God is just in judging lost sinners to hell due to them having sinned against Him, correct?
-
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!
Anselm, Abelard, and Friends - Influences of Theories of Atonement
- Thread starter JonC
- Start date
That is fine, brother. You don't have to reply.
It is a shame, though. Given your experience I looked forward to your insight (two of those on the list are more difficult for me than those I had explained).
The Archangel
Well-Known Member
It isn't about the subject matter, which I find fascinating. It's about your insults. I have neither time nor tolerance for them. Good day.
The Archangel
Brother,
If you have detected an insult then I can assure you it was not intended. I know some topics can get heated, but for my part I did not intend to insult anyone. But such is the way with this type of communication. It is as easily to infer what is not there as it is to carelessly respond with something that can be offensive.
And you are right. This is a very interesting topic.
For years it concerned me that people held beliefs that they could not defend. They did not know where they came from or how they interpreted Scripture as opposed to other views. They didn't understand theological development. What this meant is that they believed their view to be what Scripture plainly taught and could not address (or defend) their position against other views. This is what sparked my interest in theology (primarily with the doctrine of eternal salvation).
Anyway, if you change your mind you are always welcome. Iron sharpening Iron is one reason many come to this forum and I believe with your experience and education you could help keep this one on topic.
In Christ,
JonC
Well, first of all, if God did not impute our guilt to Jesus, the fact that He died at all is an appalling injustice. I suppose you will not deny that death is the penalty for sin and that it came upon mankind because of the sin of Adam. Read Romans 5 if you disagree. Christ had no sin of His own to die for, and therefore, if He bore the guilt of no one else, He should not have died at all. Yet the Biblical evidence that Christ's death was deliberate on the part of God is overwhelming.. So if Christ was not bearing our sin, we are forced to hold God guilty of a most dreadful wrong to His beloved Son.
But of course Christ did indeed bear our sins on the cross. It becomes wearying to keep quoting Isaiah 53:6 and 1 Peter 2:24; the reference in the latter to a tree rather than a cross is a reminder that Christ was made a curse for us, taking upon Himself the very curse of God (Galatians 3:10-14). And Christ was fully conscious of the sins that were laid on Him as if they were His own. In Psalms 69, which is obviously messianic because of verses 4, 9 & 21, He cries out, "O God, You know My foolishness, and My sins are not hidden from You" (v.5). The sins laid upon Him were real and imputed to Him as if He had committed them.
The Scripture never declare Christ to be unrighteous, for the very good reason that He never was. But the 'plain words of Scripture' very clearly declare Him to have been made sin for us that we might become the righteousness of God in Him. the words 'in Him' remind us of the federal relationship that Christ has with His people, which is another avenue that might usefully be explored, but I'm not inclined to waste my time on arguments that you won't address.
It would be, but only under Penal Substitution Theory. Other theories would allow Christ to die without God imputing our guilt to Jesus (in terms of a "sin debt"). In fact, all of the other theories would. That said, all also believe that Jesus took our nature upon Himself (I am aware of some who hold to Penal Substitution Theory that do not believe this, so it may not be necessary for that theory).
It does not matter what I would affirm or deny (or really what you would affirm or deny) in terms of atonement theories. That is not the topic of the thread. That is also why I have not expounded on what I believe.
How do you believe that these theories developed? Do you believe that these theories reflect social changes? Can you see how certain philosophies were vital to the development of these theories?
Do you understand how the theories that deny God punished Jesus in order to pay our "sin debt" also focus on the necessity of the Cross?
Why aren't YOU articulating these theories if you believe in them and want to discuss them? As I have said before, I do not believe them to be entirely wrong so long as they are subsidiary to the Doctrine of Penal Substitution. I am more interested in bringing truth to light than error, even partial error. But if you want to lay out your view on any of the alternatives, then please get on with it rather than accusing Archangel and myself of not understanding them, which is just a cheap shot and profoundly unworthy of you.
There is certainly a sense in which this is true. But you merely prove my ascription of 1 Timothy 3:7 to you as being correct.
As for me becoming defensive and insulting-- the pot calls the kettle black. Quit the condescending insults and we shall have a better discussion.
Why?
Because that is the topic of the thread.
(I answered in post # 52 and repeated it in # 66).
You are that man. You are the one who holds views that you cannot defend, as is most clearly evidenced by your blank refusal to do so on not only this thread, but on several others. You are acting like a fraud, @JonC, and if you deny it, then put some of your views on this board so that others can see them and critique them.
Yes, brother. People can see what I believe (on the thread where you and I discussed my beliefs). But I am not going to interject my beliefs of the Atonement here. Like @The Archangel , I believe the topic here to be interesting itself.
And I am sorry that you feel this way. You may insult me, and that's OK. I can certainly be a horrible person at times. My only caution is that if your theory is correct then would such not have contributed to Christ's suffering?
Anyway, if you choose to discuss these theories you are more than welcome to do so. I would be interested to get your take on what influenced some of the theories.
You did quite a study on Luther. Maybe you could address how he differed from some others with his Atonement view. Did his experience in the Catholic church have any influence (either in his view or perhaps reactionary to Catholic views)?
In Christ
I once thought that perhaps the flaw of each theory in isolation was its isolation. They all contained truth of the Atonement and the difference was their focus. But this is only partially true. Each theory does point to biblical truth, but this is because all the theories are based on the same Scriptures. They all have the same source and they all accept the same text as being true. So, I asked myself why the difference. I believe the difference can be narrowed to how they viewed the problem of, or the need for, redemption.
I think that while we typically look to the early church as a model, we also tend to discount their worldview and believe we have the advantage because we can look back through the corridors of time. We have the advantage of two thousand years of study, scientific discovery, technology, and archeological finds. Information is at our fingertips, at our beck and call, while they had only bits and pieces, deprived of the whole.
But what if their worldview was in many ways correct? Scripture was, after all, delivered through that world. Theirs was the point in time through which Christ would come incarnate. It was under their guard that Christ would bear our sins, suffer and die.
What if we are wrong to impose onto Scripture a Western mindset? What if this was the mistake of other theories as well; that they took the “plain teachings of Scripture” because it was plain to their understanding without considering it was foreign to the world through which the New Covenant was introduced?
These ideas are what sparked interest, for me, in the topic. And reading Scripture while consciously avoiding (to the best of my ability) reading into it things I had presupposed led me to change my view of the Atonement. To me the amazing thing was how incumbered Scripture was when shackled by what I had carried into the reading. The gospel comes through, which is a miracle of the gospel, but other things are clouded.
I am certain that I still carry ideas and presuppositions into Scripture. We have certain ways of thinking, certain ideologies, and a specific worldview. They start to form how we see the world since the time we first begin to learn.
I thought perhaps this board would be a good place to look at how each theory is influenced by various worldviews and presuppositions; to examine the theological development of these ideas about the Atonement.
That is the intent of this thread – not defending one theory over the rest, but looking at how each developed and what possible influences exist.
I think that while we typically look to the early church as a model, we also tend to discount their worldview and believe we have the advantage because we can look back through the corridors of time. We have the advantage of two thousand years of study, scientific discovery, technology, and archeological finds. Information is at our fingertips, at our beck and call, while they had only bits and pieces, deprived of the whole.
But what if their worldview was in many ways correct? Scripture was, after all, delivered through that world. Theirs was the point in time through which Christ would come incarnate. It was under their guard that Christ would bear our sins, suffer and die.
What if we are wrong to impose onto Scripture a Western mindset? What if this was the mistake of other theories as well; that they took the “plain teachings of Scripture” because it was plain to their understanding without considering it was foreign to the world through which the New Covenant was introduced?
These ideas are what sparked interest, for me, in the topic. And reading Scripture while consciously avoiding (to the best of my ability) reading into it things I had presupposed led me to change my view of the Atonement. To me the amazing thing was how incumbered Scripture was when shackled by what I had carried into the reading. The gospel comes through, which is a miracle of the gospel, but other things are clouded.
I am certain that I still carry ideas and presuppositions into Scripture. We have certain ways of thinking, certain ideologies, and a specific worldview. They start to form how we see the world since the time we first begin to learn.
I thought perhaps this board would be a good place to look at how each theory is influenced by various worldviews and presuppositions; to examine the theological development of these ideas about the Atonement.
That is the intent of this thread – not defending one theory over the rest, but looking at how each developed and what possible influences exist.