Confusing Terms used in theology

[JonC]

Not long ago @Martin Marprelate took exception to my use of “Classic” and “Latin” views of the Atonement. The accusation was made that calling one’s view the “classic” view was arrogant, and the charge was made that I was referring to my view as the “classic” view while I suppose slighting his view as the “Latin”. I was surprised at first, but given the broad nature of forums such as these I understand how he could have made the mistake.

Rather than becoming defensive I should have taken the time to explain the terms I was using. In fact, I would have done better to have explained the terms before I used them.

We have to remember two things - First, terms that are common to us may not be common to everyone else. We all have different experiences and live in different "worlds". Sometimes we need to take the time to explain the meaning of the terms we are using. Second, rather than jumping to conclusions it is better to ask about a term you do not understand instead of becoming combative over what you think the other person may have intended.

I am going to offer at least one post (the "classic view", "Latin view", and "subjective view") to hopefully avoid such confusion in the future. As we think of other terms perhaps they can be explained here as well. Another one that caused some difficulty was confusing "retributive justice" with retribution.

 

[JonC]

There are several theories of atonement, and these are typically divided into three categories or views (traditions from which the theories develop).

There is the Classic, Latin, and Subjective Views of Atonement.

The “classic” idea or view of the atonement (think "Greek Fathers") centers on divine conflict and victory in which Christ shares in the bondage and suffering of mankind under the principles of sin and evil. Center to this view is God effecting a new relationship of reconciliation or atonement through Christ’s victory over the powers of evil (the powers under which Christ suffered and died). Here we find the various forms of Ransom Theory and the Christus-Victor theme.

The “Latin view” is linked with Tertullian and Cyprian (hence the name “Latin view”). This view focuses on a reconciliation dependent on the necessity of man to make a restitution to God. This accomplished in the atonement of Christ. This view includes Satisfaction Atonement, Substitution Atonement, And Penal Substitution Atonement.

The “subjective view” focuses on reconciliation through the experience of the believer. The Moral Influence Theory would fall into this category.



For those who have read of the subject but never encountered the terms “classic view”, “Latin view”, and “subjective view” here is an article reference from the Puritan Reformed Journal that may help with the meanings of these terms (you'll have to look it up, I have it and it was fairly recent....Sep 2017).

A Comparative Analysis of the Doctrine of the Atonement: The Divine Initiative in the Classic, Latin, and Subjective Views of Atonement, Puritan Reformed Journal, by Maarten Kuivenhoven.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

For those who have read of the subject but never encountered the terms “classic view”, “Latin view”, and “subjective view” here is an article reference from the Puritan Reformed Journal that may help with the meanings of these terms (you'll have to look it up, I have it and it was fairly recent....Sep 2017).

A Comparative Analysis of the Doctrine of the Atonement: The Divine Initiative in the Classic, Latin, and Subjective Views of Atonement, Puritan Reformed Journal, by Maarten Kuivenhoven.

This appears to be a PDF of the cited volume of that journal:
https://prc.prts.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/PRJ_Vol-9_No-1_2017.pdf

 

[Ran the Man]

There are several theories of atonement, and these are typically divided into three categories or views (traditions from which the theories develop).

There is the Classic, Latin, and Subjective Views of Atonement.

The “classic” idea or view of the atonement (think "Greek Fathers") centers on divine conflict and victory in which Christ shares in the bondage and suffering of mankind under the principles of sin and evil. Center to this view is God effecting a new relationship of reconciliation or atonement through Christ’s victory over the powers of evil (the powers under which Christ suffered and died). Here we find the various forms of Ransom Theory and the Christus-Victor theme.

The “Latin view” is linked with Tertullian and Cyprian (hence the name “Latin view”). This view focuses on a reconciliation dependent on the necessity of man to make a restitution to God. This accomplished in the atonement of Christ. This view includes Satisfaction Atonement, Substitution Atonement, And Penal Substitution Atonement.

The “subjective view” focuses on reconciliation through the experience of the believer. The Moral Influence Theory would fall into this category.



For those who have read of the subject but never encountered the terms “classic view”, “Latin view”, and “subjective view” here is an article reference from the Puritan Reformed Journal that may help with the meanings of these terms (you'll have to look it up, I have it and it was fairly recent....Sep 2017).

A Comparative Analysis of the Doctrine of the Atonement: The Divine Initiative in the Classic, Latin, and Subjective Views of Atonement, Puritan Reformed Journal, by Maarten Kuivenhoven.

sorry to butt in , no disrespect to your great knowledge, but who cares? Why not focus on how to BE a christian instead of what we might ought to beleive to the split ends, none of which can be proven anyway? Who cares if you beleive in calvinism, armenism, one ness or the trinity? Take up your cross and follow Him. The Bible isn't so difficult you need a degree to understand it. What do these guys add?

 

[Squire Robertsson]

To believe the first is to be an unsaved heretic.

one ness or the Trinity?

 

[JonC]

sorry to butt in , no disrespect to your great knowledge, but who cares? Why not focus on how to BE a christian instead of what we might ought to beleive to the split ends, none of which can be proven anyway? Who cares if you beleive in calvinism, armenism, one ness or the trinity? Take up your cross and follow Him. The Bible isn't so difficult you need a degree to understand it. What do these guys add?

The point is to clarify terms we use (provide clarity - not defend or debate a theory or tradition).

What other people "add" is not an addition to Scripture but their explanation. This is why Scripture tells us to consider the elder. This is why some are given as teachers. Not to replace or even supplement Scripture but to help people take up their cross and follow Christ.

Their views are to be tested against Scripture - not simply ignored (per Scripture). So it is necessary to explain words and terms other people may find difficult.

For example - you are here and explaining what you believe to be true. Do we just ignore your words because you are not the Bible? No. But do you focus on simply following Christ? Again, no. You have engaged conversations about various theologians and what they taught (like Calvin). You have started a thread about the undue influences of Western ideologies on Scripture (I agree, BTW). But on that 5hread itself questions arose that needed clarification (regarding Eastern influences).

That is my intent here - to clarify terms used. Too often one party remains unclear and the other assumes.

If you would like to debate the value of considering those who have gone before (old dead guys) then please feel free to start a thread. That may be an interesting topic.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

This appears to be a PDF of the cited volume of that journal:
https://prc.prts.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/PRJ_Vol-9_No-1_2017.pdf

First of all, thank you for linking the article and the magazine, which seems very interesting. I haven't read it before. Anything edited by Joel Beeke is sure to be good, and I was pleased to see at least one 'Baptist' article in it. I may take out a subscription.

I have not been able to do more than skim the article as yet, but I notice that the writer is critiquing the work of Gustav Aulen, which I have mentioned previously. I didn't know you, @JonC, were a fan of him. He (the writer) quite correctly places the word "classic" in inverted commas, since it is definitely not the classic view. Penal Substitution is alive and well among the Church Fathers, as I have demonstrated ad nauseam (on my part, at least), but which I am perfectly willing to do again.

The 'Latin' view being discussed in the article is that of Anselm, but he went astray IMO in believing that the cross was there to vindicate God's honour rather than His justice, which is erroneous. I therefore object in the strongest terms to Penal Substitution being described as the 'Latin' view, because it isn't. If you wish to use shorthand, you might describe it as the 'Biblical' view since that seems to be the conclusion that the writer of the article comes to. Otherwise PS will do nicely.

To use the terms 'Classic" and "Latin" is tendentious as I have pointed out before. If you simply must use them, please also use inverted commas.

 

[JonC]

First of all, thank you for linking the article and the magazine, which seems very interesting. I haven't read it before. Anything edited by Joel Beeke is sure to be good, and I was pleased to see at least one 'Baptist' article in it. I may take out a subscription.

I have not been able to do more than skim the article as yet, but I notice that the writer is critiquing the work of Gustav Aulen, which I have mentioned previously. I didn't know you, @JonC, were a fan of him. He (the writer) quite correctly places the word "classic" in inverted commas, since it is definitely not the classic view. Penal Substitution is alive and well among the Church Fathers, as I have demonstrated ad nauseam (on my part, at least), but which I am perfectly willing to do again.

The 'Latin' view being discussed in the article is that of Anselm, but he went astray IMO in believing that the cross was there to vindicate God's honour rather than His justice, which is erroneous. I therefore object in the strongest terms to Penal Substitution being described as the 'Latin' view, because it isn't. If you wish to use shorthand, you might describe it as the 'Biblical' view since that seems to be the conclusion that the writer of the article comes to. Otherwise PS will do nicely.

To use the terms 'Classic" and "Latin" is tendentious as I have pointed out before. If you simply must use them, please also use inverted commas.

I am not a "fan" of Aulen (or any of the persons mentioned in the article). I am a fan of historical theology and ideas. I try to read at least three peer reviewed articles a week, but usually read one and consider what is written.

The reason I use terms like Latin View, Classic View, Subjective View, and sometimes Objective View (no quotation marks required) is these are terms basic to exploring various historical positions related to doctrines of the cross. They speak not of the individual theories but the milieu from which they are developed and supported.

Had I known you would accuse me of arrogance and an insistence that "my view" was "the" classic view I would have defined the terms beforehand.

Hence this thread. No harm, no foul. Just clarification.

 

[37818]

sorry to butt in , no disrespect to your great knowledge, but who cares? Why not focus on how to BE a christian instead of what we might ought to beleive to the split ends, none of which can be proven anyway? Who cares if you beleive in calvinism, armenism, one ness or the trinity? Take up your cross and follow Him. The Bible isn't so difficult you need a degree to understand it. What do these guys add?

You mentioned the "oneness" heriesy as if it did not matter (2 John 1:9). When in fact it is a damnable heriesy.

 

[JonC]

You mentioned the "oneness" heriesy as if it did not matter (2 John 1:9). When in fact it is a damnable heriesy.

Could you define the term "One-ness" and explain why it is anti-christian?

 

[37818]

Could you define the term "One-ness" and explain why it is anti-christian?

The term is used to describe a form of modalism, where God is only the person of Jesus. Jesus being God the Father as well as the Son and the Holy Spirit.

In Biblical Christianty God is three distinct Persons, God the Father, the Son of God and the Holy Spirit. The term "Trinity" is the name of the explanation of God being three Persons.

 

[Jerome]

Prime example:

I do hold absolutely to the Reformed Penal Substitution Theory.

There is no such thing as 'Penal Substitution Theory.'

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Prime example:

Doh!
I think everyone should know where I stand by now, but just in case Rip van Winkle is reading:
I hold to the Reformed Doctrine of Penal Substitution
There is no such thing as Penal Substitution 'Theory.'

 

[Martin Marprelate]

The reason I use terms like Latin View, Classic View, Subjective View, and sometimes Objective View (no quotation marks required) is these are terms basic to exploring various historical positions related to doctrines of the cross

They are tendentious, that is, they are designed to prejudice the debate before it starts. If I start referring to your position as 'the obsolete view' and my own as 'the Biblical view' it would be tendentious.

 

[JonC]

They are tendentious, that is, they are designed to prejudice the debate before it starts. If I start referring to your position as 'the obsolete view' and my own as 'the Biblical view' it would be tendentious.

If my position was known officially as the "obsolete view" then that would be fine.

The purpose if this thread is to correct an ignorance some may have about theological terms and to encourage those who would use theological terms from various disciplines to define those terms for clarity.

For example, until a post by you weeks ago I was ignotant of the term "inverted commas". Rather than insulting you I took the time to look up various words for what I call "quotation marks". I suspect you did not use the wording to confuse, but I was simply unaware of its use.

I do not understand why you object so strongly to these terms, but if we are to engage theology it is necessary to know theological terms. It is not up to us to change them.

Ultimately it does not matter if you object to traditions associated with scholars who wrote in Latin being called the Latin view. Your objection does not change the fact that theologians who have gone before created the terms. This thread is not a place to alter terms but to explain meaning for clarification.

 

[JonC]

Doh!
I think everyone should know where I stand by now, but just in case Rip van Winkle is reading:
I hold to the Reformed Doctrine of Penal Substitution
There is no such thing as Penal Substitution 'Theory.'

There yesterday....here today...what we don't know is where you will stand tomorrow

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Me, in matters like this, I tend to remember what my college Scientific Creationism teacher said about Laws, Theories, and Models. According to him, "Evolution and Creationism are models as neither could be replicated in a real-world test. All we can do is see which model the evidence fits the best without fiddling with either the model or the evidence."
Further, on both sides of these debates, I see Regenerate men/women who love the Lord and his Word. If the Scripture was as clear as they believe it is on a given matter then the other side would be in agreement once it was pointed out.
So, I see both sides of the debates as models and want to see which one the Biblical evidence fits into best.

 

[JonC]

Me, in matters like this, I tend to remember what my college Scientific Creationism teacher said about Laws, Theories, and Models. According to him, "Evolution and Creationism are models as neither could be replicated in a real-world test. All we can do is see which model the evidence fits the best without fiddling with either the model or the evidence."
Further, on both sides of these debates, I see Regenerate men/women who love the Lord and his Word. If the Scripture was as clear as they believe it is on a given matter then the other side would be in agreement once it was pointed out.
So, I see both sides of the debates as models and want to see which one the Biblical evidence fits into best.

One man's theory is another man's doctrine (evolution proves this).

I read a book recently where the author (I believe Yuval Harari, but I'm not 100% on that) made the observation that Darwin did not "invent" evolution but rather compiled the data that was available into a logical idea that people could grasp. He "filled in the blanks" of what was present and even the common man took notice of the data. That is what I mean by "theory". Such is necessary to make sense of the data. And such is necessary to make sense of Scripture because we are not in a world contemporary to the writing of the biblical text. The issue is one of knowing where Scripture ends and our reasoning begins. It is one of knowing where to allow for liberty and knowing where to stand firm against the gates. And it is knowing where to stand lest we fall. That is my only point with the use of "theory" to describe what is not in the biblical text itself.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

I should have added "but it isn't."

If the Scripture was as clear as they believe it is on a given matter then the other side would be in agreement once it was pointed out.

 

[Ran the Man]

You mentioned the "oneness" heriesy as if it did not matter (2 John 1:9). When in fact it is a damnable heriesy.

The bible says "whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved", not "whosoever understands its intricacies". That's western intellectualism talking, the intellect as all important. Take up your cross and BE a Christian. Live it.