Anselm, Abelard, and Friends - Influences of Theories of Atonement

[JonC]

while you are not asking for the defense of PSA, Martin, myself (and others, I'm sure) clearly see the need to stand against the vandalism of scripture, which is why any engagement with this thread must include a defense.

Here is an opportunity without hijacking a thread.

A defense of the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement

 

[JonC]

Continuing with the topic of the thread, I don't believe it is accident or coincidence that each theory represents at least something of what was going on contemporary to that theory coming into existence.

This leaves to possible options, I think. Either developed Christian theories influenced the way the culture viewed things or the way culture viewed things influenced Christian theories. I believe the latter to be true. The reason I believe this is because the development of these cultural ideas do not always begin within the Christian community but are also and often the result of secular philosophy.

There are exceptions. Penal Substitution Theology can be linked to the Reformation. Aquinas' theories related to both philosophy and theology. But even here the secular and religious did not always hold distinct boundaries. That said, I do think that Christian philosophy has influenced secular culture as well (Augustine is a good example).

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Your post #48'

Psalm 7:11 does say God is a righteous Judge. But the assumption is His righteousness demands the exercise of punishment to forgive. Psalm 7:12 (the very next verse) looks not to this type of justice but to repentance.

Psalm 7:11-12. 'God is a just judge, and God is angry with the wicked every day. If he [the wicked] does not turn back, He will sharpen His sword; He bends His bow and makes it ready.'

So God is angry with sinners, and He is right to be angry. His anger is not a passing or variable thing but a steady, constant (righteous) thing ('every day'). If you have studied the nature of God, as I assume you have, you will know of His simplicity; that He does not change or get a better idea, otherwise He would not be God. Any decent Systematic Theology covers that.
'Great is thy faithfulness, O God, my Father,
There is no shadow of turning with thee.
Thou changest not; thy compassions they fail not;
As thou hast been thou forever shall be.'
So God cannot change His mind or say, "There, there! It doesn't matter!" 'If we are faithless, He remains faithful; He cannot deny Himself' (2 Timothy 2:13). So verse 12, far from 'not looking at this type of judgement,' confirms it; hence the sharpening of the sword and the bending of the bow.
But there is provision for the wicked to 'turn back' or repent. How does that happen? Well that is 'the mystery which has been hidden from ages and from generation, but has now been revealed to the saints' (Colossians 1:26. The 'hope of eternal life which God, who cannot lie, promised before time began' (Titus 1:2). It had to be arranged in eternity past, because God does not change.

Likewise, Proverbs 17:15 also says those who condemn the righteous are an abomination to God (I don't believe any of us think Christ "unrighteous"). Again, you are interpreting the passage as if divine justice was retributive justice without proof.

I never mention 'retributive justice.' It is you who harp on about it until I ask you about 2 Thessalonians 1:9 when you go strangely quiet.
Proverbs 17:15. 'He who justifies the wicked, and he who condemns the just, both of them alike are an abomination to the LORD.' So God cannot just declare wicked people righteous, even when they repent. Confession and contrition didn't do Achan any good (Joshua 7:20, 25). But nor can God condemn the righteous, and nor does He as we shall see..

Also, Roman's 3:21 tells us this is God's righteousness apart from the law. But you presume the issue of verse 26 is concerned with the demands of the law (of retributive justice) and mercy.

Romans 3:21. 'But now the righteousness of God is revealed apart from the law, being witnessed by the law and the prophets.' We have just heard (v.20) that no one can be saved by the deeds of the law. Now we are told that there is a way of salvation apart from the law, but which at the same time establishes the law (v.31). In v.25, we learn that God set Christ forth as a propitiation (a sacrifice that turns away wrath) precisely because 'in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were formerly committed.' Whose sins? Not those of the wicked, Achan's or Sodom's. It was those of the O.T. saints. God could not just forgive them because that would be justifying the wicked. No, 'God.....devises means so that His banished ones are not expelled from Him' (2 Samuel 14:14). God Himself, in the person of Jesus Christ, suffered instead of us the death, punishment and curse due to fallen humanity as the penalty for sin. He who knew no sin was made sin for us, and sin was punished in Him, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

'If [God] justifies the wicked, it is on account of righteousness (Romans 3:25-26). If He condemn the just, it is on the imputation of unrighteousness. Nowhere throughout the universe do the moral perfections of the Governor of the world shine so gloriously as at the cross of calvary. The satisfaction of the holy law, and the manifestation of righteous mercy, harmonise with the justification of the condemned sinner. And this combined glory tunes the song of everlasting praise' (Charles Bridges on Proverbs 17:15).

 

[JonC]

Your post #48'
Psalm 7:11-12. 'God is a just judge, and God is angry with the wicked every day. If he [the wicked] does not turn back, He will sharpen His sword; He bends His bow and makes it ready.'
.

I agree completely with the Scripture you have provided (not only here but throughout this thread).

The wicked should rightly fear condemnation. If they do not repent and turn to God then they will suffer His wrath. If they do repent and turn to God then they will find Him compassionate and faithful to forgive.

To acquit the guilty is just as much an abomination to God as is condemning the righteous. But, as Scripture states, God will forgive the repentant.

The plain words of Scripture simply do not fit into the Theory of Penal Substitution. Why? Why must the Theory add things like "but God considers Jesus unrighteous so those passages don't count"?

I believe it is because the Theory of Penal Substitution has as it's starting point a philosophy foreign to Scripture.

So look again at the OP and explain how the philosophical approach to justice introduced by Penal Substitution Theory came about.

Or, if you just want to defend the Theory, do so on the thread provided (or start your own).

 

[Martin Marprelate]

The plain words of Scripture simply do not fit into the Theory of Penal Substitution. Why? Why must the Theory add things like "but God considers Jesus unrighteous so those passages don't count"?

Well the plain words of Scripture plainly do fit the Doctrine of Penal Substitution. If God can simply forgive the repentant, then Christ died for nothing. Romans 3:24-26 clearly states that Christ suffered so that God might be 'just and the justifier of the one who believes in Jesus.'

You began the O.P. If you are interested in the 'philosophical approach to justice introduced by Penal Substitution' why don't you address it? I have seen precious little from you on the matter, so. Why not read the last paragraph of Post #46 and reply accordingly?

 

[JonC]

Well the plain words of Scripture plainly do fit the Doctrine of Penal Substitution. If God can simply forgive the repentant, then Christ died for nothing. Romans 3:24-26 clearly states that Christ suffered so that God might be 'just and the justifier of the one who believes in Jesus.'

You began the O.P. If you are interested in the 'philosophical approach to justice introduced by Penal Substitution' why don't you address it? I have seen precious little from you on the matter, so. Why not read the last paragraph of Post #46 and reply accordingly?

"Still had she gazed; but ’midst the tide two angel forms were seen to glide, the Genii of the stream: Their scaly armor’s Tyrian hue thro’ richest purple to the view betray’d a golden gleam." - Thomas Gray

Isn't it interesting that those who typically use slogans like "the plain words of Scripture", "my Bible says", and "obviously" in debate are typically expressing nothing but ignorance concerning the opposing view? I know what you think you see, Martin, but not all that glitters is gold.

What I am saying is that you do not seem to grasp the concept that ALL theories of the Atonement (not just Penal Substitution Theory) are familiar with and hold to those verses you have provided throughout this (and other) threads. BUT they interpret those verses differently.

Origen would view God as both just and the justifier of believers because God Himself paid and was the ransom paid to Satan. Those who do not believe will justly perish under God's judgment.

Abelard believed that God was just and would rightly judge the wicked. But having Himself suffered and died to redeem us, by that example and abiding love in those who have faith in Christ, God also and justly justifies the believer.

Aquinas believed that God came and died for man that all who believe would have life eternal. Those who do not believe and the unrepentant will be rightly judged and punished for their sin. The repentant will be justified as they draw upon the merit of Christ.

Martin Luther did not rationalize or moralize the plan of redemption (he, rather famously, remained a bit ambivalent towards the law). Yet he believed that God was is both just not only in punishing the wicked but also in justifying those who are transitioned "in Christ".

It seems the problem here is that you are unable to understand how other interpretations and theories exist apart from ignoring Scripture. This is a flaw, brother. You should be able to understand, by study, what these views believe and why they believe what they believe. How does their interpretation come about? How does your interpretation come about?

Until you can understand the opposing views, and until you can comprehend how they interpret these passages and how they arrive at a different conclusion, you simply are not qualified to hold any opinion because you lack the tools to evaluate opposing views against your own.

That is your position, though you have failed to prove it or to interact with my posts with have provided Biblical evidence for the doctrine.

It certainly is ignored by you. I asked you on Post #37 to consider this text: 'These shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power' (2 Thessalonians 1:9), and tell me whether you see it as retributive or redemptive. You have not yet replied. I would also be interested to kow how you interpret Psalms 7:11 and Romans 3:26, both of which I have quoted in the past without reply from you.

Needless to say, I disagree profoundly. The Doctrine of Penal Substitution is in the warp and woof of Scripture, absolutely fundamental to it.

Well it will certainly be helpful if you will explain your reasoning. Are you following Paul Fiddes, Stephen Travis and Tom Smail, or are you more in agreement with Eleonore Stump?

What view I am "following" is not the topic of this thread (read the OP & nice try to hijack it). The topic is how these things developed.

As I already have shown, all of the other theories deal logically with the passages you provide. I'm not going to get into the "how" of every theory because this thread is examining what influenced the theories.,

That Penal Substitution Theory as it stands today was not articulated until the Reformation and by John Calvin is a fairly recent claim. Reading J.I. Packer's defense of Penal Substitution Theory, one of the first thing he does is to recognize that the Theory itself did not exist prior to the Reformation - but he contends that the truths of the Theory in general were taught, that the elements were there, but many of the issues it addressed were not issues of antiquity. I believe he is partially correct (I believe the Theory flawed).


So what is changed with the advent of Penal Substitution Theory? What are the influences? First off we have John Calvin moving the Atonement into a law court language. We have the Theory assuming divine justice to be retributive justice (as opposed to the views that existed from the early church through the middle medieval period)?

Worldviews changed. Anselm could not but see the flaw in Ransom Theory. But he couched the Atonement in a middle-age concept of honor while Abelard did so in morality. Three hundred years later we see another change in thinking, and Aquinas reworks Anselm's theory to reflect merit and a system of penance. John Calvin, a lawyer, reforms the RCC system by moving it from this penance system (which does not fit into the Reformation view) into the law court system.

But prior to Calvin we see the theories approaching retributive justice - we see the development.

Why did the early church hold solely to a Christus Victor theme without considering all that is considered today? Why was that the "plain view of Scripture"? I believe it due to the persecutions the church was facing, but I also believe it due to their natural worldview (the view in which the New Testament is couched).

As an example, no one until John Calvin taught that God must first exercise divine punishment in order to forgive men and achieve redemption. Anselm was close, the difference being that he did not view Christ bearing punishment an issue of redemption to pay a "sin debt". Aquinas was a bit closer, but he only believed "satisfactory punishment" just in the Cross. Luther was even closer, but we don't get there until Calvin.

And then there are the Theories that have come about as a reaction to the invention of the Theory of Penal Substitution. Anabaptist theology has grown even tighter in some areas. Mennonite scholars, like Weaver, have all but ignored blood atonement.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Isn't it interesting that those who typically use slogans like "the plain words of Scripture", "my Bible says", and "obviously" in debate are typically expressing nothing but ignorance concerning the opposing view? I know what you think you see, Martin, but not all that glitters is gold.

'Myself when young did eagerly frequent
Doctor and saint, and heard great argument
About it and about; but evermore
Came out by the same door wherein I went.' - Omar Khayyam/Edward Fitzgerald.

'.....Always learning and never able to come to a knowledge of the truth' (2 Timothy 3:7).

2nd London baptist Confession of Faith, 1:6-7.
'The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down or necessarily contained in Scripture, to which nothing is to be added at any time, either by new revelation of the Spirit, or by the traditions of men. Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the word........
All things in Scripture are not equally plain in themselves, nor equally clear to everyone, yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed and observed for salvation, are so clearly propounded and revealed in some palce or other, that not only the educated but also the uneducated may attain a sufficient understanding of them by the due use of ordinary means.'
[N.B. The means are listening to the preaching of the word and reading it, with reverence, a teachable spirit and with prayer]

I think you need to understand that you are not as clever as you think you are. You keep talking about the various theories, yet you seem to be entirely unable to articulate them. If you actually express a point of view at some point, it might be possible to have a rational discussion with you.

 

[JonC]

'Myself when young did eagerly frequent
Doctor and saint, and heard great argument
About it and about; but evermore
Came out by the same door wherein I went.' - Omar Khayyam/Edward Fitzgerald.

'.....Always learning and never able to come to a knowledge of the truth' (2 Timothy 3:7).

2nd London baptist Confession of Faith, 1:6-7.
'The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down or necessarily contained in Scripture, to which nothing is to be added at any time, either by new revelation of the Spirit, or by the traditions of men. Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the word........
All things in Scripture are not equally plain in themselves, nor equally clear to everyone, yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed and observed for salvation, are so clearly propounded and revealed in some palce or other, that not only the educated but also the uneducated may attain a sufficient understanding of them by the due use of ordinary means.'
[N.B. The means are listening to the preaching of the word and reading it, with reverence, a teachable spirit and with prayer]

I think you need to understand that you are not as clever as you think you are. You keep talking about the various theories, yet you seem to be entirely unable to articulate them. If you actually express a point of view at some point, it might be possible to have a rational discussion with you.

There is no need to become defensive and insulting, MartinM.

Which theory are you interested in examining?

I have, actually, expressed a point of view on this very thread. I stated that Penal Substitution Theory is dependent on a post-Medieval worldview.

I also pointed out how other theories considered Christ's death as necessary (something that proved just outside your grasp).

"I drive a Ford truck - always have and always will. Ford trucks are better than Dodge trucks." If I am not an expert on Dodge trucks then all I can rightfully claim is that I like my Ford. I don't know enough about Dodge to have an opinion.

Both you and @The Archangel have stated on this forum that the other theories do not necessitate the Cross. Both of you have expressed the sentiment that Penal Substitution Theory is the plain teaching of Scripture. By your admission both of you are blind to how the other theories (even if they are wrong) interpret Scripture. Both of you are disqualified from having an opinion about other theories because neither of you grasp how the make sence of the Cross. By your own words neither of you comprehend how theology (as a process) was worked out in the development of these theories.

If you want a rational discussion about MY view of the Atonement then that may be done on a thread about Atonement views. That IS not the topic here. If you cannot or will not contribute to the topic, that is fine. But stop the nonsense.

Unlike you and @The Archangel , I do understand how the opposing view (Penal Substitution Theory) holds the cross as necessary. But I also comprehend how other theories view the cross.

 

[Yeshua1]

Hey Archangel! I haven’t seen you around in a while.

I believe that Paul wrote Romans 3 to explain the righteousness of God manifested apart from the law. Prior to Paul’s “now” God had “passed over” former sins in order to show this righteousness (this same and only righteousness of God manifested apart from the law – the Law bearing witness to it).

My concern here, however, is not what I believe the correct theory of atonement to be. I’ve already explained my understanding of the atonement (while back – the chief complaint was that it was too much Scripture, too less explanation….but made sense to me without any addition so I just left it alone).

So, how can the other theories hold that God can forgive sin without payment and yet require that Jesus die?

Abelard believed that Jesus came not just to die, but to be born, live and die. To him it was a matter of obedience as God demonstrated His love to us that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us.

Some believe that Christ had to die for our offenses to bear the curse of physical death which is the wage of sin, and thereby redeem mankind that through Him they may have life.

Luther taught that Christ had to die and descend into hell to overcome sin, death and hell on behalf of His bride (Luther, The Freedom of a Christian).

Anselm believed that Christ had to be born, suffer, and die as man’s representative and gain victory over sin and death (the curse) in order to restore the honor that had been robbed of God.

In fact, now that I consider it, I don’t think that ANY of the other theories fail to address why Jesus had to die.

I suppose how legitimate one believes one theory to be depends largely on what they are willing to carry into the study. Do we pretend that God holds a Western worldview and divine justice is retributive justice? Do we pretend that He holds a Justinian worldview? Do we pretend that Divine Justice is restorative justice?

OR can we examine the philosophies that are so often merely assumed? Why retributivism? Why not Restorative? Why not Abrahamic? Why not Utilitarianism? Why not Reparation?

The purpose of this thread is to examine how things develop - not argue for or against one theory of atonement. How did it come to be that, in this age and with all the information we have, all the history, that it is so difficult to trace the development of these things?

I look forward to your insights in explaining how and why retributive justice is used to interpret the Atonement (and other passages) when for so many Christians another mode is used.

Jon

The Pst is the only theology of the atonement that actually provides to God the remedy for Justifing sinners in His sight, for it permitted Him to judge and comnden in our own stead the One who knew no sin to become sin bearer for us, so now God can freely justify a guilty sinner. Without the Pst, we are back to a legal fiction as Rome see the true Gospel as teaching!

 

[Yeshua1]

Your post #48'
Psalm 7:11-12. 'God is a just judge, and God is angry with the wicked every day. If he [the wicked] does not turn back, He will sharpen His sword; He bends His bow and makes it ready.'

So God is angry with sinners, and He is right to be angry. His anger is not a passing or variable thing but a steady, constant (righteous) thing ('every day'). If you have studied the nature of God, as I assume you have, you will know of His simplicity; that He does not change or get a better idea, otherwise He would not be God. Any decent Systematic Theology covers that.
'Great is thy faithfulness, O God, my Father,
There is no shadow of turning with thee.
Thou changest not; thy compassions they fail not;
As thou hast been thou forever shall be.'
So God cannot change His mind or say, "There, there! It doesn't matter!" 'If we are faithless, He remains faithful; He cannot deny Himself' (2 Timothy 2:13). So verse 12, far from 'not looking at this type of judgement,' confirms it; hence the sharpening of the sword and the bending of the bow.
But there is provision for the wicked to 'turn back' or repent. How does that happen? Well that is 'the mystery which has been hidden from ages and from generation, but has now been revealed to the saints' (Colossians 1:26. The 'hope of eternal life which God, who cannot lie, promised before time began' (Titus 1:2). It had to be arranged in eternity past, because God does not change.

I never mention 'retributive justice.' It is you who harp on about it until I ask you about 2 Thessalonians 1:9 when you go strangely quiet.
Proverbs 17:15. 'He who justifies the wicked, and he who condemns the just, both of them alike are an abomination to the LORD.' So God cannot just declare wicked people righteous, even when they repent. Confession and contrition didn't do Achan any good (Joshua 7:20, 25). But nor can God condemn the righteous, and nor does He as we shall see..

Romans 3:21. 'But now the righteousness of God is revealed apart from the law, being witnessed by the law and the prophets.' We have just heard (v.20) that no one can be saved by the deeds of the law. Now we are told that there is a way of salvation apart from the law, but which at the same time establishes the law (v.31). In v.25, we learn that God set Christ forth as a propitiation (a sacrifice that turns away wrath) precisely because 'in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were formerly committed.' Whose sins? Not those of the wicked, Achan's or Sodom's. It was those of the O.T. saints. God could not just forgive them because that would be justifying the wicked. No, 'God.....devises means so that His banished ones are not expelled from Him' (2 Samuel 14:14). God Himself, in the person of Jesus Christ, suffered instead of us the death, punishment and curse due to fallen humanity as the penalty for sin. He who knew no sin was made sin for us, and sin was punished in Him, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

'If [God] justifies the wicked, it is on account of righteousness (Romans 3:25-26). If He condemn the just, it is on the imputation of unrighteousness. Nowhere throughout the universe do the moral perfections of the Governor of the world shine so gloriously as at the cross of calvary. The satisfaction of the holy law, and the manifestation of righteous mercy, harmonise with the justification of the condemned sinner. And this combined glory tunes the song of everlasting praise' (Charles Bridges on Proverbs 17:15).

Those against Pst seem to view God was just treating jesus wrongly, as they confuse God treatment of Jesus on the Cross due to Jesus own sinless state to at that moment was indeed the sin bearer, and so was treated by Holy God in a righteous fashion!

 

[Yeshua1]

There is no need to become defensive and insulting, MartinM.

Which theory are you interested in examining?

I have, actually, expressed a point of view on this very thread. I stated that Penal Substitution Theory is dependent on a post-Medieval worldview.

I also pointed out how other theories considered Christ's death as necessary (something that proved just outside your grasp).

"I drive a Ford truck - always have and always will. Ford trucks are better than Dodge trucks." If I am not an expert on Dodge trucks then all I can rightfully claim is that I like my Ford. I don't know enough about Dodge to have an opinion.

Both you and @The Archangel have stated on this forum that the other theories do not necessitate the Cross. Both of you have expressed the sentiment that Penal Substitution Theory is the plain teaching of Scripture. By your admission both of you are blind to how the other theories (even if they are wrong) interpret Scripture. Both of you are disqualified from having an opinion about other theories because neither of you grasp how the make sence of the Cross. By your own words neither of you comprehend how theology (as a process) was worked out in the development of these theories.

If you want a rational discussion about MY view of the Atonement then that may be done on a thread about Atonement views. That IS not the topic here. If you cannot or will not contribute to the topic, that is fine. But stop the nonsense.

Unlike you and @The Archangel , I do understand how the opposing view (Penal Substitution Theory) holds the cross as necessary. But I also comprehend how other theories view the cross.

The doctrine of the Pst derived from the implications of the scriptures though, for Calvin and the other reformers saw in grounded in inspired scripture, not in the legal and law textbooks!

 

[The Archangel]

Both you and @The Archangel have stated on this forum that the other theories do not necessitate the Cross. Both of you have expressed the sentiment that Penal Substitution Theory is the plain teaching of Scripture. By your admission both of you are blind to how the other theories (even if they are wrong) interpret Scripture. Both of you are disqualified from having an opinion about other theories because neither of you grasp how the make sence of the Cross. By your own words neither of you comprehend how theology (as a process) was worked out in the development of these theories.

If you want a rational discussion about MY view of the Atonement then that may be done on a thread about Atonement views. That IS not the topic here. If you cannot or will not contribute to the topic, that is fine. But stop the nonsense.

Unlike you and @The Archangel , I do understand how the opposing view (Penal Substitution Theory) holds the cross as necessary. But I also comprehend how other theories view the cross.

Are you seriously telling me and others what I do and do not understand? Really? Just because I haven't played along with your little rouse doesn't mean I don't understand the other theories of the atonement. Not demonstrating what I know (because I think there to be no value in doing so) and not being able to demonstrate said knowledge are two entirely different things.

When you say, "By your admission both of you are blind to how the other theories (even if they are wrong) interpret Scripture" you are absolutely wrong. How dare you put words into my mouth! You know better.

The Archangel

 

[Yeshua1]

Are you seriously telling me and others what I do and do not understand? Really? Just because I haven't played along with your little rouse doesn't mean I don't understand the other theories of the atonement. Not demonstrating what I know (because I think there to be no value in doing so) and not being able to demonstrate said knowledge are two entirely different things.

When you say, "By your admission both of you are blind to how the other theories (even if they are wrong) interpret Scripture" you are absolutely wrong. How dare you put words into my mouth! You know better.

The Archangel

The only way to get away from holding to the Pst is to take the approach of NT Wright, in that one has to just assume that we have misunderstood what Paul meant in Romans and Galatians all of these centuries!

 

[JonC]

Are you seriously telling me and others what I do and do not understand? Really? Just because I haven't played along with your little rouse doesn't mean I don't understand the other theories of the atonement. Not demonstrating what I know (because I think there to be no value in doing so) and not being able to demonstrate said knowledge are two entirely different things.

When you say, "By your admission both of you are blind to how the other theories (even if they are wrong) interpret Scripture" you are absolutely wrong. How dare you put words into my mouth! You know better.

The Archangel

Don't get all upset. This is a discussion board. Each of us will call it like we see it (no need to wear your feelings on your sleeve, no need to become abusive).

But - Yes, Brother. I am seriously telling you and @Martin Marprelate that IF you cannot understand how any of the other theories of Atonement require Christ's death then you do not understand those theories.

You are the one who indicated that you cannot understand how those theories, that present God as forgiving sin without payment, stresses the need for Jesus to have died.

This isn't theory; it is the plain teaching of scripture. l

If God can forgive sin without payment why does Jesus have to die?

Here is your chance to prove me wrong and stay on topic at the same time - how does the Moral Influence theory depend on Christ's death on the Cross? What about Ransom Theory? What about Satisfaction Theory (Anselm's theory)?

How do these theories that present God as being able to forgive without payment or punishment for those sins consider the Cross as absolutely necessary?

 

[The Archangel]

Brother,

You are both right and wrong here.

I do deny your interpretation of Roman's 3. Instead I believe that Paul is speaking of God's righteousness apart from the law (something not permitted under the Theory of Penal Substitution).

That you are unable to grasp the fact I also affirm Romans 3 while rejecting your interpretation evidences the issue to be, as I said earlier, one of understanding.

Insulting, as usual. I am not unable to grasp your side's argument. I just don't see the value in playing your little games. Learn the difference.

I appreciate your attempt to address the thread. If you can please keep on topic by discussing how these theories developed then please do so.

Again, I am not interested here in discussing the correctness of any of these theories, much less yours. I want to look at th he influences. If you can't identify these then how can you but stay off topic.

Insulting again. It isn't that I "can't," I assure you. But it is that I won't and there is a difference.

What is more, it seems that you are interested in discussing the correctness of your theory alone. So, when Martin or I tries to post something, you defend your theory by discounting--and not stating why--from scripture. When we challenge your theory with scripture, we get this type of absurd deflection where you say we don't understand. We understand all too well...

Think about what I am asking, Brother. How did these theories develop? Why retributive justice in Penal Substitution Theory? Why Justinian justice in the Moral Influence Theory? What is the difference? How does this influence interpretation?

Or do you believe Scripture is subjective and dependent on what each worldview would see as its "plain meaning"? (I just realized I have presupposed objective truth into the discussion while you may hold a more liberal view).

Thank you for your interest and the time it took to respond to my thread. I hope you will be able to contribute to the topic of the OP as well.

Jon

Is your conclusion that I can't read scripture properly because I don't happen to agree with you? Really?! I find it interesting that you refuse to discuss the scriptural challenges while insulting my ability to read scripture. Sad....

The Archangel

 

[The Archangel]

Yes, Brother. I am seriously telling you and @Martin Marprelate that IF you cannot understand how any of the other theories of Atonement require Christ's death then you do not understand those theories.

You are the one who indicated that you cannot understand how those theories, that present God as forgiving sin without payment, stresses the need for Jesus to have died.

And you think those questions posed to you demonstrate misunderstanding? These are attempts to have you explain, which you refuse to do, not a plea for education on the matter.

The Archangel

 

[Yeshua1]

Yes, Brother. I am seriously telling you and @Martin Marprelate that IF you cannot understand how any of the other theories of Atonement require Christ's death then you do not understand those theories.

You are the one who indicated that you cannot understand how those theories, that present God as forgiving sin without payment, stresses the need for Jesus to have died.





Here is your chance to prove me wrong and stay on topic at the same time - how does the Moral Influence theory depend on Christ's death on the Cross? What about Ransom Theory? What about Satisfaction Theory (Anselm's theory)?

How do these theories that present God as being able to forgive without payment or punishment for those sins consider the Cross as absolutely necessary?

How can God be able to justify a guilty sinner without His demands for righteousness be fully met then?

 

[JonC]

And you think those questions posed to you demonstrate misunderstanding? These are attempts to have you explain, which you refuse to do, not a plea for education on the matter.

The Archangel

If you have a different idea of how these theories account for the necessity of the cross while affirming simple forgiveness then please share your knowledge (otherwise, why even post). I've covered Moral Influence, Ransom, Satisfaction, Substitution (Aquinas, anyway), touched on Luther, and of course we all know Penal Substitution Theory.

Would you be so gracious as to cover Government theory, Recapitulation, and Ontological Substitution - how they require that Christ die without requiring God punish sin in order to forgive?

 

[JonC]

How can God be able to justify a guilty sinner without His demands for righteousness be fully met then?

It depends (I suppose entirely) on what one believes those demands of righteousness to be. I don't think that any theory is better than Penal Substitution Theory if God's righteousness is based on law and retributive justice. Perhaps Aquinas and Anselm are based similarly, but even with them punishment was not linked to punishment for our sins as a redemption (and I think Penal Substitution Theory an improved revision of Aquinas' theory).

If you hold to a Justinian idea of justice then God can forgive or punishment. If you repent then God can forgive you without needing to punish you for past sins. But God would also be just to punish you instead.

Restorative justice would focus on the results and motives of God's action of justice. God could condemn one to hell justly IF the effect is restorative to the whole. Or God could forgive one IF the effect is restorative. It isn't focused on sin and punishment but on states.

I hope that helps. You just have to keep in mind that not everyone things as we think, not everyone understands retributive justice, much less holds it.

 

[The Archangel]

If you have a different idea of how these theories account for the necessity of the cross while affirming simple forgiveness then please share your knowledge (otherwise, why even post). I've covered Moral Influence, Ransom, Satisfaction, Substitution (Aquinas, anyway), touched on Luther, and of course we all know Penal Substitution Theory.

Would you be so gracious as to cover Government theory, Recapitulation, and Ontological Substitution - how they require that Christ die without requiring God punish sin in order to forgive?

Given your unwillingness to have a discussion without lacing said discussion with insults.... No. I won't.

The Archangel