Atonemet (Not PSA....my position)

[JonC]

I am sorry to say that you are not being truthful, as is shown by the fact that you cannot document anything of the sort.
To be sure I have said that your view is an error, which it is. But I have never called anyone a heretic, or hinted at it.

I apologize. I am getting older and when I reach your age I am sure I will have the same difficulties remembering.

What you did was compare it to Jehovah Witnesses because of its reliance on the biblical text. I remember this because I thought the comparison was off.

You also requested that I be banned for holding a heresy (Christus Victor). This was via PM and a report.

 

[JonC]

@Martin Marprelate

I need to make this clear - I do not care that you called me a heretic. If you remember I used that accusation proudly afterwards (saying I was the "resident heretic"). I want to be considered a heretic by PSA theorists and Catholics. I would be concerned otherwise.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

The Doctrine of penal substitution states that God gave Himself in the Person of His Son to suffer instead of us the death, punishment and curse due to fallen humanity as the penalty for sin.

The instead of us part is not in the Bible. This would need to be clarified.

I think you'll find it is. Matt. 20:28; Mark 10:45. The Greek preposition anti (used in those verses) very often means 'instead of' or 'in the place of.' E.g. Luke 11:11; 1 Cor. 11:15.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I apologize. I am getting older and when I reach your age I am sure I will have the same difficulties remembering.

You have to reach my age first.

What you did was compare it to Jehovah Witnesses because of its reliance on the biblical text. I remember this because I thought the comparison was off.

I have compared your demanding of a single verse to prove PSA to the J.W.s demanding a verse proving the Trinity. I did not accuse you of being a J.W. or call you a heretic. It is a historical fact that the Unitarians in the early 18th Century refused to give a reason for their view but demanded that their accusers stick entirely to the Bible and find a single text to refute them. I do not call you a Unitarian either, because I know you are not. I do accuse you of using their methods.

You also requested that I be banned for holding a heresy (Christus Victor). This was via PM and a report.

I have never called for you to be banned. I have asked that you cease to be a moderator for all sorts of reasons, but not because you hold to Christus Victor, a theory which is held by several misguided but genuine Christians.

 

[DaveXR650]

When @DaveXR650 and @Martin Marprelate accused Christus Victor as being identical in doctrines to a few heresies (socinianism and JW doctrines) it was not for believing passages common to Christianity but for taking passages literally.

I have said repeatedly that I believe Christus Victor as a facet of atonement theology, although it is defined in different ways. I do not accept some of the versions that are called Christus Victor but I do believe that Christ defeated Satan and the powers of darkness and ruined any claims that Satan had on us. I can show you where many theologians who embrace PSA also believe Christus Victor as an aspect or facet of the atonement.

Christus Victor cannot be a stand alone explanation of the atonement because it does not deal with any aspect of our own damaged relationship with God due to our own sin. As far as I know, Christus Victor has nothing to do with Socinian arguments. The argument that it is perverse and wrong to punish the innocent and clear the guilty, and then try to apply that to what PSA says Christ did on the cross - is indeed a Socinian argument. The argument that even if Christ could do so, it would only apply to 1 person at most is Socinian, and the idea that there is no way to make the "punishment" equivalent anyway, is also a Socinian argument. Anyone who uses those arguments is using a Socinian argument.

 

[DaveXR650]

Hello @Ben1445,
This is the definition of PSA that I have been using on this board for about 15 years:
'The Doctrine of penal substitution states that God gave Himself in the Person of His Son to suffer instead of us the death, punishment and curse due to fallen humanity as the penalty for sin..

@Ben1445. If you aren't a Calvinist you can find the same definition in the book by Leroy Forlines "The Quest for Truth, Theology for Post Modern Times". He of course is a free will Baptist and a serious and complete supporter of PSA. Or, you can look at William Lane Craig, a Molinist, and way out there on a lot of theology, but has a pretty good book out on the atonement and is also solidly in support of PSA. (And in his case he explicitly states for anyone who has a slight variation of PSA - that he fully believes God punished Jesus on the cross.)

As for myself, after all the "for us is not really instead of us" and nuanced garbage, changing definitions and selective outrage and sensitivity, I want out of this and will only comment when I think my name is involved or something I have said is disparaged.

 

[DaveXR650]

For example... to call me a heretic @DaveXR650 ignored how I said divine justice was central to atonement (he said it was not). This is because my view of divine justice does not match his judicial philosophy, which he uses but refuses to acknowledge in a definition.

There cannot be any discussion if you simply will not allow anything we say to be used as a working definition for purposes of discussion. When I say divine justice you know I mean that sin must be dealt with and not simply forgiven when God is acting in the role of ruler of the universe. For you to deflect this and give a different definition and then act outraged when someone refutes what it is that you actually are saying - is baloney and not worth continuing with. That statement in the quote is outrageous after all the discussion of how God can simply forgive sin upon repentance.

 

[Ben1445]

The instead of us part is not in the Bible. This would need to be clarified.

Isaiah 53:5
But he was wounded for our transgressions,
he was bruised for our iniquities:
the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.


This looks like instead of us to me.
We certainly forgo punishment for sins because of Jesus’ death. If His death is not necessary in our place, what does his death accomplish?

John 11:50-52
Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not. And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation; And not for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad.

The death of one that others need not perish. That is what was prophesied.

 

[Ben1445]

That helps give us something to look at. The SBC defines PSA badically as Jesus died for our sins (which is too broad as we all believe that).

So let's see.

The Doctrine of penal substitution states that God gave Himself in the Person of His Son to suffer instead of us the death, punishment and curse due to fallen humanity as the penalty for sin.

The instead of us part is not in the Bible. This would need to be clarified.

Obviously we all agree that death os the penalty, consequence, wage, etc. that sin produces. We also would (I think) that this is the power of the devil over man. But using "punishment" may need clarifying. I do not see it as very percise. How is Satan's power a "punishment"? It seems more like an oppression to me.

You need to define what you mean in the definition (it is too vague).

For example, Christus Victor could be defined as Christ was victorious. BUT i would have to define how Christ was victorious for it to be a percise definition.

BUT what would you call those who theorize that God punished Jesus for our sins instead of us, paying a debt of sin on behalf of man?

Would PSA advocats consider them outliers, "heretics" in regard to PSA, because they went to the extreme of saying God punished the just and God cleared the guilty?

I do admit that one could develop a watered down definition that would include all Christians. The SBC did (although it is not good as a definition).


Why not define PSA as Jesus bore our sins and died for us, by His stripes we were healed? That way everybody holds PSA.

I don’t see anything but that in the definition, really.
But what is chastisement to you if not punishment?

 

[Ben1445]

@Ben1445

Here is another way of looking at the problem with PSA definitions -

When @DaveXR650 and @Martin Marprelate accused Christus Victor as being identical in doctrines to a few heresies (socinianism and JW doctrines) it was not for believing passages common to Christianity but for taking passages literally.

BUT when they defend PSA they go to vague terms we all believe is correct.

The "devil is in the details". Whst makes penal substitution a theory is in the details.

I haven’t seen the details to disagree with yet.
I have in the past heard some “because PSA, that means determinism,” which is common knowledge that I disagree with. But to throw out Christ’s suffering in our place instead of us, I can find nothing wrong with.

 

[JonC]

Isaiah 53:5
But he was wounded for our transgressions,
he was bruised for our iniquities:
the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.


This looks like instead of us to me.
We certainly forgo punishment for sins because of Jesus’ death. If His death is not necessary in our place, what does his death accomplish?

John 11:50-52
Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not. And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation; And not for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad.

The death of one that others need not perish. That is what was prophesied.

Why does it look like "instead of us" to you? That is what you need to explore.

BUT more to the issue, just because it looks like "instead of us" to you does not mean it means "instead of us". Lean not on your understanding.

The passage itself (the text, "what is written", God's actual words) does not state "instead of us", nor does it necessitate that meaning.

I believe the words teach exactly what they state. How, you may ask. Because I believe Scripture interprets Scripture.

The OT sacrifice system does not present the sacrifice as being killed instead of the people but as a provision for the priest to make atonement for their sins. The animal needed to die so the people would not, but the animal was not sacrificed "instead of the people". The priest made atonement by taking the blood and applying it in the Most Holy Place.

We also have Christ as a representative substitute (Son of Man, Secondly Adam). This is not "instead of" but "on behalf of".

We have the passover. The lamb certainly had to be killed for the firstborn sons of Israel to escape death. BUT the lamb was not killed "instead of" those people.

Then we have God setting forth Christ as a propitiation through His blood to be accepted by faith. This is not "instead of" (obiously).

 

[JonC]

I don’t see anything but that in the definition, really.
But what is chastisement to you if not punishment?

Chastisement can be punishment, a penalty, discipline. I believe it is the penalty of sin. But you can use "punishment" if you flesh it out (who's punishment... the one who has the power of death or God). That needs to be clarified in your definition.

 

[JonC]

I haven’t seen the details to disagree with yet.
I have in the past heard some “because PSA, that means determinism,” which is common knowledge that I disagree with. But to throw out Christ’s suffering in our place instead of us, I can find nothing wrong with.

I have never heard thst PSA means determinism. That would not bother me (I believe everything is predestined).

I do believe Christ died in our place as the Son of Man, the Second Adam. But not instead of us.

I am simply saying you need to clarify this in your definition to make sure you exclude Christians who believe Christus Victor, Recapitulation, Substitution Atonement, Satisfaction Atonement, Moral Influence, etc.

Do not be ashamed of what you believe. Present how it differs clearly. That way there will be no "riding fences" to make it appear to be broader in scope.

I do not believe we should water down any of these theories and call them by their undiluted names.

 

[JonC]

There cannot be any discussion if you simply will not allow anything we say to be used as a working definition for purposes of discussion.

I said I have no problem with the definition. Obviously words and terms in that definition has to be explored and defined.

But that is true with ANY definition of a Christian doctrine or theory.

"Person" and "nature", for example, in the Doctrine of the Trinity involved a lot of discussion.

This is how we know that Muslims do not worship God. You start looking at their god and there are very distinct differences.

But yes, on the surface - refusing to define terms and words - one can believe that Muslims worship God and one can believe we all hold PSA.


This is not the first time you cried "Not Fair!!" when I asked you to clarify a vague word.

 

[DaveXR650]

But yes, on the surface - refusing to define terms and words - one can believe that Muslims worship God and one can believe we all hold PSA.


This is not the first time you cried "Not Fair!!" when I asked you to clarify a vague word.

Jon it is completely ridiculous at this point to act like you believed divine justice was at the heart of the atonement all along. If that's the case then I have completely misunderstood you and your position. At any rate I am done with discussing this with you for a multitude of reasons. Anyone can read all the threads on this. Anyone can read the self contradictory theory you put out as your own view in this thread. If people like it and think they can find anyone in the world who also has this combination of beliefs then they should go with that. I am done with this.

 

[Aaron]

I apologize. I am getting older and when I reach your age I am sure I will have the same difficulties remembering.

What you did was compare it to Jehovah Witnesses because of its reliance on the biblical text. I remember this because I thought the comparison was off.

You also requested that I be banned for holding a heresy (Christus Victor). This was via PM and a report.

What you’re preaching is not the Gospel. That is for certain.

The Cross is Christ's identity. He yet bears the marks of the Cross in glory. Yet none of us will bear the scars of our crosses. You cheapen His suffering. You cheapen His identity.

If Cassidy were still among us, this wouldn't fly. That thing is certain.

So I'll joint the call to relegate you to the non-Baptist fora.

 

[Ben1445]

Why does it look like "instead of us" to you? That is what you need to explore.

BUT more to the issue, just because it looks like "instead of us" to you does not mean it means "instead of us". Lean not on your understanding.

The passage itself (the text, "what is written", God's actual words) does not state "instead of us", nor does it necessitate that meaning.

I believe the words teach exactly what they state. How, you may ask. Because I believe Scripture interprets Scripture.

The OT sacrifice system does not present the sacrifice as being killed instead of the people but as a provision for the priest to make atonement for their sins. The animal needed to die so the people would not, but the animal was not sacrificed "instead of the people". The priest made atonement by taking the blood and applying it in the Most Holy Place.

We also have Christ as a representative substitute (Son of Man, Secondly Adam). This is not "instead of" but "on behalf of".

We have the passover. The lamb certainly had to be killed for the firstborn sons of Israel to escape death. BUT the lamb was not killed "instead of" those people.

Then we have God setting forth Christ as a propitiation through His blood to be accepted by faith. This is not "instead of" (obiously).

I think you are mistaken about the Passover lamb. The firstborn would certainly have died had the Passover lamb not slain instead of them and the blood applied to the doorpost.

It is a life laid down by Christ to redeem life. It is life for life. The source of eternal life for the gift of eternal life. I’m not sure why you don’t see that. But do you think that means there is a need for some to have their sins paid for by themselves? Certainly any may apply the blood of the perfect Passover Lamb to themselves. Jesus died once for all not once for some. So atonement having been accomplished…
Romans 4:7-8
Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.
Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.

Because the blood of Christ has been applied to them. Sins covered by the blood, righteousness imputed as it says in verse 6..,

(Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,)
And sin not imputed!!

Why should sin need to be imputed??
Because it has already been paid for, but the Saviour rejected.

John 3:18
He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

 

[Ben1445]

Why does it look like "instead of us" to you? That is what you need to explore.

The chastisement of our peace was upon him.


Explain to me why this does not mean instead of us. It certainly looks like it to me. Just telling me to explore it doesn’t tell me what makes you read something different from Isaiah 53. You will have to explain it to me and take my asking as my exploration.

 

[Ben1445]

I have never heard thst PSA means determinism. That would not bother me (I believe everything is predestined).

I do believe Christ died in our place as the Son of Man, the Second Adam. But not instead of us.

I am simply saying you need to clarify this in your definition to make sure you exclude Christians who believe Christus Victor, Recapitulation, Substitution Atonement, Satisfaction Atonement, Moral Influence, etc.

Do not be ashamed of what you believe. Present how it differs clearly. That way there will be no "riding fences" to make it appear to be broader in scope.

I do not believe we should water down any of these theories and call them by their undiluted names.

It doesn’t make any sense to divide up believers and say that none can have similar beliefs. Aren’t we supposed to be using something of the same Bible? Should we not be using God’s Word? Is Christ divided?

What is the purpose in dividing everyone up? How does that help anything?

I’m not ashamed of what I believe.

I’ve never been more confused about what you believe.

A few posts ago, you said that you are a determinist. So I don’t have any idea what you believe. I’m not mixed up about what I believe, just what you believe.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

The OT sacrifice system does not present the sacrifice as being killed instead of the people but as a provision for the priest to make atonement for their sins. The animal needed to die so the people would not, but the animal was not sacrificed "instead of the people". The priest made atonement by taking the blood and applying it in the Most Holy Place.

If the animal was not sacrificed, the people would have died, yes? That seems to be what you are saying. So how is that not a substitution, and a penal one at that? The animal dies - penal. The people don't - substitution.

We also have Christ as a representative substitute (Son of Man, Secondly Adam). This is not "instead of" but "on behalf of".

You mean 'Second Adam, yes? But 'He was pierced...' Penal. '...for our transgressions.' Substitution.
This was not 'on behalf of our' transgressions; our transgressions didn't need any help!

We have the passover. The lamb certainly had to be killed for the firstborn sons of Israel to escape death. BUT the lamb was not killed "instead of" those people.

Well, if the people would not have escaped death if the passover lamb had not been slain, which seems to be what Exodus 12:23 is saying, then the the lamb dies; the people don't. Penal substitution.

Then we have God setting forth Christ as a propitiation through His blood to be accepted by faith. This is not "instead of" (obviously).

Mark 10:45 (again!). "Foe even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for [Gk. anti: 'in the place of,' 'instead of') many." Our Lord's suffers and dies. Penal. We don't. Substitution.