Classical vs Latin Atonement

[kyredneck]

That verse does not prove the ECF's wrong. They did not believe it was contrary to God's will that he suffer under the powers of darkness (they believed it pleased God, it was God's will) because this is how Christ accomplished redemption.

Spot on. Perhaps if @Martin Marprelate would seriously consider the rhetorical questions of post #69 he would understand this.

 

[JonC]

But if you read the Bible you will.

No, you won't. That is why it took 1500 years for the "church" to develop the theory. And it took a philosopher rather than a theologian.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

No, you won't. That is why it took 1500 years for the "church" to develop the theory. And it took a philosopher rather than a theologian.

If you think Calvin originated Penal Substitution you are in Cloud Cuckoo Land. Quite apart from all the ECFs, John Wycliffe was before him.

 

[JonC]

If you think Calvin originated Penal Substitution you are in Cloud Cuckoo Land. Quite apart from all the ECFs, John Wycliffe was before him.

You already claimed Gregory's Ransom Theory was Penal Substitution. And no, John Wycliffe didn't believe in Penal Substitution. He did believe in those things I believe insofar as Christ bearing our sin. But he believed in Substitution Theory (Christ dying for, not instead, of us) with a focus on Reconciliation.

Have you ever studied a Christian History as it pertains to theology, or have you just studied those of your tradition? That you believe Gregory and Wycliffe held Penal Substitution (when those men held very different views from each other . . . and neither the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement, says much about your unwillingness to treat history objectively.

You acknowledge that I do not believe Penal Substitution Theory. That is good.

But quote where I disagree with Wycliffe's and Gregory's "Penal Substitution". Let's have a look....if you are honest enough for specifics.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Spot on. Perhaps if @Martin Marprelate would seriously consider the rhetorical questions of post #69 he would understand this.

If you realised that you are being @JonC's 'useful idiot' it might be helpful.
Your post #69 is irrelevant except for the last quote. I know that Satan tempted Christ. He tempted Him not to go to the cross, but to disobey His Father..

Matthew 16:21. 'From that time Jesus began to show to His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed and be raised the third day.
Then Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him, saying, "Far be it from You, Lord; this shall not happen to you!"
But He turned and said to Peter, "Get behind Me, Satan!"......'

Satan was desperate that Christ should not go to the cross and used Peter as part of his temptation. Our Lord heard, behind Peter's voice, that of the tempter.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

But quote where I disagree with Wycliffe's and Gregory's "Penal Substitution". Let's have a look....if you are honest enough for specifics.

I could always quote Pope Gregory and tell you it was one of the other Gregs. But I've already given you a quote from Greg of Naz
But here's a quick quote from Wycliffe, which is all I've got time for.

'It is a light word to say that God might, of His power, forgive this [Adam's] sin without the aseeth [i.e. satisfaction] which was made for it...... but His justice would not suffer it, but requires that each trespass be punished either on earth or in hell. And God may not accept a person to forgive him without satisfaction.'

Nothing medical about that. It's about the justice of God. In Christ, 'trespass' has been punished, and justice satisfied. The way to forgiveness is now open for the believer.

 

[kyredneck]

23 and he having turned, said to Peter, `Get thee behind me, adversary! thou art a stumbling-block to me, for thou dost not mind the things of God, but the things of men.` Mt 16

I know that Satan tempted Christ. He tempted Him not to go to the cross, but to disobey His Father..

I know you know just how weak the stand is you're taking on this passage. There is no indication that 'the devil' entered into Peter, or that permission was obtained as required in Luke 22:31. The word satan was used here in it's primary sense:

1. adversary (one who opposes another in purpose or act),

"...there is no evidence that the Lord Jesus meant to apply this term to Peter, as signifying that he was Satan or the devil, or that he used the term in anger. He may have used it in the general sense which the word bore as an adversary or opposer; and the meaning may be, that such sentiments as Peter expressed then were opposed to him and his plans. His interference was improper. His views and feelings stood in the way of the accomplishment of the Saviour's designs...."
Barnes Notes On The Bible

And in no way has 'the devil' ever minded the things of men. He makes them sick and diseased and demon possessed and causes misery among them.

Your position is weak. Lame.

 

[kyredneck]

If you realised that you are being @JonC's 'useful idiot' it might be helpful.

If you realized just what an egotistic bigot you portray, bent only on 'winning', you'd know I'm neutral, I see merit in all the atonement views. But I can't resist correcting such gross ignorance as this:

the one thing Satan did not want Christ to do was to die on the cross.

...when crucifixion was precisely how the serpent bruised His heel.

 

[kyredneck]

You make Satan out to be awfully stupid.

...and you make God out to be mistaken, or a liar:

God said:
:14 And Jehovah God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, cursed art thou above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:
15 and I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed: he shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. Gen 3

@Martin Marprelate says:
Nah, didn't happen.