Atonemet (Not PSA....my position)

[JonC]

Yes. If one were to leave it at that as stated, that would be the argument of Socinus

No, not quite. It would be wrong, but Socinianism has a more nuanced view.

@jesusis making a strawman argument (saying Christ Himself is the Propitiation for sins, that God set Christ forth as a propitiation through His blood to be received by faith, that Christ Himself is the basis is NOT saying repentanceis the basis.

Faith is how atonement is applied or recieved. But Christ is the basis.

 

[DaveXR650]

No, not quite. It would be wrong, but Socinianism has a more nuanced view.

"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.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

If you are angry at your wife and she apologizes, do you exercise that wrath against her or do you forgive her.

"You" are not the Judge of all the earth. Sinful human beings will sometimes forgive and sometimes not, but God is the righteous Judge and will always judge justly.
Let us suppose for a moment a scene in court.
Judge: "Prisoner at the bar, you have been found guilty on the clearest evidence of murder, extortion, fraud, embezzlement and theft. Before I pass sentence, do you have anything to say in your defense?"
Prisoner: "Well, I'm terribly sorry and I promise not to do it again. And if you let me off I'll buy you lunch."
Judge: "Will it be a big lunch?"
Prisoner: "Oh yes! All you can eat! After all those crimes I'm really wealthy."
Judge: That's fine then; case dismissed in time for lunch!

What sort of judge is that? How can he just let guilty people off? God is the righteous Judge, and 'By no means clearing the guilty.' But at the same time, 'God... devises means so that His banished ones are not expelled from Him' (2 Sam. 14:14). Those means are Penal Substitution. God Himself, in the Person of Jesus Christ has taken those sins upon HImself and paid the penalty for them in full, satisfying His own justice, 'That He might be just and the justifier of the one who believes in Jesus.'

'Tis mystery all, the Immortal dies;
Who can explain His strange design?
In vain the first-born Seraph tries
To sound the depth of love divine.
'Tis mercy all! Immense and free,
For, O my God, it found out me! [Charles Wesley]

 

[JonC]

"God is our creditor and we are His debtors by virtue of our sins.

No. We are indebted to God for our creation, both the first and second.

My point is God is not indebted to us, to pay our wage. Sin itself produces death.

God judges the wicked. He will NEVER punish the Just. He will NEVER clear the wicked. Why? Because if He did He would be unjust and wicked.


The difference we dance around is in your judicial philosophy. You believe divine justice is of a type as to make demands of God. If a person sins then God's duty as Judge is to punish that sin - not necessarily the sinner, as long as that sin is punished.


PSA theorists often give the example of you standing before a judge and another taking your sentence.

You murdered a child. You are guilty. But Jesus stands before the Judge as the sentence of death is passed and on your behalf takes that punishment for you. Justice does not care who is punished as long as the deficiency in the law is paid. So you, the murderer, is released and an innocent person is killed in your place. Justice is served.

I do not believe your judicial philosophy is just. I believe it is, in fact, evil. Justice is not about - as Calvin said - avenging the law, punishing every crime.

Justice is about being about righteousness.

If the Judge could make you "not guilty" by killing the guilty man in you and making you a new creation in Christ then Justice is a accomolished. The Law is fulfilled, but the righteousness (the same righteousnes) is manifested apart from the law.


The benefit is this does not make God commit sin. God still does not punish the Just. He still does not clear the guilty.

 

[JonC]

@DaveXR650

In the Old Testament when was atonement actually made for sins? Was it with the necessary shedding of blood? Or was it when the priest "made atonementfor the sins of the people" by applying the blood?

In the Old Testament is there any examples of cleansing from iniquity occurring by offering a sacrifice of atonement OR was it always by the blood cleansing?

In the New Testament are people forgiven by God setting forth Christ as a propitiationin His blood. OR must this atonement be applied to the person, must it be received by faith?

In the New Testament is it God punishing Jesus that clears our sin debt OR is it Christ's blood that cleanses from all unrighteousness?

Does "the blood of Christ" represent (as PSA theoriest often claim) Jesus' death OR does it represent Life? Is death or life in the blood?


Are there any passages that state God punished Jesus to pay our sin debt? No

Are there any passages that state God punished Jesus? No.

Are there sny passages that state we even need somebody to pay our debt of sin as opposed to being cleansed from unrighteousness? No.


The danger of PSA is when people put it at the very center of their faith. That is the point they cease being Christian. That is the danger of these philosophies. They can carry people away.

 

[DaveXR650]

No. We are indebted to God for our creation, both the first and second.

Needless reply. This is why no real discussion is possible. Even Socinus was not putting up our responsibility as created beings as something opposed to our indebtedness for our sins. Two different things.

My point is God is not indebted to us, to pay our wage. Sin itself produces death.

Someone who steps in out of benevolence and pays something doesn't mean they were indebted to pay it.

God judges the wicked. He will NEVER punish the Just. He will NEVER clear the wicked. Why? Because if He did He would be unjust and wicked.

But to release the guilty and punish the innocent in their place "is not only completely opposed to any standard of justice: it is worse than inhuman and savage." That's Socinus again. Now, part of his objection came from his belief that Christ was not God and therefore I presume one could not argue to him that God was taking the penalty back upon Himself. But he also denied that Christ could do so no matter who he was because to even be a possible representative for justice "that person has also sinned and imitated the wickedness of the others". Besides all that, such a statement from you disconnects with Christ bearing our sin in his own body and the claim that we are just because we are made anew. We are, but the first part still needs to be explained.

In the Old Testament when was atonement actually made for sins? Was it with the necessary shedding of blood? Or was it when the priest "made atonementfor the sins of the people" by applying the blood?

It's all part of it. Why try to separate it out? It makes no sense. There was even a thing called the "Day of Atonement".

Are there sny passages that state we even need somebody to pay our debt of sin as opposed to being cleansed from unrighteousness? No.

None that I know of. Maybe that is why everything I have ever read from PSA advocates includes being cleansed from unrighteousness as part of what they are talking about. "As opposed" is what you like to do and it really messes up your theology.

The danger of PSA is when people put it at the very center of their faith. That is the point they cease being Christian. That is the danger of these philosophies. They can carry people away.

I agree that it's possible to believe that since your sins are forgiven you can sin all the more. Paul was concerned about that too. It's also possible to think you can be born anew and continue on in sin. Owen warned about that too. So what's the point? That indicates our proneness to error, not anything wrong with PSA.

 

[Armchair Apologist]

PSA theorists often give the example of you standing before a judge and another taking your sentence.

You murdered a child. You are guilty. But Jesus stands before the Judge as the sentence of death is passed and on your behalf takes that punishment for you. Justice does not care who is punished as long as the deficiency in the law is paid. So you, the murderer, is released and an innocent person is killed in your place. Justice is served.

If such is how PSA is illustrated, I believe this is where PSA comes up short.

Not just anyone could stand up and take your place. Even if such were actually guiltless. The one standing up to take your place has to be the OFFENDED PARTY (which is God). Justice is demanded and the verdict is read - The wages of sin is death.... Rom 6:23a

The debt is owed by man. Adam (our Federal head) is the offender. As in Adam, all die... 1 Cor 15:22a

Christ, the "Second Adam" had to become a man (and is, in fact TRULY MAN - Vera Homo) because the sin debt was owed by man and therefore only man could pay this debt. In order to pay this debt on our behalf, Christ had to present himself as the SPOTLESS LAMB who fulfilled the righteousness of the law perfectly as this is God's standard for righteousness.

Our sin is infinite in quantity because we have sinned against a holy and infinite God, it requires an infinite, eternal punishment in the lake of fire. No mere mortal man regardless of their righteous standing was able to pay such a debt! The only one capable of paying such an infinite debt is an infinite being and the only infinite being who exists (and is therefore eligible) is God!

He (God) hath made him (Jesus) to be sin for us (took our sin) who knew no sin (was perfectly righteous) so that we (a sinner) might be made the righteousness of God (declared righteous) in him - 2 Cor 5:21.

Therefore, the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ (Rom 6:23b) and in Christ, all shall be made alive (1 Cor 15:22b).

In other words, the offended party (God) relinquished his right to justice and through Jesus Christ, the son of the living God (Vera Deus) justice prevailed and he rose victorious and because of this, we may stand before him as we stand before him, we will see the nail prints of the one who suffered on our behalf!

I don't know about you but I think I would like to worship this God right about now!

Standing before him on that blissful day, Faith is no more I shall see face-to-face
In all glory and splendor, lost in his wonder and grace!
As I behold him I may understand, His sword pierced side and his nail scarred hand
Bear the cost of redemption, so that before him I'd stand
No condemnation I ever shall fear, you'll wipe away all my sorrow and tears
And in your presence I'll ever draw near and proclaim, praise your name,
My sins are gone!

 

[JonC]

Needless reply. This is why no real discussion is possible. Even Socinus was not putting up our responsibility as created beings as something opposed to our indebtedness for our sins. Two different things.

Someone who steps in out of benevolence and pays something doesn't mean they were indebted to pay it.

But to release the guilty and punish the innocent in their place "is not only completely opposed to any standard of justice: it is worse than inhuman and savage." That's Socinus again. Now, part of his objection came from his belief that Christ was not God and therefore I presume one could not argue to him that God was taking the penalty back upon Himself. But he also denied that Christ could do so no matter who he was because to even be a possible representative for justice "that person has also sinned and imitated the wickedness of the others". Besides all that, such a statement from you disconnects with Christ bearing our sin in his own body and the claim that we are just because we are made anew. We are, but the first part still needs to be explained.

It's all part of it. Why try to separate it out? It makes no sense. There was even a thing called the "Day of Atonement".

None that I know of. Maybe that is why everything I have ever read from PSA advocates includes being cleansed from unrighteousness as part of what they are talking about. "As opposed" is what you like to do and it really messes up your theology.

I agree that it's possible to believe that since your sins are forgiven you can sin all the more. Paul was concerned about that too. It's also possible to think you can be born anew and continue on in sin. Owen warned about that too. So what's the point? That indicates our proneness to error, not anything wrong with PSA.

This is not true. No real discussion is possible because we have different standards for such doctrines as the Atonement. Mine is God's Word whike yours is what you believe is taught by His words.

For example, what verse states that sins constitute a debt to God? We know the Law was a certificate of debt containing statutes and decrees. But this idea of a sin debt?

Then we have the idea that God must punish sins rather than being able to forgive sins. Try finding that in the Bible.

I am not interested in reasoning out philosophy with you. We lean on different things, and I have no interest in leaning on my own understandingmuch less yours.

 

[JonC]

If such is how PSA is illustrated, I believe this is where PSA comes up short.

Not just anyone could stand up and take your place. Even if such were actually guiltless. The one standing up to take your place has to be the OFFENDED PARTY (which is God). Justice is demanded and the verdict is read - The wages of sin is death.... Rom 6:23a

The debt is owed by man. Adam (our Federal head) is the offender. As in Adam, all die... 1 Cor 15:22a

Christ, the "Second Adam" had to become a man (and is, in fact TRULY MAN - Vera Homo) because the sin debt was owed by man and therefore only man could pay this debt. In order to pay this debt on our behalf, Christ had to present himself as the SPOTLESS LAMB who fulfilled the righteousness of the law perfectly as this is God's standard for righteousness.

Our sin is infinite in quantity because we have sinned against a holy and infinite God, it requires an infinite, eternal punishment in the lake of fire. No mere mortal man regardless of their righteous standing was able to pay such a debt! The only one capable of paying such an infinite debt is an infinite being and the only infinite being who exists (and is therefore eligible) is God!

He (God) hath made him (Jesus) to be sin for us (took our sin) who knew no sin (was perfectly righteous) so that we (a sinner) might be made the righteousness of God (declared righteous) in him - 2 Cor 5:21.

Therefore, the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ (Rom 6:23b) and in Christ, all shall be made alive (1 Cor 15:22b).

In other words, the offended party (God) relinquished his right to justice and through Jesus Christ, the son of the living God (Vera Deus) justice prevailed and he rose victorious and because of this, we may stand before him as we stand before him, we will see the nail prints of the one who suffered on our behalf!

I don't know about you but I think I would like to worship this God right about now!

Standing before him on that blissful day, Faith is no more I shall see face-to-face
In all glory and splendor, lost in his wonder and grace!
As I behold him I may understand, His sword pierced side and his nail scarred hand
Bear the cost of redemption, so that before him I'd stand
No condemnation I ever shall fear, you'll wipe away all my sorrow and tears
And in your presence I'll ever draw near and proclaim, praise your name,
My sins are gone!

I am not sure where you get the concept that the debt is owed by man. Scripture indicates that death is a wage we earn, that sin produces death.

The Mosaic Law is called a certificate of debt with those statutes and decrees against man. But those are statutes given to a specific people at a specific time.

The idea that we owe a "sin debt" indicates we create a deficit in God.

The Bible presents a very different theology.

Sin begats death, sin produces death, the wages of sin is death, the sinner is mastered by Satan, death is the power of the devil.

Because of sin men die. It is appointed man once to die and then the judgment.

God judges. He is not collecting a debt or filling a need. He is judging.

 

[JonC]

This is not true. No real discussion is possible because we have different standards for such doctrines as the Atonement. Mine is God's Word whike yours is what you believe is taught by His words.

For example, what verse states that sins constitute a debt to God? We know the Law was a certificate of debt containing statutes and decrees. But this idea of a sin debt?

Then we have the idea that God must punish sins rather than being able to forgive sins. Try finding that in the Bible.

I am not interested in reasoning out philosophy with you. We lean on different things, and I have no interest in leaning on my own understandingmuch less yours.

Brother,

Lets try this. Provide passages without explaining what you think can be extracted from those passages and then let's examine what they actually state.

That way we can both see what God has said without leaning on either of our understandings.

 

[DaveXR650]

This is not true. No real discussion is possible because we have different standards for such doctrines as the Atonement. Mine is God's Word whike yours is what you believe is taught by His words.

That sounds very high sounding but it won't work. Set aside the fact that you deny the simplest meanings of verses indicating penal substitution. That as a method of using scripture is the same method people use when they say show me a verse that says we can't marry those of the same sex. Jesus used stories and illustrations, sometimes parables, sometimes true stories, but he expected people to interpret and use them for application to greater truth.
In Luke 7:40-50, Jesus himself clearly links the concept of sin and debt. Please stop this constant attempt to obscure clear teaching.

 

[JonC]

That sounds very high sounding but it won't work. Set aside the fact that you deny the simplest meanings of verses indicating penal substitution. That as a method of using scripture is the same method people use when they say show me a verse that says we can't marry those of the same sex. Jesus used stories and illustrations, sometimes parables, sometimes true stories, but he expected people to interpret and use them for application to greater truth.
In Luke 7:40-50, Jesus himself clearly links the concept of sin and debt. Please stop this constant attempt to obscure clear teaching.

No. There is no verse that establishes the philosophy you demand is right, no verse that establishes God punishing Jesus.

Even the claim that the "cup" awaiting Jesus (John and James shared) is not established as wrath.

What you have done is establishes a theory and then gone to the Bible to back it up.


For example.... you say that God laying our sins on Jesus has to mean God removing them from us.

Yet you reject that necessity when it comes to God putting Jesus' righteousnesson us.

You say Jesus bearing our sins has to mean instead of us.

But you reject that necessity when it comes to us bearing His righteousness.


The clear teaching of Luke 7:40-50 is about forgiveness - those who are forgiven little loves little. But the major point in regard to our topic is that God does forgive sins without having to relieve the emotional pressure of wrath in order to do so.

Jesus was not punished for the woman's many sins. Yet He forgave her. Why?

Her love and faith on display by her actions.

You even reject the clear teachings, the normal reading, of the passage you bring up. You are blinded by your philosophy.



My comment here of "clear teachng" is to illustrate how you lost the argument by introducing a logical fallacy.

You use terms like "clear teaching" to try and avoid having to defend what you believe the passage teaches.

But it was also serious in that what you see as clearly taught is dependent on your own biases. In the actual text Jesus says what He was teaching at the end on the passage. That is what I believe was being taught.

Now...we can look at actual verses and see who's belief most closely aligns with God's words. But using PSA as the standard instead of God's Word simply does not work.

Obviously your faith more closely matches PSA. That is your theory. BUT go passage by passage respecting God's actual words and my faith more closely matches.


By your reasoning Jesus clearly links the Atonement to working a farm. Or mending clothes. Or planting crops.

You read into God's words what yoy want them to say.

IF you ever decide to examine the actual Word of God instead of leaning on your own understanding then let's do so verse by verse.


The OP (and following few posts) is what I believe.

Youvare welcome to offer correction by giving Scripture (without what your leaders say is "really" taught). But I do not care about your philosophyor your theory. I held it for a long time. I reject it as heresy.

 

[DaveXR650]

Youvare welcome to offer correction by giving Scripture (without what your leaders say is "really" taught). But I do not care about your philosophyor your theory. I held it for a long time. I reject it as heresy.

If you reject Christ bearing our sins in his own body on the tree as substitutionary atonement then there is no sense going on. Baptistboard can deal (or not) with a moderator who calls PSA a heresy. If that is how they want to go then that is fine. Like you said, there are plenty of Baptists, and every other group for that matter, who believe very little like the rest of us, so we separate.

 

[Brightfame52]

If the Judge could make you "not guilty" by killing the guilty man in you and making you a new creation in Christ then Justice is a accomolished. The Law is fulfilled, but the righteousness (the same righteousnes) is manifested apart from the law.

Then Christ doesnt have to die for our sins in that formula correct ?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Youvare welcome to offer correction by giving Scripture (without what your leaders say is "really" taught). But I do not care about your philosophyor your theory. I held it for a long time. I reject it as heresy.

It is always obvious when @JonC is losing the argument because he breaks his own rules as moderator and resorts to cheap shots and insults.

Questioning the Salvation of other Members

By proclaiming PSA to be heresy, @JonC has also judged not only @DaveXR650 and myself to be heretics, but also John Bunyan, Charles Spurgeon and a host of other faithful Baptists down the ages.
Is there any effective moderation on this forum or does @JonC mark his own homework? I do not ask for him to be banned from the BB, but if the board is to survive, he really needs to step down as moderator, and do it quickly.

 

[DaveXR650]

but also John Bunyan, Charles Spurgeon and a host of other faithful Baptists down the ages.

Spurgeon must have been a prophet too. In his "Downgrade Controversy" he said regarding the atonement:

"The Atonement is not in so many words denied; but his sufferings are not held forth in their vicarious and expiatory character. Christ, according to their teaching, was in no sense our substitute, and in justification the righteousness of the glorious Surety is not imputed to the guilty believer. It is not often that this is nakedly expressed. But some are becoming bold enough to speak it out."

 

[Armchair Apologist]

Is there any effective moderation on this forum or does @JonC mark his own homework? I do not ask for him to be banned from the BB, but if the board is to survive, he really needs to step down as moderator, and do it quickly.

I wouldn't resort to such drastic measures. I wish Jon (and the rest of the BB staff here) would realize you can either be a debator or a moderator. You cannot be both simultaneously. And let me make this clear; no one can!
I would therefore ask that when a moderator involves themselves in a discussion in which contention arises that they set aside their moderator role and allow another moderator to take any necessary actions, close threads, and so forth. I believe this would be fair for Jon and everyone else here! What say BB staff?

 

[JonC]

If you reject Christ bearing our sins in his own body on the tree as substitutionary atonement then there is no sense going on.

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.

I said I believe Christ bore our sins bodily on the tree. By "bodily" I mean "in Hos own body". If you were confused by that word you should have asked.

I also said I believe substitution. I even went to the length of providing verses about this substitution (Jesus is the second Adam, for example).

All of the theories of Atonement believe in substitutionary atonement.

But only one affirms this substitution to be penal substitution.

Yes, I do reject your theory. Your post I am responding to is one reason.

I made a simple request. I said since I reject your theory let's just stick to Scripture without what people say is really taught. Just passages. And see where we stand.

Instead you engaged in childishness (broadening your theory, misrepresenting what I said).

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).


PSA, RCC, and SDA doctrine all believe what their masters have told them the bible really teaches when properly understood. They all lean on their own understanding.

That is why you flat out refused to discuss the topic using only God's Word. You know your theory would fail.

 

[JonC]

I wouldn't resort to such drastic measures. I wish Jon (and the rest of the BB staff here) would realize you can either be a debator or a moderator. You cannot be both simultaneously. And let me make this clear; no one can!
I would therefore ask that when a moderator involves themselves in a discussion in which contention arises that they set aside their moderator role and allow another moderator to take any necessary actions, close threads, and so forth. I believe this would be fair for Jon and everyone else here! What say BB staff?

We do both. We are members who engage in what interests us. Plus we moderate. But we only moderate our own threads when there is a direct violation of BB rules. And this is done as a team. Threads are closed for a few reasons. Length, the member who started it requested it be closed, members acting like children.

But if it helps, moderators do not act in a vacuum. There is a record and discussion forum in the staff section.


@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.

This has been going on for over a decade. We ALWAYS get to this point. I say "hey...let's put aside both Christus Victor and PSA and just go through the text of Scripture one by one dealing with the atonement". And he goes down this path.

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).

 

[JonC]

Spurgeon must have been a prophet too. In his "Downgrade Controversy" he said regarding the atonement:

"The Atonement is not in so many words denied; but his sufferings are not held forth in their vicarious and expiatory character. Christ, according to their teaching, was in no sense our substitute, and in justification the righteousness of the glorious Surety is not imputed to the guilty believer. It is not often that this is nakedly expressed. But some are becoming bold enough to speak it out."

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.