Basically, that would be the non calvinist/reformed view!
-
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!
Confusion on just what is PSA
- Thread starter JonC
- Start date
- Status
Scripture tells us that the Father judges no one, but all judgment is given the Son. I suspect that the wrath to come, therefore, will come at the final Judgment and all will be judged based on Christ Himself - those in Christ to life, those outside Christ to death - and all will be given over to the Father.
That does not, however, answer my question.
Do you understand how those who rejected PSA could say that Jesus bore our sins, suffered the wrath we deserved, and was punished in our place? If so, please run through it - what was the difference between Luther and Calvin?
Again, no Scripture support.
I could just as easily post, the death of The Lord Jesus Christ benefited all people.
What Scripture do you offer to support your view?
I offer John 1:29.
I offer Isaiah 53:6
I offer 2 Corinthians 5:19
Can you refute these Scriptures that show the crucifixion as a benefit to all humanity?
The non-Calvinist Reformed view would be what Luther held. The Calvinist Reformed view would be what the traditional Calvinists hold. There are, of course, other views held by those who are Reformed. And then there are the non-Reformed views.
But do you understand the difference between a Reformed non-Calvinist rejecting PSA while saying that Christ stood as a transgressor, experienced the wrath we deserved, and was punished for our sins and a Reformed Calvinist saying the same thing to affirm PSA?
Because they were confused.
No, that wan't it. They had specific reasons for rejecting the lyrics (one that you, given your view here and appreciation of their soteriology, should appreciate).Because they were confused.
The reason is that they recognized the distinction. Believe it or not, Christianity has not always held loosely to doctrine. The difference between satisfactory punishment and simple punishment for sin is a distinction people on both sides of the theory have debated. What the Presbyterians were doing was pointing out that PSA excludes satisfactory punishment in favor of simple punishment, excludes the Satisfaction/Substitution in favor of Penal Substitution. The fact that others may not be able to discern the difference does not mean the difference does not exist.
Well if Justification is the doctrine by which the Church stands or falls, it is no wonder that the Church in the West is falling. 'If the foundations are destroyed, what can the righteous do?' It seems we need a thread on justification now!
The question of 'a righteousness apart from the law' is easily settled. Christ on the cross has magnified the law and made it honourable. He has fulfilled the law (Matthew 5:17), therefore the law has nothing to say to those who are in Christ Jesus. They have a righteousness that does not depend on their law-keeping; therefore it is a righteousness apart from the law. To be sure, we are still to keep the moral law (Romans 6:1ff), but we do that. not in order to be saved, but because we are saved and have been given the Holy Spirit to lead us into truth and righteousness (Galatians 5:22-23).
Or perhaps we need to prove Justification is the doctrine by which the Church stands or falls.
Justification tells us how a man may escape hell and attain to heaven. I can't think of anything more fundamental than that.
The fact that Satan has so many of his 'useful idiots' out busily undermining the doctrine is another indication.
If they were evangelical Presbyterians, then they can only have been confused between Anselm's use of the term ;satisfaction' and that used by the Puritans and others. Since we are talking about PCUSA, I suspect that the true reason is that they dislike all talk of the 'wrath of God' whatever they may say.
The reason is that they recognized the distinction. Believe it or not, Christianity has not always held loosely to doctrine. The difference between satisfactory punishment and simple punishment for sin is a distinction people on both sides of the theory have debated. What the Presbyterians were doing was pointing out that PSA excludes satisfactory punishment in favor of simple punishment, excludes the Satisfaction/Substitution in favor of Penal Substitution. The fact that others may not be able to discern the difference does not mean the difference does not exist.[/QUOTE]
It does nothing of the sort. Penal Substitution requires satisfaction and this was understood by many of the ECFs and by the Reformers. Here is something I wrote on the text 'It is finished' some time back.
Tetelestai, the Greek word translated 'It is finished,' comes from the verb, teleo which means ‘to finish.’ Words like ‘telephone’ (‘the voice at the end’) and ‘television’ come from it. Tetelestai is the Perfect Tense of teleo. It suggests something that has been brought to a conclusion. It is said that the Greek scientist and philosopher Archimedes was sitting in his bath when he suddenly realised that a body displaces its own mass in water. So excited was he by this discovery that he leapt from his bath and ran naked through the streets of his town crying, “Eureka!”, ‘I have discovered!’ This also is a Greek verb in the Perfect tense. Finally, Archimedes had resolved what had been puzzling him for so long. His search was over; he had discovered. This may help us with our understanding of tetelestai. It means, ‘ It has been finally finished.’ There is no more to do.
‘It is finished.’ What was finished? The foundation stone of God’s purposes in the history of man was now laid once and for all. It had been prophesied and declared in various ways, but now it was accomplished. “The purpose of God may be summarized thus: to display His grace and to magnify His Son in the creating of children in His own image and glory” (A. W. Pink). This was the work given to the Son by the Father: to redeem from among mankind a people for God, cleansed from their sins and this is what He had accomplished. “I have glorified You on the earth. I have finished the work which You have given Me to do” (John 17:4).
Our Lord is speaking therefore especially of His sacrificial work on the cross. He had prayed in the garden, “O My Father, if this cup cannot pass from Me unless I drink it, Your will be done.” Now He had drained the cup; the three hours of darkness were over, the Father’s wrath towards sin had been propitiated; justice had been satisfied, excepting only the final act of dying which followed almost at once. It was indeed finished.
The word teleo, translated ‘finished’ in John 19:30, appears quite a few times in the New Testament and has some very interesting meanings :-
Matt 11:1, A.V. ‘…..When Jesus had made an end of commanding his twelve disciples…..’
Matt 17:24. “Does your Teacher not pay the temple tax?”
Luke 2:39. ‘So when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord…..’
Luke 18:31. ‘…..And all the things that are written by the prophets concerning the Son of Man will be accomplished.’
So what was made an end of at the cross? Our sins, the guilt of them and their very memory in the mind of God (Jer 31:34).
What was paid? The price of our redemption (2). ‘Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us’ (Gal 3:13).
What was performed? All the righteous requirements of the law (cf. Isaiah 42:21)..
What was accomplished? All the work that the Father had given Christ to do (John 17:4).
So the 'satisfaction of Christ' does not only satisfy the outraged honour and majesty of God (as per Anselm), it satisfies the demands of the law: 'The soul that sins shall die.' It establishes the law (Romans 3:31), magnifies and exalts the justice of God so that He may be 'just and the justifier of the one who believes in Jesus,' and of course allows God's mercy and lovingkindness full reign: 'Mercy and truth have met together; righteousness and peace have kissed' (Psalm 85:10).
'And on that cross, as Jesus died,
The wrath of God was satisfied.' Amen! 'It is finished.'
The gospel is not about escaping Hell and attaining Heaven.
@Martin Marprelate ,
Why would the disagreement be about Anselm's theory? Who, at or after the Reformation was teaching or holding Anselm's theory that God's honor needed to be satisfied or restored?
The difference is Aquinas' view of substitution, not Anselm's which had been antiquated for centuries before the Reformation. The difference is what separated Luther from Calvin (a distinction which, apparently until recently, seemed well known).
The OP concerned the fact that some Baptists cannot discern how Calvin and Luther held competing views in terms of theories of Atonement while traditional Calvinists recognize the distinction. My commentary is that this is a lack of firm doctrine within Baptist theology (not that one has to pick one view but that the inability of so many to even discern the difference is staggering).
Can you discern the difference between Luther's view, between Aquinas' "satisfactory punishment", and Penal Substitution Theory?
Why would the disagreement be about Anselm's theory? Who, at or after the Reformation was teaching or holding Anselm's theory that God's honor needed to be satisfied or restored?
The difference is Aquinas' view of substitution, not Anselm's which had been antiquated for centuries before the Reformation. The difference is what separated Luther from Calvin (a distinction which, apparently until recently, seemed well known).
The OP concerned the fact that some Baptists cannot discern how Calvin and Luther held competing views in terms of theories of Atonement while traditional Calvinists recognize the distinction. My commentary is that this is a lack of firm doctrine within Baptist theology (not that one has to pick one view but that the inability of so many to even discern the difference is staggering).
Can you discern the difference between Luther's view, between Aquinas' "satisfactory punishment", and Penal Substitution Theory?
Luther held to Penal Substitution and Aquinas didn't.
However, here's a little something from Aquinas for you from his Summa Theologicae:
'It is wicked and cruel to hand an innocent man over to suffering and death if it is against his will. Nor did God the Father so treat Christ in whom he inspired the will to suffer for us. God's severity is thus manifested; he was unwilling to remit sin without punishment, as the Apostle intimates when he says, 'He did not spare even his own Son.' But it also illustrates God's goodness, for as man was unable to make sufficient satisfaction through any punishment he might suffer himself, God gave him One who would satisfy for him. Paul stresses this, saying, 'He has delivered him for us all, and 'God has established him [Christ] as a propitiation by his blood through faith.'
It sounds a bit like P.S. to me
Last edited:
Luther held to Penal Substitution and Aquinas didn't.
However, here's a little something from Aquinas for you from his Summa Theologicae:
'It is wicked and cruel to hand an innocent man over to suffering and death if it is against his will. Nor did God the Father so treat Christ in whom he inspired the will to suffer for us. God's severity is thus manifested; he was unwilling to remit sin without punishment, as the Apostle intimates when he says, 'He did not spare even his own Son.' But it also illustrates God's goodness, for as man was unable to make sufficient satisfaction through any punishment he might suffer himself, God gave him One who would satisfy for him. Paul stresses this, saying, 'He has delivered him for us all, and 'God has established him [Christ] as a propitiation by his blood through faith.'
It sounds a bit like P.S. to me
However, in the whole of the crucifixion, from the garden to the resurrection, there was not wrath of or from God, but His will and the pleasure of that will realized.
Punishment does not nor is it found in Scripture to be a remittance of sin.
If punishment had such ability, the Lake of Fire would not be eternal, but would empty. Such is the thinking of the RCC and Mormons.
The blood shed is the remittance for all sin.
Luther seemed to understand Calvary in a way that you now do not!
Martin Luther on Atonement and Penal Substitution - Guard the Deposit
Note please that Jesus suffered in our place the same that we would have to before God!
I know that Aquinas did not hold to PSA.Luther held to Penal Substitution and Aquinas didn't.
However, here's a little something from Aquinas for you from his Summa Theologicae:
'It is wicked and cruel to hand an innocent man over to suffering and death if it is against his will. Nor did God the Father so treat Christ in whom he inspired the will to suffer for us. God's severity is thus manifested; he was unwilling to remit sin without punishment, as the Apostle intimates when he says, 'He did not spare even his own Son.' But it also illustrates God's goodness, for as man was unable to make sufficient satisfaction through any punishment he might suffer himself, God gave him One who would satisfy for him. Paul stresses this, saying, 'He has delivered him for us all, and 'God has established him [Christ] as a propitiation by his blood through faith.'
It sounds a bit like P.S. to me
I was asking you if you understood what separated Luther's view from the view Calvin held (what I call PSA). Do you?
I am not a Lutheran.
Do you understand the difference between Luther's view of the Atonement and Calvin's, or can you not see a distinction?
Yes, but Luther and Calvin still saw Jesus in a way as taking the full blunt of the wrath of God for our sake as being in our stead!
Yes. But they did not see this "wrath" in exactly the same way. Do you understand why the Calvinists who hold to a concise PSA objected to the song while Calvinists who hold to a reinvented moderate "psa" embraced the song?
Yes, but still do not see why you changed your mind!
- Status