Michael Wrenn
New Member
Not sure how you arrive at that thought.
Because instead of just reading what I write the way I wrote it, some here want to add their own misrepresentations to it, put words in my mouth, distort what I said, etc., etc.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Actual Atonement vs Potential Atonement
- Thread starter Earth Wind and Fire
- Start date
Because instead of just reading what I write the way I wrote it, some here want to add their own misrepresentations to it, put words in my mouth, distort what I said, etc., etc.
Michael Wrenn
New Member
And I disavow that.
savedbymercy
New Member
da
The Death of Christ was in proportionate value for those He saved !
webd:
Faith is a work, it is something man does. Its obedience Rom 16:26
But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith
Faith in its verb form is believing, and that is a command 1 Jn 3:23; Acts 16:31
If you get saved because of an act of obedience on your part, then thats works salvation, and condemned by scripture !
The Death of Christ was in proportionate value for those He saved !
webd:
Faith is a work, it is something man does. Its obedience Rom 16:26
But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith
Faith in its verb form is believing, and that is a command 1 Jn 3:23; Acts 16:31
If you get saved because of an act of obedience on your part, then thats works salvation, and condemned by scripture !
Once he was raised by God from the Grave though...
THAT act "proved' that His sacrifice was fully acceptable to God....
Agree totally that his death on cross paid in full the sins for us, just was saying that the resurrection put Gods "seal of approval" on it!
paul calls jesus our sin bearer, mercy seat...
God has to punish /judge sins, as they are act willfully done against HIM and His Holiness...
there has to be shedding of blood for the remission of sins, and the Lord jesus seath was full payment towards god, as his bllod allowed God to "purchase back" and redeem from sin those who he would elect to save unto eternal life by that Act on the Cross by jesus!
No blood/death, NO forgivesness/removal of our sins!
I assumed that you didn’t hold that conclusion (and hope you didn't take it otherwise).
The early fathers usually reasoned that the sins of people rightly belonged to Satan, but God offered His Son as a ransom. When Satan got Christ into hell, he realized that he could not hold him and on the third day Christ arose victorious. Gustaf Aulen’s Christus Vistor showed the importance of the Ransom Theory. In the end, Christ’s atoning work means victory. Satan, death and sin are conquered.
I prefer the penal-substitution theory. But I don’t think that there ever will be one understanding of the atonement and I am not sure that any one theory encompasses atonement in its entirety or from every angle. On any account, you are right that the atonement cannot be separated from the whole. Some on this board, for example, will declare “it is finished!,” at the cross – but then have to acknowledge that without faith, none are actually saved. Without the resurrection, there is no object of that faith. Apart from the resurrection, we are still in our sins – so for our salvation, Christ dead in the tomb did not accomplish that work.
Definition of PROPITIATE
transitive verb
: to gain or regain the favor or goodwill of : appease
transitive verb
: to gain or regain the favor or goodwill of : appease
To whom?
per Bible, the resurrection confirmed/proved that jesus was the Son of God, verified in a fashion that ALl could see and know that this jesus crucified was now both lord and Christ!
NOT proof to God, but to our behalf!
I was thinking about Michael Wrenn’s comments regarding Christus Victor (the Ransom Theory).
Many of the statements on this topic do seem to hold one particular atonement theory as infallible (Penal-Substitution Theory for the most part). If there is room for error in the theory, or if the theory is not viewed as all encompassing, then there is room for error in the fruits of that theory. You’d almost have to view the theory as divinely inspired to dogmatically cling to it when interpreting Scripture to examine each individual aspect of salvation.
Many of the statements on this topic do seem to hold one particular atonement theory as infallible (Penal-Substitution Theory for the most part). If there is room for error in the theory, or if the theory is not viewed as all encompassing, then there is room for error in the fruits of that theory. You’d almost have to view the theory as divinely inspired to dogmatically cling to it when interpreting Scripture to examine each individual aspect of salvation.
Michael Wrenn
New Member
So, if Jesus had died in nay other way, there would have been no atonement?
The important thing, and what made atonement effective, was that Jesus was born one of us, lived the life that we couldn't have lived, and was obedient, even unto death. Because he lived and died as one of us, in perfect obedience unto God, he defeated death, sin, and Satan, and His resurrection sealed the deal, so to speak, and was evidence of that. His resurrection also proved the truth of Who He was, why He came, and provided us with assurance of our own resurrection if we believe.
This is basically Christus Victor -- Christ, the victor over sin, death, and Satan.
I could go further, and contrast this with penal substitution, but I won't. I did that enough on another thread. But I will say that I believe penal substitution gives a terribly wrong picture of the nature and character of God.
The Ransom theory is more of an objective theory of atonement (it does holds that Christ’s atoning work was not directed primarily at humanity; although the ultimate purpose was the liberation of the human race Christ’s victory over Satan was at the point of the Resurrection (not His death), therefore the Resurrection is the accomplishment of atonement – it is the point of victory.
Christus Victor comes from the title of Aulen’s book, and I have to admit that I have not read it (only excerpts). From what I understand, he viewed the Ransom theory as the liberation of man through Christ’s death as Christ was victorious over death, sin, and Satan. Ransom, to Aulen, was taken to mean liberation rather than a payment for sin.
The Penal-Substitution theory (which I view as more correct as a whole) has the disadvantage of being entirely subjective. Scripture indicates that the atonement was also for a purpose (whether primary or not) to those who would not be saved. Regardless of whether one believes that the atonement was offered to the non-elect, I don’t think that any would disagree that there are benefits to the non-elect. I do hold to divine providence, and my view of God’s sovereignty denies me the leisure of viewing these benefits as accidental or benefits that simply overflow from the redemption of the elect. It is here, in my opinion, that the Christus Victor theory is stronger.
It is very interesting not only to contrast the theories of atonement, but also to examine the consequences of each view to one’s soteriology. But beyond that, I have to say that neither of these theories seems to explain the atonement fully. Each seem to draw attention to a vital aspect of our salvation – but I get the feeling that Christ’s work was greater than is encompassed in either theory.
Christus Victor comes from the title of Aulen’s book, and I have to admit that I have not read it (only excerpts). From what I understand, he viewed the Ransom theory as the liberation of man through Christ’s death as Christ was victorious over death, sin, and Satan. Ransom, to Aulen, was taken to mean liberation rather than a payment for sin.
The Penal-Substitution theory (which I view as more correct as a whole) has the disadvantage of being entirely subjective. Scripture indicates that the atonement was also for a purpose (whether primary or not) to those who would not be saved. Regardless of whether one believes that the atonement was offered to the non-elect, I don’t think that any would disagree that there are benefits to the non-elect. I do hold to divine providence, and my view of God’s sovereignty denies me the leisure of viewing these benefits as accidental or benefits that simply overflow from the redemption of the elect. It is here, in my opinion, that the Christus Victor theory is stronger.
It is very interesting not only to contrast the theories of atonement, but also to examine the consequences of each view to one’s soteriology. But beyond that, I have to say that neither of these theories seems to explain the atonement fully. Each seem to draw attention to a vital aspect of our salvation – but I get the feeling that Christ’s work was greater than is encompassed in either theory.
Michael,
I would like to read your contrast between theories of atonements without burdening this thread with a reinstatement of the posts (particularly as this thread is about a particular aspect of atonement rather than entire theories). Can you direct me to the thread?
Last edited by a moderator:
Michael Wrenn
New Member
I almost hesitate to, because I got so caught up in the subject there that I allowed myself to post in a manner that wasn't entirely Christlike at times. I do that when I get attacked, in the heat of the moment, and when I do, I fail to show love which is the fruit of the spirit.
I thank you for your posts on this subject, and I can see that you and I could have a very fruitful and meaningful discussion on it, probably learning from each other. I believe I'll still feel that way after you read my posts, but I'm not sure you will.
Anyway, do a search for the thread entitled "Penal Substitution". Hope you'll still want to continue our good exchanges afterwards.
savedbymercy
New Member
da
Not all without exception. Do you understand what proptiatioin means ? Obviusly not !
Not all without exception. Do you understand what proptiatioin means ? Obviusly not !
I almost hesitate to, because I got so caught up in the subject there that I allowed myself to post in a manner that wasn't entirely Christlike at times. I do that when I get attacked, in the heat of the moment, and when I do, I fail to show love which is the fruit of the spirit.
I thank you for your posts on this subject, and I can see that you and I could have a very fruitful and meaningful discussion on it, probably learning from each other. I believe I'll still feel that way after you read my posts, but I'm not sure you will.
Anyway, do a search for the thread entitled "Penal Substitution". Hope you'll still want to continue our good exchanges afterwards.
I read your posts. Looks like you were fighting an uphill battle as you argued for the Ransom Theory being the classic view. I did not know that some believed that the penal-substitution theory originated with the early church fathers.
The classic view, in my opinion, was in error in the nature of the debt owed. Anselm’s Satisfaction Theory attempted correct the view of a ransom paid to Satan, which Anselm saw as an error. I do not think that his theory was acceptable, but it did elevate the subject. The Reformers disagreed with Anselm’s theory in that where he saw sin as insulting God’s honor, they saw it is violating His moral law. Gustaf Aulen (in Christus Victor) defended the Ransom Theory by presenting the ransom as a liberation for humanity rather than a debt to Satan. Aulen did contend that this was the original intention of the Ransom Theory. I do find merit in the Christus Victor view, although I do not believe that it (or the Penal-Substitution Theory) is without error or complete in itself. I think that the nature of the atonement probably exceeds our understanding, much less a systematic theory.
You made some good points regarding the Penal Substitution theory. I do find Scriptural support for the theory, so I know that we would disagree on certain issues.
I know of many objections to the penal-substitution theory: Christ cannot bear our guilt because guilt cannot be transferred; we cannot bear Christ’s righteousness; it would be unjust for the Father to substitute his Son to bear our penalty; propitiation implies conflict within the Trinity. I personally do not hold these objections (so, obviously we would not agree on many of these aspects of the theory). Since you disagreed strongest about the penal aspect, I take it that you view it as unjust for the Father to substitute his Son to bear our penalty (please correct me if I’m wrong – it just seems the logical objection from that perspective).
The basic themes in the Bible regarding atonement seem to be sacrifice, propitiation, substitution and reconciliation. In that, I find truth in both the Christus Victor view and the Penal-Substitution position – it seems that they focus on different aspects of the atonement.
We probably could have a meaningful discussion on this topic. I do not fault people for disagreeing with me – even Peter was wrong at times and he was a disciple (just kidding … J - I am confident that my understanding is not without error).
I know I have said this before, but when I come to the point that I know for certain how God effected salvation, when I completely understand His methods and thoughts and am able to stand on those conclusions – that is probably the point when I am most wrong and farthest away from Him.
Last edited by a moderator:
Michael Wrenn
New Member
I can't put into words how much I appreciate your post. I know that I can discuss this subject with you in a calm, rational, and respectful way. I found it hard to do that on the other thread when I was being accused of dishonesty and my salvation was being questioned.
You said, "I think that the nature of the atonement probably exceeds our understanding, much less a systematic theory." I think that is exactly correct.
Regarding penal substitution, it is based on a legalistic view of salvation. I object to the idea that God punished Jesus and killed him in our place. Also, I wonder if anyone ever thinks of this: If this is what was done in the atonement, then when a person accepts Jesus, they should be free of all suffering, and should not have to die. With Christus Victor, however, death is overcome by the Incarnation, Atonement, and Resurrection; we still have to suffer and die, as Jesus did by becoming one of us, but our resurrection and victory over death is assured by the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. This is in harmony and consistent with the character of God, and it makes sense, neither of which can be said of penal substitution, in my opinion.
That's my conclusion, and I believe it is in harmony with and supported by scripture, the early church, and the fathers. Still, I have no problem with your holding to aspects of penal substitution.
Again, I would agree with you that we cannot grasp the full meaning of the atonement -- or other doctrines, as well. Truly, we do see through a glass, darkly.
I think that the suffering and death that Christ, under the penal-substitution view, experienced in our stead was spiritual; it was not the physical sufferings and death that we experience. In that, the penal-substitution theory is dependent upon a Trinitarian view. The Father sending his Son is illustrated in the narrative concerning Abraham and Isaac; but this is not complete. Christ laid down his own life, on his accord, for our sins. It is an error (from the penal-substitution view) to view God punishing Jesus in our place because Jesus is God. I view it instead as a self-sacrifice.
You are correct in identifying that this is linked with the Old Covenant. I view the Law as an expression of the nature of God and foreshadowing the New Covenant, but I can certainly understand why you would view it as legalistic.
I am not in disagreement with your statement regarding the validity of the Christus Victor position. Christ overcame death by the Incarnation, Atonement, and Resurrection as a whole. Neither is independent of the other. I think that that is the flaw in holding the penal-substitution theory in isolation of other aspects of Christ’s work. The theory is also subjective to those who will be saved, so there is difficulty in addressing Christ as “the Lamb of God” without having to relate this to man.
How one addresses these issues will determine whether the question of actual vs potential atonement is even a valid question. Personally, I believe that it is not.
Perhaps you can explain it further.
Regarding Christ’s death as propitiatory is stating the Christ died to appease God’s wrath.
This view is that it is not propitiation but expiation in the New Testament (God was not appeased by the death of Christ, but what Christ accomplished on the cross was to cleanse sinners of their sins – it applies then only to the elect). Propitiation does not have to be applied to specific persons, but focuses more on an appeasement to God. Expiation, on the other hand, has a specific group as subject.
Christ’s death was a propitiation for our sins, and not only ours but for the sins of the world. In the Septuagint, evxila,skomai (exilaskomai) is never used with the word sin as its direct object. It is probably not a good idea to start doing so now. It is not a good defense for limited or universal atonement as the sins of anyone are not its subject – but rather the Lamb of God as a sacrifice to appease God’s wrath. While it is for our sins (for the redemption of those who will believe), you cannot strech propitation itself to argue that point.
Last edited by a moderator: