Atonemet (Not PSA....my position)

[JonC]

This thread was NOT about what I do not believe.

It is about what I DO believe.

Thus far NOBODY has challenged my belief. All complaints have been that I do not agree their understanding of what the Bible really teaches when properly understood.

Who cares if I do not acceot your understanding of what is really taught by the Bible?? I believe what is actually stated (I believe God's words).

 

[JonC]

I think that theories are an attempt to summarize.
But we have Scripture to tell us that the wages of sin is death and that Jesus tasted death for every man.
I think it is good not to get so caught up in the theories and just stick to Scripture.

I agree. These theories are an attempt to summarize but they are also an attempt to develop a teaching suitable to one's worldview.


This is why Anselm developed Substitution Theory. The worldview had changed. Christus Victor had become "God paid Satan".

He lived in a time when the cultural worldview was shifting to an honor system. So he developed a system where Jesus was our substitute going to the cross in perfect obedience in order to restore the honor that was stolen from God by man.

Is that theory an interpretation? I say it is not. It is a theology based not on Scriptute but on philosophy, and that philosophy backed up by Scripture.


Now....if that is somebody's understanding because that is the worldview through which they view Scripture I believe Jesus will make them stand.

BUT if they lean on that understanding rather than the words of God, and insist their understanding is Scripture itself, the very heart of the Christian faith...then they have been carried away from God's words by their philosophy. I do not know they are Christian.


I cannot believe PSA because I do not share their worldview and I do not believe the philosophy upon which the theory views Scripture is correct.

I know my understanding is not God's words so I do not lean on my own understanding (I hold it with a grain of salt).

But we have to test our doctrine against God's Word - even if interpretations vary they should be interpretations of "what is written".

 

[JonC]

But we have Scripture to tell us that the wages of sin is death and that Jesus tasted death for every man.

Yes.

The wages of sin is death, sin produces death, Jesus tasted death once for all, Jesus shared our flesh and blood, he took on Himself the same things common to man, that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil.

On that we can all agree because this is God's words.

 

[Ben1445]

I agree. These theories are an attempt to summarize but they are also an attempt to develop a teaching suitable to one's worldview.


This is why Anselm developed Substitution Theory. The worldview had changed. Christus Victor had become "God paid Satan".

He lived in a time when the cultural worldview was shifting to an honor system. So he developed a system where Jesus was our substitute going to the cross in perfect obedience in order to restore the honor that was stolen from God by man.

Is that theory an interpretation? I say it is not. It is a theology based not on Scriptute but on philosophy, and that philosophy backed up by Scripture.


Now....if that is somebody's understanding because that is the worldview through which they view Scripture I believe Jesus will make them stand.

BUT if they lean on that understanding rather than the words of God, and insist their understanding is Scripture itself, the very heart of the Christian faith...then they have been carried away from God's words by their philosophy. I do not know they are Christian.


I cannot believe PSA because I do not share their worldview and I do not believe the philosophy upon which the theory views Scripture is correct.

I know my understanding is not God's words so I do not lean on my own understanding (I hold it with a grain of salt).

But we have to test our doctrine against God's Word - even if interpretations vary they should be interpretations of "what is written".

Where do you get your definition of PSA? Who is the “authority” for the position that you are opposed to?

 

[JonC]

Where do you get your definition of PSA? Who is the “authority” for the position that you are opposed to?

I am using the theological definition. I get it from seminary I guess (several systematic theologies to include Enns, Grudem, Hodge). But also several pastors (Sproul, Packer, and Piper). It is one of several atonement theories.

There are many definitions. What I look at is what they all have in common.

I usually use whatever definition PSA theoriest give me in a discussion (lately it has been from a popular study, so not academic, in Pierced for Our Transgressions).

But I studied PSA because it was my view. I read its development in the Institutes.

I guess the easiest thing is simply looking at the types of substitution. So many seem to not realize penal substitutionis not penal and substitution but a term to speak of the type of substitution.

So there is satisfactory substitution, penal substitution, representative substitution, ontological substitution, etc.

I do not believe Christ's substitution was penal substitution. I also disagree with Luther's satisfactory substitution. I believe the substitution was representive substitution (like Adam a substitute for natural man, Jesus the Son of Man and Second Adam).

Where do you get your definition?

AND...what is your definition?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I think that theories are an attempt to summarize.
But we have Scripture to tell us that the wages of sin is death and that Jesus tasted death for every man.
I think it is good not to get so caught up in the theories and just stick to Scripture.

Hello @Ben1445,
This is the definition of PSA that I have been using on this board for about 15 years:
'The Doctrine of penal substitution states that God gave Himself in the Person of His Son to suffer instead of us the death, punishment and curse due to fallen humanity as the penalty for sin..
This comes from Pierced for our Transgressions by Ovey, Jeffrey and Sach (Inter-Varsity Press, Nottingham, UK, 2007. ISBN: 978-1-84474-178-6).
The names of the authors may not be familiar to U.S. readers, but the late Mike Ovey was Principal of Oak Hill Theological College, one of the largest evangelical seminaries in Britain. Steve Jeffrey and Andrew Sach were two of his PhD students. Jeffrey is now a pastor in Fort Worth, Texas; Sach is co-Pastor at Grace Church, Greenwich, London and also has a PhD in neuroscience (whatever that is!).
I thoroughly recommend the book which is endorsed by Americans such as Don Carson, Dale Ralph Davies, Mark Dever, John Frame, Timothy George, R. Kent Hughes and Tremper Longman III (who?).

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I was waiting for JonC to get onto the New Testament before replying, but since he hasn't done so, here goes:

Isaiah 53 tells us of Jesus and His sufferings. He was a man of sorrows, despised by those around Him. But He bore our griefs and sorrows. The people considered Him as stricken and smitten of God and afflicted, however He was pierced for our transgressions, crushed for our iniquities. The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him and by His scourging we were healed. All of us have gone astray, but God has caused the iniquity of us all to fall on Him.

Of course the people were right; He was stricken and smitten by God. 'Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise Him; He has put Him to grief,' confirmed by Zech. 13:7; Matt. 26:31, 56. Where they were wrong was in supposing that He was wounded for His own transgressions.

He was oppressed and afflicted, but He did not open His mouth. By oppression and judgment He was taken away. He was killed for the transgressions of the people, who had earned death. God was pleased to crush Him, putting Him to grief, that if He would render Himself as a guilt offering He will see the fruits of His work and He will justify the many as He bore their iniquities.

Exactly. He was killed for the transgressions of others. Penal Substitution.

Psalm 22 foreshadows the Cross. This psalm begins “My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me? Far from my deliverance are the words of my groaning”. The picture is God’s Servant suffering while deliverance has not yet come. The Servant then turns to God’s faithfulness. He knows that God will never abandon Him. Instead God will deliver Him. The Servant appeals to God’s faithfulness to His forefathers as they were forsaken to suffer. He appeals to God’s own character. Those who trust in the Lord will not be disappointed. Towards the end of the psalm we see that God has not despised the Servant, nor has He hidden His face. When He cried for Help God heard.

The servant confirms that it is God who has brought Him to the dust of death (v.15). He cries out to God, but for a time God has forsaken Him and does not answer (vs. 1-2). The reason for this is that He was made sin for us, and God's eyes are too pure the behold evil (Hab. 2:13). But at the ninth hour, the Lord Jesus cried out quoting this very psalm and the Father heard Him. Jesus could cry out, "It is finished!" And then commit His spirit to God (Luke 23:46). 'Therefore [God] will divide Him a portion with the great [c.f. Phil. 2:9], and He shall divide the spoil with the strong, because He poured out His soul unto death, and He was numbered with the transgressors.'

Psalm 4 speaks of God answering when the righteous call out in destress. God hears when they call.

So, at the 9th hour, after propitiation has been made, He answers the cry of the Lord Jesus.

Deuteronomy 15 describes justice as justifying the righteous and condemning the wicked.

Psalm 37 tells us that God will never abandon or condemn the just.

Proverbs 12 tells us that the righteous will obtain favor but God will condemn the evil man.

Proverbs 17 tells us that one who justifies the wicked and one who condemns the righteous are both abominations to God.

I suppose that these texts are supposed to show that God could not condemn the Lord Jesus. But as Isaiah 53:10 and Zech. 13:7 show, that is exactly what He did. I suppose that this is the issue that we need to thresh out.
I believe the reasons are two-fold: firstly, God does not take some random bloke and lay the sins of the world upon him. It is God Himself in the Person of Jesus Christ who will make propitiation for sin. Secondly, Christ was made sin for us (2 Cor. 5:21). That does not mean that He was made a sinner, but it does mean that our sins were laid upon Him and He bore them and the curse attached to them.

Ezekiel 18 teaches us that the person who sins will be accountable for their sin. Sins cannot pass from one person to another. If a man lives righteously but then repents of good and does evil then he will be held guilty. But if a man does evil and repents of that evil then God is faithful to forgive. God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but instead wants that he should turn from wickedness and live. Rebellious men will object and say “the way of the Lord is not right”. But it is their ways that is not right. They view sins as transferrable, and they reject God’s declaration that should one repent He will be faithful to forgive. Therefore God will judge them by their own conduct. God declares that they should repent and turn away from all of their transgressions so that iniquity may not become a stumbling block to them. He takes no pleasure in the death of anyone. Therefore, repent and live.

No need for Jesus Christ then. Salvation by works!
A text like this should drive us to despair. 'Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin.' But 'Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ that we might be justified by faith.'

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I did. You probably missed it but the post you just responded to clarified it for you.

You're joking, right? That post was after the one accusing @DaveXR650 and myself of heresy. It is also a mumbo-jumbo of excuses that fails to explain why you can call people heretics but no one else can.

 

[Armchair Apologist]

@Armchair Apologist

Side note.

I am at another community based church, this time in Arizona. When we travel we look for church start ups and community based churches to visit.

This one started as a bible study group at the pastors home. They now have about 250 in attendance. Many saved through the church reaching out in the community. They baptized two today. I watched one (a 55 year old woman with a very powerful testimony).


Many here would have absolutely condemned these believers. They had a guitar and a violin (or fiddle) as instruments. The music was bluegrass-ish, or maybe folk. The average age seemed to be around 40. Nobody wore a suit or tie. There were a few men in their 70's. They wore a nice shirt and shorts. I wore shorts, I think, for the first time to a service.

Nobody here would have objected to the message.

I am not certain as to the context of these remarks, did you mean to put this in the "Worship Wars" thread I started?

No disagreement from me here! Some get really nutty in regards to certain "music standards" or whatever and will often neglect certain things that truly matter. Some would attribute any sort of guitar (acoustic or otherwise) to all of the "filthy hippies" smoking dope and playing folk music. and would likely invoke "Abstain from all appearance of evil" as their justification. I do believe that we should get rid of all the fog machines, light shows etc., and LEAVE THE LIGHTS ON during the song service. In addition, I believe there are certain musical sources we should stay from as much as possible (Hillsong, Bethel, Elevation for examples) for the main reason we do not want what we pay for CCLI to go to a bunch of heretics but this is a personal matter of which we may disagree. I rarely wear a suit and tie even when I am teaching or preaching. I think I would probably draw the line at shorts though unless we were having services at the beach or something. Long pants and a shirt with a collar is what I typically stick to but I would not regard you as being an "unregenerate devil" for wearing a T-Shirt and Shorts.

 

[JonC]

I am not certain as to the context of these remarks, did you mean to put this in the "Worship Wars" thread I started?

No disagreement from me here! Some get really nutty in regards to certain "music standards" or whatever and will often neglect certain things that truly matter. Some would attribute any sort of guitar (acoustic or otherwise) to all of the "filthy hippies" smoking dope and playing folk music. and would likely invoke "Abstain from all appearance of evil" as their justification. I do believe that we should get rid of all the fog machines, light shows etc., and LEAVE THE LIGHTS ON during the song service. In addition, I believe there are certain musical sources we should stay from as much as possible (Hillsong, Bethel, Elevation for examples) for the main reason we do not want what we pay for CCLI to go to a bunch of heretics but this is a personal matter of which we may disagree. I rarely wear a suit and tie even when I am teaching or preaching. I think I would probably draw the line at shorts though unless we were having services at the beach or something. Long pants and a shirt with a collar is what I typically stick to but I would not regard you as being an "unregenerate devil" for wearing a T-Shirt and Shorts.

Nah. Awhile back I mentioned some wearing shorts and was told they would not kick them out but would explain it is not appropriate (God only accepts worship from Christians wearing traditional business attire, but you do not have to wear a tie). I thought it funny.

I agree about abstaining from the appearance of evil, but this is often subjective. At first many rejected our traditional hymns because they were secular (appearance of evil).

I just wanted to give an update about our visit.

 

[Ben1445]

I am using the theological definition. I get it from seminary I guess (several systematic theologies to include Enns, Grudem, Hodge). But also several pastors (Sproul, Packer, and Piper). It is one of several atonement theories.

There are many definitions. What I look at is what they all have in common.

Would you mind laying out what it is they have in common and also what the problem with them is.

I usually use whatever definition PSA theoriest give me in a discussion (lately it has been from a popular study, so not academic, in Pierced for Our Transgressions).

But I studied PSA because it was my view. I read its development in the Institutes.

Calvin’s Institutes?

I guess the easiest thing is simply looking at the types of substitution. So many seem to not realize penal substitutionis not penal and substitution but a term to speak of the type of substitution.

This is why I am confused and why I ask for definitions.

So there is satisfactory substitution, penal substitution, representative substitution, ontological substitution, etc.

I do not believe Christ's substitution was penal substitution.

Since you have said that penal substitution is not penal or substitution, what exactly is it that you believe Christs substitution was not?

I also disagree with Luther's satisfactory substitution. I believe the substitution was representive substitution (like Adam a substitute for natural man, Jesus the Son of Man and Second Adam).

Where do you get your definition?

I don’t have an official definition yet.

Well, Martin has provided one. Unless you don’t like that one, I will use that one.

AND...what is your definition?

I’m a bit confused about the goings back and forth.
I do see penalties and I do see substitutions. And I see both sides affirming their existence. I’m aware that some doctrines and theories have baggage unnamed. I don’t quite see the unnamed baggage.

 

[Ben1445]

So from this definition…

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


'The Doctrine of penal substitution states that
(So far so good)

God gave Himself
John 10:18
No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.


in the Person of His Son
Matthew 1:23
Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.


to suffer
Luke 17:25
But first must he suffer many things, and be rejected of this generation.

instead of us
2 Corinthians 5:21
For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

the death,
Romans 5:8
But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

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

and curse
Galatians 3:13
Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:

due to fallen humanity
Romans 5:12
Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

as the penalty for sin..
2 Corinthians 5:21
For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.



Please tell me what I am missing. It looks alright to me.

 

[SovereignGrace]

You're joking, right? That post was after the one accusing @DaveXR650 and myself of heresy. It is also a mumbo-jumbo of excuses that fails to explain why you can call people heretics but no one else can.

Rules for me but not for thee.