think people are really going to believe that is what was being discussed all along.

I was very careful not to label PSA heresy (in terms of Christian orthodoxy...just like RCC doctrine and SDA doctrine is not heresy in that context).

BUT do I reject PSA as heresy. Yes. Do I believe it is as bad as RCC doctrine. Yes, perhaps worse. But that is my standard (using "what is written", God's actual words).

Yes, but then on the other hand "no", if you are referring to what I just said.

 

[JonC]

Just to be clear: I have NEVER called anyone a heretic on any discussion forum, or even used the word, except possibly in a historical context.
If one says that a certain belief is a heresy, one is ipso facto saying that anyone who believes it is a heretic.

I think I clarified you did not use that word.

I am not one of those who believes somebody can call somebody something as long as they do not use a specific word.

Here is the definition of heresy:

adherence to a religious opinion contrary to church dogma

an opinion or doctrine contrary to church dogma

denial of a truth made known through divine inspiration by a baptized member of the Roman Catholic Church

dissent or deviation from a dominant theory, opinion, or practice

an opinion, doctrine, or practice contrary to the truth or to generally accepted beliefs or standards



As you can probably tell, a heresy is dependent on the teachings one holds. Typically use it to mean a departure from what is generally considered orthodox Christianity. But that is a very loose definition.

Roman Catholics, SDA, Greek Orthodox....these are all within orthodox Christianity in a general sence.

What I mean by "heresy" is adherence to a religious opinion contrary to church dogma with that dogma being the standard of God's Word.

Obviously PSA is a heresy if the biblical text is the standard (they teach God does punish the Just, does clear the guilty, does not forgive sins, etc). They reason those passages away.



Heresy has nothing to do with salvation. Martin Luther was a heretic by definition when he posted his thesis. This does not mean he was lost. John Calvin was a heretic when he developed PSA. It does not mean he was lost.

 

[JonC]

So after all this everyone had you wrong in that in truth, you believed in substitutionary atonement all along?

I guess. I do not know how you guys think.

I already said that what I disagree with is not the things PSA has in common with all views.
I will restate my objection -

I do not believe its judicial philosophy is correct.
I do not believe Christ suffered as a penal substitute.


You take that to mean I reject divine justice in the Atonement even though I emphasized God did not punish the Just or clear the guilty.

I said justice demands more than a payment for sins.

I said Christ is our Substitute, is the Second Adam, the Son of Man, representing mankind on the cross. That is representative substitution. It is substitutionary.

How could the Atonement not have justice in view??? How could it not be substitutionary??


ALL Christisns believe the Atonement has justice in view and was substitutionary.


Your pretending Christus Victor excludes that is the same as questioning my salvation.

If Christ's death was not substitutionary then it cannot apply to us, we would not have been freed from sin and death.

If justice was not in view we could not escape the wrath to come.


My claim is that you knew this based on previous conversations and made the accusation willfully.

 

[JonC]

@DaveXR650

We are speaking of very nuanced concepts.
We have to be specific.

Is substitutionary atonement PSA? No, but PSA is a substitutionary atonement.

You made the mistake of misrepresenting my view by going to broad. Had you said I do not believe this substitution in the Atonement was penal substitution you would have been correct. But to say I reject substitutionary atonement is simply false. I repeatedly insisted - in our conversations - that Christ is our substitute, suffered the power of the one who holds the power of death (that is the devil) as the Son of Man, as the Second Adam.

Same with justice. I always insisted that divine judgement is central to the Atonement. What I rejected was the judicial philosophy you attribute to God.


I am saying you should not short cut the conversation. You do this when you try to call Christus Victor a Socinian doctrine. You do this by backing away from PSA to generalize. You do this by misrepresenting my belief.

What we need to do is set aside PSA and ChristusVictor. Then just go through "what is written". Let's look at God's words rather than argue about what different sects believe is really taught by the Bible when properly understood.

Let's discuss God's words and let Scripture interpret Scripture. This way we can see where we agree. We obviously disagree about which men were right, about which judicial philosophyis right. So lets go to God.

 

[JonC]

Where are God's words in this post then? If you want to discuss Scripture, get on and post some instead of posting "Have you stopped beating your mother yet" posts.

I was wanting to discuss God's words with @Armchair Apologist and @DaveXR650 . Sorry I did not include you, but you can play too.

Those were questions we need to go to Scripture to find. These are answered in the Bible.

But you choose the passage. One at a time, let's go to God's Word giving the time and respect that is due.

Where do you want to start? Genesis? Leviticus? Isaiah? Psalms? Matthew? Hebrews? Romans?


If you are actually willing to set aside PSA (and me my understanding) let's explore "what is written". Pick a passage.

 

[DaveXR650]

I am saying you should not short cut the conversation. You do this when you try to call Christus Victor a Socinian doctrine.

That wasn't or has ever been done by me. I believe in Christus Victor as part of the atoning work of Christ, as did John Owen and as far as I know, all advocates of PSA. Is this a mistake on your part or are you deliberately misrepresenting what I say. What is Socinian about your view is when you say:

I will restate my objection -

I do not believe its judicial philosophy is correct.
I do not believe Christ suffered as a penal substitute.


You take that to mean I reject divine justice in the Atonement even though I emphasized God did not punish the Just or clear the guilty.

That is Socinian. That is not Christus Victor. Once again, that is Socinian and it is your quote. The second part of the last sentence is pure Socinianism. The first part, where you claim I am accusing you of rejecting divine justice is true if you reject divine justice as being part of what is being dealt with at the Atonement. One can believe that Christ was victorious over Satan and his hold on mankind and all the powers of darkness and if you leave it there you have Christ as Victor, a true but incomplete explanation of Christ's work. If you ask what happened, how did Christ gain this victory which defeated the powers of darkness while preserving those he saves and yet satisfies all claims of divine justice - then you will find yourself moving on to penal substitutionary atonement - which is carefully and repeatedly explained by pure scripture.

 

[DaveXR650]

Your view of God's justice in the Atonement is actually central to the Mormon understanding of the Atonement. Are you linked to Mormonism? I do not think so. So it woukd be dishonest for me to make that connection. Just as it is dishonest of you here.

What is laughably dishonest is to make the connection on your own, high handedly claim after doing so that that isn't really what you believe, then say of course that if you really did do what you just did, that would be dishonest.

What I am saying regarding Socinianism is this. Socinus argued that what penal substitution says is this:

I emphasized God did not punish the Just or clear the guilty.

That if PSA was true, God would be violating this scripture. He says it is immoral to punish the just or clear the guilty and that is what he said is involved in PSA. If that is not what you mean by that statement then just say so. I believe Jesus was innocent and yet he was punished for us, in our place, instead of us - us, who were in truth actually guilty. Jesus being who he is makes this possible as a unique happening in the universe of space and time. It would be I think the central core happening in the history of men. It cannot be comprehended without an understanding of who Jesus is, what imputed righteousness is, whether sin or guilt can be imputed, what our union with Christ entails, and so on. All this is scriptural, all this has been gone over repeatedly, and all this happened only once as God had somehow devised a plan for our redemption that got around the fact that in God's setup of cosmic justice he does not acquit the guilty or punish the innocent. We will look into this with awe for all eternity I imagine and still not understand it completely. We will not find all of it in a single verse. We are not required to understand it in order to be saved.
But to claim an understanding of it, and yet constantly attack PSA after knowing all these verses and having access to all these Godly writers, is something I cannot comprehend. I'm sorry that Socinus is still the most articulate denouncer of PSA. I'm sorry that the fact, as William Lane Craig noted in his recent book on the atonement, that every modern critic of PSA is using Socinus' arguments whether he knows it or not. But it's true.

If what you say about Mormons believing PSA is true then yes, I would agree with them on that. I doubt it as usually you are wrong and I also know that Mormons have other beliefs that I don't think would bear out what you say but that is your problem. For PSA to work as far as satisfying the justice of God the Father, Jesus would have to be God as far as orthodox understanding of the Trinity goes so I think you are once again mistaken but whatever.

 

[Aaron]

The tree of Deuteronomy 21, which is the Cross, is a penalty. It is the sentence pronounced upon sinners. To say Christ did not take our place on that tree, and suffer the penalty due to sinners, no matter how you dress it up with feigned devotion to other parts of the Scriptures, is a simple denial of the Scriptures.

It's no more complicated than that.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I was wanting to discuss God's words with @Armchair Apologist and @DaveXR650 . Sorry I did not include you, but you can play too.

Those were questions we need to go to Scripture to find. These are answered in the Bible.

So tell us where.

But you choose the passage. One at a time, let's go to God's Word giving the time and respect that is due.

Where do you want to start? Genesis? Leviticus? Isaiah? Psalms? Matthew? Hebrews? Romans?


If you are actually willing to set aside PSA (and me my understanding) let's explore "what is written". Pick a passage.

What crazy idea is this? I post some Scripture without comment, and you post some other Scripture without comment. Where will that get us? One or both of us has to state what we believe the Scripture MEANS.
This is a discussion forum. We state our understandings. The difference between us is that I always back my understanding with Scripture, and you don't.
And no, I am not willing to set aside PSA. I have studied the Scriptures and I believe that is what they teach. I have already put forward two passages that clearly teach PSA. I have no objection to putting them forward again, and some other ones, but I hope that if I do, you will make an effort to interact with them and give your reasons for your disagreement.

But back on page one of this thread I posted four texts. I notice that you haven't replied. Here they are:

One vital point of the atonement is that something was bought and a price was paid.

Acts 20:28. "Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the Church of God which He purchased with His own blood.'

1 Cor. 6:20, NKJV. 'For you were bought at a price; therefore glorify God in your body and in your spirit, which are God's.'

Eph. 1:14. '...Who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory.

1 Peter1:18-19. '...Knowing that you were not redeemed with corruptible things, like silver or gold, from your aimless conduct received by tradition from your fathers, but with the blood of Christ , as of a lamb without blemish and without spot' [c.f. Exodus 12:5].

That which was bought was us, and the price was the blood of Christ, which signifies His life. To talk about our redemption being some priest sprinkling blood about the altar is to miss the wood for the trees.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Just to be clear: I have NEVER called anyone a heretic on any discussion forum, or even used the word, except possibly in a historical context.
If one says that a certain belief is a heresy, one is ipso facto saying that anyone who believes it is a heretic.

I think I clarified you did not use that word.

I think you didn't. The person who used the word "heresy" was you and you used it specifically about @DaveXR650 and myself.

 

[JonC]

@Armchair Apologist

Side note.

I am at another community based church, this time in Arizona. When we travel we look for church start ups and community based churches to visit.

This one started as a bible study group at the pastors home. They now have about 250 in attendance. Many saved through the church reaching out in the community. They baptized two today. I watched one (a 55 year old woman with a very powerful testimony).


Many here would have absolutely condemned these believers. They had a guitar and a violin (or fiddle) as instruments. The music was bluegrass-ish, or maybe folk. The average age seemed to be around 40. Nobody wore a suit or tie. There were a few men in their 70's. They wore a nice shirt and shorts. I wore shorts, I think, for the first time to a service.

Nobody here would have objected to the message.

 

[JonC]

The tree of Deuteronomy 21, which is the Cross, is a penalty. It is the sentence pronounced upon sinners. To say Christ did not take our place on that tree, and suffer the penalty due to sinners, no matter how you dress it up with feigned devotion to other parts of the Scriptures, is a simple denial of the Scriptures.

It's no more complicated than that.

The problem is you cannot provide a passage that this "denial of the scriptures" actually denies.

You have elevated your own understanding to the place of Scripture.

What I deny is not Scripture but what you believe is taught by the Bible. These are not the same thing.

This is why you cannot provide any verse that I deny, but you are right that I believe your understanding - what you think the Bible teaches - is wrong.

 

[Ben1445]

The wages of sin is death. Because people sin, the consequence is death. I don’t find it a stretch to use the term penalty or related forms for the consequence of sin. Jesus took on Himself the consequence of sin.
If we can only use the words of Scripture to describe our doctrines and theories, then we had better start calling ourselves oneness instead of trinitarian. ( and I don’t think that is an acceptable answer)

 

[JonC]

I think you didn't. The person who used the word "heresy" was you and you used it specifically about @DaveXR650 and myself.

I did. You probably missed it but the post you just responded to clarified it for you.

 

[JonC]

The wages of sin is death. Because people sin, the consequence is death. I don’t find it a stretch to use the term penalty or related forms for the consequence of sin. Jesus took on Himself the consequence of sin.
If we can only use the words of Scripture to describe our doctrines and theories, then we had better start calling ourselves oneness instead of trinitarian. ( and I don’t think that is an acceptable answer)

I agree 100%.

Jesus obviously took upon Himself the penalty of our sin.

The problem comes in when people create theories based on their own philosophies and understanding and then lean on those theories.

But what cannot be overlooked on a Baptist board are people who use the name "baptist" yet equate their understanding with God's words and insist that their theory must be at the center of Christian faith. They are not actually Baptists by definition.

Aaron gave us a good example when he said that to deny his understandingis to deny Scripture even though his understandingis not actually in the biblical text.



I disagree that leaning on the actual words of God means we would not be trinitarians.

The reason is I can provide verses that state God is One, the Holy Spirit is God's Spirit, Jesus and the Father are one.


I do believe we see partially in this life. We understand and interpretthings differently.

BUT the interpretation should be of "what is written" (the biblical text).

For example - using a humanistic judicial philosophy as divine justice would be an interpretation of justice. BUT one should not automatically assume everyone holds that philosophy. PSA theorists need to recognize the philosophy and be able to defend it. They can hold it as an interpretation.

BUT then there are additions of things not in the Bible at all. God punishing Jesus for our sins is not an interpretation. It is a Christian philosophy (it is the result of applying secular philosophy to divine justice and then reasoning out what must have happened).


I am certainly not opposed to people holding PSA. I am, however, opposed to PSA theorists insisting that their understanding of what the Bible teaches is the biblical text.

 

[Ben1445]

I agree 100%.

Jesus obviously took upon Himself the penalty of our sin.

The problem comes in when people create theories based on their own philosophies and understanding and then lean on those theories.

But what cannot be overlooked on a Baptist board are people who use the name "baptist" yet equate their understanding with God's words and insist that their theory must be at the center of Christian faith. They are not actually Baptists by definition.

Aaron gave us a good example when he said that to deny his understandingis to deny Scripture even though his understandingis not actually in the biblical text.



I disagree that leaning on the actual words of God means we would not be trinitarians.

The reason is I can provide verses that state God is One, the Holy Spirit is God's Spirit, Jesus and the Father are one.


I do believe we see partially in this life. We understand and interpretthings differently.

BUT the interpretation should be of "what is written" (the biblical text).

For example - using a humanistic judicial philosophy as divine justice would be an interpretation of justice. BUT one should not automatically assume everyone holds that philosophy. PSA theorists need to recognize the philosophy and be able to defend it. They can hold it as an interpretation.

BUT then there are additions of things not in the Bible at all. God punishing Jesus for our sins is not an interpretation. It is a Christian philosophy (it is the result of applying secular philosophy to divine justice and then reasoning out what must have happened).


I am certainly not opposed to people holding PSA. I am, however, opposed to PSA theorists insisting that their understanding of what the Bible teaches is the biblical text.

I think that theories are an attempt to summarize.
But we have Scripture to tell us that the wages of sin is death and that Jesus tasted death for every man.
I think it is good not to get so caught up in the theories and just stick to Scripture.