Disagreements about the Atonement

[easternstar]

One of the favorite supposed proof-texts of PSA actually refutes the heinous theory. Isaiah 53:4-5 does not teach PSA. Consider this "...we esteemed Him stricken, smitten by God and afflicted. But He was wounded for our transgressions...", etc. The word "but" expresses a contrast with what came before. In other words, we wrongly thought God smote and afflicted Jesus; however, that was not the case. The religious leaders of the day smote and killed Jesus, and in the truest sense of the rest of those two verses, we also killed him.

 

[easternstar]

Yea, I get dumb notions like that sometimes.

But, it HAS happened before.

I guess most anything can happen on a forum.

 

[easternstar]

People usually think I am @kyredneck . It's a southern thang.

Maybe all three of us are the same person.

 

[JonC]

One of the favorite supposed proof-texts of PSA actually refutes the heinous theory. Isaiah 53:4-5 does not teach PSA. Consider this "...we esteemed Him stricken, smitten by God and afflicted. But He was wounded for our transgressions...", etc. The word "but" expresses a contrast with what came before. In other words, we wrongly thought God smote and afflicted Jesus; however, that was not the case. The religious leaders of the day smote and killed Jesus, and in the truest sense of the rest of those two verses, we also killed him.

I got one for you. I posted this and Martin said "but God didn't say they were wrong"

But yes, it was the opinion of the "evil men" and to be fair they ignorantly thought He was stricken by God (Peter tells us this in his sermon). The "but" is important.

There is a condition worse than blindness, and that is, seeing something that isn't there.

 

[JonC]

Maybe all three of us are the same person.

@kyredneck is a grill master. He taught me to make a good brisket a few years back.

Where we miss each other in interpretations we make up for in food.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

One of the favorite supposed proof-texts of PSA actually refutes the heinous theory. Isaiah 53:4-5 does not teach PSA. Consider this "...we esteemed Him stricken, smitten by God and afflicted. But He was wounded for our transgressions...", etc. The word "but" expresses a contrast with what came before. In other words, we wrongly thought God smote and afflicted Jesus; however, that was not the case. The religious leaders of the day smote and killed Jesus, and in the truest sense of the rest of those two verses, we also killed him.

With respect, I think you may have missunderstood the text. "...we esteemed Him stricken, smitten by God and afflicted. But He was wounded for our transgressions...", etc. First of all, He was smiiten by God. Isaiah 53:10. 'Yet it pleased the LORD to crush Him; He has put Him to grief.' See also Acts 4:27-28. So what 53:4-5 is saying is that the Jews thought that our Lord was smitten by God, and they were right! What they didn't understand was that He was smitten for our offenses; that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself by taking our sins upon Himself and paying the penalty for them in full (53:6).
Oh, and it's not a heinous theory at all. It's actually about the most wonderful doctrine in the Bible.

 

[DaveXR650]

One of the favorite supposed proof-texts of PSA actually refutes the heinous theory. Isaiah 53:4-5 does not teach PSA. Consider this "...we esteemed Him stricken, smitten by God and afflicted. But He was wounded for our transgressions...", etc. The word "but" expresses a contrast with what came before. In other words, we wrongly thought God smote and afflicted Jesus; however, that was not the case. The religious leaders of the day smote and killed Jesus, and in the truest sense of the rest of those two verses, we also killed him.

I'd rethink that. It seems like the "we esteemed Him stricken, smitten by God and afflicted" was indeed the wrong opinion in that they thought he was guilty for something he had done. The "but" is indeed for contrast except it is to show that he was wounded for our transgressions, not his.

Martin said that above already but I missed it. Sorry Martin.

 

[JonC]

Yeah. Like the quotes in my last post.

About the atonement? I'll look and see.

Edit: no, there was an off topic paragraph about Augustine. But I already posted that off topic comments and threads will be removed.

Keeping on topic. Please feel free to start a thread about Augustine (don't forget his mouse trap).

And I will end up deleting these in clean up.

The Atonement is, in my view, too important a topic to allow others make too much smoke.

 

[easternstar]

With respect, I think you may have missunderstood the text. "...we esteemed Him stricken, smitten by God and afflicted. But He was wounded for our transgressions...", etc. First of all, He was smiiten by God. Isaiah 53:10. 'Yet it pleased the LORD to crush Him; He has put Him to grief.' See also Acts 4:27-28. So what 53:4-5 is saying is that the Jews thought that our Lord was smitten by God, and they were right! What they didn't understand was that He was smitten for our offenses; that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself by taking our sins upon Himself and paying the penalty for them in full (53:6).
Oh, and it's not a heinous theory at all. It's actually about the most wonderful doctrine in the Bible.

Again, you are misunderstanding the entirety of these verses. The word 'but' contrasts and corrects the previously mistaken view. Further, I might say for example, crushing my enemy would please me, but that doesn't mean that I would personally do the crushing.

I have recently questioned everything I once believed. The atonement is one thing that I remain 100% certain about, without any doubts whatsoever. PSA did not exist in the scriptures or the early church. It was invented by the church-statist Protestant Reformers. In fact, a large part of that side of the Reformation was just "Rome light", having taken the Anselmian theory of the atonement and made it much worse. Also kept was infant baptism and 'sacraments, and state-churchism, among other things.
It's amazing to me that most Protestants don't realize they are closer to Rome than they think. And even more amazing that Baptists and some other heirs of the Radical Reformation adhere to PSA.

 

[JonC]

I'd rethink that. It seems like the "we esteemed Him stricken, smitten by God and afflicted" was indeed the wrong opinion in that they thought he was guilty for something he had done. The "but" is indeed for contrast except it is to show that he was wounded for our transgressions, not his.

Martin said that above already but I missed it. Sorry Martin.

He was wounded for our transgressions.
The Lord was pleased to crush Him. (Lit it was God's desire). This was God's plan.
This was God's predetermined plan.

But He was not stricken by God.

We already know this because of Psalm 22, Ezekiel 28, Proverbs 27, Psalm 37, Psalm 34 and Deuteronomy 31 (among others already posted).

 

[easternstar]

To be fair to the RCC, I need to add that Anselm's theory of the atonement was not and is not their prevailing or primary view. Rather, it is the Thomistic view that Jesus gained a superabundance of merit or favor, and this merit is administered through the sacraments. I don't agree with this theory either, but compared to PSA, it does much less harm to the nature of God than PSA does.
If PSA was true, I couldn't be a Christian.

 

[DaveXR650]

Edit: no, there was an off topic paragraph about Augustine. But I already posted that off topic comments and threads will be removed.

All serious discussions among modern men about the atonement would include Augustine. Or it will be incomplete. More likely it was not going your way.

 

[DaveXR650]

The Lord was pleased to crush Him. (Lit it was God's desire). This was God's plan. Read Peter's sermon.

But He was not stricken by God.

OK

 

[DaveXR650]

I have recently questioned everything I once believed. The atonement is one thing that I remain 100% certain about, without any doubts whatsoever. PSA did not exist in the scriptures or the early church. It was invented by the church-statist Protestant Reformers. In fact, a large part of that side of the Reformation was just "Rome light", having taken the Anselmian theory of the atonement and made it much worse. Also kept was infant baptism and 'sacraments, and state-churchism, among other things.
It's amazing to me that most Protestants don't realize they are closer to Rome than they think. And even more amazing that Baptists and some other heirs of the Radical Reformation adhere to PSA.

Does your enlightenment come strictly from personal revelation and Bible study or are you affiliated with some type of larger group or school of thought? It is difficult to find that out around here.

 

[JonC]

All serious discussions among modern men about the atonement would include Augustine. Or it will be incomplete. More likely it was not going your way.

Lol...why? Augustine was a 4th century Catholic priest who is known as the "father of Western Christianity", but the atonement occurred in a Near Eastern context within a Hebrew tradition.

In a discussion about the Atonement of the Bible Augustine is not necessary. If you believe his theories correct then you argue them.

Augustine is not here to answer for his words, but you are here to account for your faith.

 

[easternstar]

Does your enlightenment come strictly from personal revelation and Bible study or are you affiliated with some type of larger group or school of thought? It is difficult to find that out around here.

I'm not affiliated with anybody, except the small rural Baptist church I grew up in. After I got grown, and moved around quite a lot, I was a part of several different denominational and non-denominational churches. But I moved back home, and back to the little Baptist church of my childhood.
My views come from 50+ years of Bible study, and extensive, passionate study of church history and theology. I was also an English major in college, and I am an ongoing student of linguistics.

 

[easternstar]

Lol...why? Augustine was a 4th century Catholic priest who is known as the "father of Western Christianity", but the atonement occurred in a Near Eastern context within a Hebrew tradition.

If I was going to choose a church to belong to based solely on atonement doctrine, it would be the Eastern Church. They have held the earliest and scriptural doctrine of the atonement unchanged for 2000 years.

 

[DaveXR650]

If I was going to choose a church to belong to based solely on atonement doctrine, it would be the Eastern Church. They have held the earliest and scriptural doctrine of the atonement unchanged for 2000 years.

I appreciate your honesty here. And in the post above. That's really what I was wondering. I at least now understand where you are coming from. And from your answer I figure you either haven't discussed this with your pastor at the Baptist church or am I wrong in that. I just can't find any group of people who hate penal substitution who are not problematic in a host of other areas.

 

[DaveXR650]

Lol...why? Augustine was a 4th century Catholic priest who is known as the "father of Western Christianity"

Well.....Yeah . You just answered the question. So we are not supposed to discuss the "father of Western Christianity's" views on one of the core issues of Western Christianity. Jon. You outdo yourself every time.

 

[JonC]

If I was going to choose a church to belong to based solely on atonement doctrine, it would be the Eastern Church. They have held the earliest and scriptural doctrine of the atonement unchanged for 2000 years.

I would traditional anabaptist, but they hold the same view.

The Eastern Orthodox Church did not hold that doctrine first (they did not exist for the first several centuries of Christianity). But they did well in maintaining the early teachings. I suspect this is because it was not as localized as the Roman Catholic Church.

I disagree with the Latin side on the Atonement from the 10th century forward (from Anselm to Aquinas and finally Penal Substitution). The basis of each always shifted to that immediate worldview (from honor to justice as merit to legal justice).