DaveXR650
Well-Known Member
Jon, that's just your typical Berlin-based philosopher and political scientist. I run into them all the time.
-
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!
In support of Penal Substitutionary Atonement
- Thread starter atpollard
- Start date
I wonder why they dabble in theology in their spare time. Looks like their time would be better spent reading the Bible rather than opining on what apparently is not theirs.
Anyway, it is discouraging sometimes to argue theology on this board. I spent a lot of time working on degrees (undergraduate and graduate degrees) in theology. This by no means elevates my own personal beliefs over anybody else's.
But to sit and argue Christian history (especially the actual writings of the Early Church), which is objective, with somebody who has not formally studied and was not even aware of the existence of well known (and one of the definitive positions) of Ransom Theory does get aggravating.
Theology is, to a great extent, a wasted degree. Those who do not agree with your beliefs (which is fair) discount your education as a whole (not just the subjective).
As an example, @Martin Marprelate just relied on the expertise of a person who describes himself as not having formally studied theology but is a mystic and homosexual "Christian" who found a home in Anglican Christianity, as it is a fit for him with women bishops, inclusion of LGBT+ people. And I formally studied the topic, have a Bachelor's and Masters degree.
I will never claim that formal studies is necessary for our faith. I will never claim it is necessary for understanding the Bible (quite the contrary, it's often a hindrance). BUT it is necessary in dealing with the objective matters of our history.
That said, I have enjoyed our conversations. I mention the above in the hopes that I have not misdirected that aggravation towards your post, and if I have that you will know why and accept my sincere apology.
Well, looking on line for the book/essay you quoted from led me to all sorts of weird Roman Catholic sites as I spent a not-very-happy hour or so searching for it. I expect you feel perfectly at home in such company, but I don't.
But if your quotation is allegedly so famous, I would have expected to find it pretty easily. Not so.
I did a quick search to see and the first thing that came up was Three Views of the Atonement from a Notre Dame University course (using that same quote to explain Ransom Theory). The second was Cambridge University Press.
But by then I realized I was talking about the wrong Gregory (Gregory of Nyssa).
You should have found Gregory of Nyssa anyway. That way you could have proven me wrong rather than me finding my own mistake
My bad. One of the three anyway (Cappadocian Fathers), and both Greg's were friends.
Gregory of Nazianzus did not hold Penal Substitution Theory but Medical Substitution.
I mentioned this before (with quotes). But during our posts somehow drifted to the other one.
@Martin Marprelate
I didn't ask when I mentioned Gregory's Medical Substitution last week. But given the language of Atonement Theories, do you understand the difference between Medical Substitution and Penal Substitution?
I ask because if you do not then you may not grasp exactly why it is not Penal Substitution Theory.
I didn't ask when I mentioned Gregory's Medical Substitution last week. But given the language of Atonement Theories, do you understand the difference between Medical Substitution and Penal Substitution?
I ask because if you do not then you may not grasp exactly why it is not Penal Substitution Theory.
Lol....yep. Gregory of Nazianzus and Gregory of Nyssa were friends. He, Gregory of Nyssa and Basil of Caesarea (Gregory of Nyssa's brother) are known as the "Cappadocian Fathers".
These were very influential people. The first known prayer to Mary is from Gregory Nazianzus (he believed God pre-purified Mary to be Jesus' mother). Our contemporary understanding of the Trinity grew from their contributions as well.
As far as Gregory of Nazianzus and Medical Substitution, these quotes are helpful in understanding that view (the first two come from Orientation 45 and the last from Epistle 101, @Martin Marprelate . A more contemporary theologian holding this view is TF Torrance):
"We needed an Incarnate God, a God put to death, that we might live. We were put to death together with Him, that we might be cleansed; we rose again with Him because we were put to death with Him; we were glorified with Him, because we rose again with Him.”
"But when all things shall be subdued unto Him on the one hand by acknowledgment of Him, and on the other by a reformation, then He Himself also will have fulfilled His submission, bringing me whom He has saved to God. For this, according to my view, is the subjection of Christ; namely, the fulfilling of the Father's Will. But as the Son subjects all to the Father, so does the Father to the Son; the One by His Work, the Other by His good pleasure...in the character of the Form of a Servant, He condescends to His fellow servants, nay, to His servants, and takes upon Him a strange form, bearing all me and mine in Himself, that in Himself He may exhaust the bad, as fire does wax, or as the sun does the mists of earth; and that I may partake of His nature by the blending. Thus He honours obedience by His action, and proves it experimentally by His Passion."
"For that which He has not assumed He has not healed; but that which is united to His Godhead is also saved. If only half Adam fell, then that which Christ assumes and saves may be half also; but if the whole of his nature fell, it must be united to the whole nature of Him that was begotten, and so be saved as a whole...Keep then the whole man, and mingle Godhead therewith, that you may benefit me in my completeness."
"We needed an Incarnate God, a God put to death, that we might live. We were put to death together with Him, that we might be cleansed; we rose again with Him because we were put to death with Him; we were glorified with Him, because we rose again with Him.”
"But when all things shall be subdued unto Him on the one hand by acknowledgment of Him, and on the other by a reformation, then He Himself also will have fulfilled His submission, bringing me whom He has saved to God. For this, according to my view, is the subjection of Christ; namely, the fulfilling of the Father's Will. But as the Son subjects all to the Father, so does the Father to the Son; the One by His Work, the Other by His good pleasure...in the character of the Form of a Servant, He condescends to His fellow servants, nay, to His servants, and takes upon Him a strange form, bearing all me and mine in Himself, that in Himself He may exhaust the bad, as fire does wax, or as the sun does the mists of earth; and that I may partake of His nature by the blending. Thus He honours obedience by His action, and proves it experimentally by His Passion."
"For that which He has not assumed He has not healed; but that which is united to His Godhead is also saved. If only half Adam fell, then that which Christ assumes and saves may be half also; but if the whole of his nature fell, it must be united to the whole nature of Him that was begotten, and so be saved as a whole...Keep then the whole man, and mingle Godhead therewith, that you may benefit me in my completeness."
So you gave me false information, left me to plough around on the Net for an hour or more looking for a quote that didn't exist, told me that Gregory of Nazianzus was one of Origen's greatest supporters which he wasn't, it was the other bloke, and then somehow it's all my fault! Thanks for nothing. If you want to debate, try to get at least your basic facts right. I simply don't have time to muck about.I did a quick search to see and the first thing that came up was Three Views of the Atonement from a Notre Dame University course (using that same quote to explain Ransom Theory). The second was Cambridge University Press.
But by then I realized I was talking about the wrong Gregory (Gregory of Nyssa).
You should have found Gregory of Nyssa anyway. That way you could have proven me wrong rather than me finding my own mistake
My bad. One of the three anyway (Cappadocian Fathers), and both Greg's were friends.
Gregory of Nazianzus did not hold Penal Substitution Theory but Medical Substitution.
I mentioned this before (with quotes). But during our posts somehow drifted to the other one.
I understand the idea of 'medical substitution' (silly made up term) in the sense of 'by His wounds we are healed' but the quotation by Greg of Naz that I gave was Penal Substitution. Go and read it again. There is nothing 'medical' about it.
But of course it is the same doctrine, turning on just who is included in the "us?" Does us refer to humanity or the previously chosen elect?
Yes, I gave you false information. I had already demonstrated that Gregory of Nazianzus did not hold Penal Substitution. He described the Atonement as medical (that was his silliness, I suppose).
The other bloke was Gregory of Nazianzus' friend. They were contemporaries (He, Gregory of Nyssa and Basil of Caesarea (Gregory of Nyssa's brother) are known as the "Cappadocian Fathers".)
Lol.....no, the idea of medical substitution is not healing by Christ's wounds. Nice guess.
It is normally called "Total Substitution" or "Ontological Substitution". But since Gregory of Nazianzus referred to it medically I used "Medical Substitution".
Medical (Ontological Substitution, Torrance preferred the term "Total Substitution') is the type of substitution within the Atonement held by Gregory of Nazianzus, Athanasius, Ignatius, . . . Most, if not all, of the early church to include those who believe Random Theory.
Medical Substitution views substitution as a union rather than replacement. Substitution is viewed as Christ dying for us, NOT instead of us. His flesh for our flesh. You will often see the Early Church...if you bother to read their works rather than extracting from them what you can misuse) ...writing about solidarity and union.
Gregory of Nazianzus called it medical because Christ is sharing in our infirmities and healing us through solidarity (he continues to take on our "sickness" and cloth is in His righteousness).
Your mistake, in addition to posting about things about which you have no knowledge, is assuming every atonement view which has substitution is Penal Substitution. So you take similar wording, rip it from its context, and misuse peoples words.
But no, the words you quote from Gregory of Nazianzus are NOT Penal Substitution. They are in the context Gregory provided. If you want to debate at least take the time to grasp what you are trying to debate.
@Martin Marprelate has no clue about beliefs other than his own. He will see anything that sounds similar to his own words (common Christianity, Ontological Substitution, Recapitulation.....anything) as his doctrine in embryo.
You (we) are wasting our time as one cannot cure ignorance in the willfully ignorant. He was extracts and puts things together in a Frankenstein manner, completely dismissing the actual writings of those who have gone before.
That is a problem with new Christianity. They have developed theories from which they simply will not be moved.
Like I've said before, Reformed Theology is Roman Catholic once removed (it is reformed RCC doctrine). Their "pope" is the Reformers and Presbyterian writers.
DaveXR650
Well-Known Member
I do know that the reformers did look quite a bit at early church fathers. When you spend time reading them they quoted them quite a bit. The Roman Catholic schoolmen used them quite a bit too. It's funny how the early church fathers, who in some areas look quite "Catholic" are the end all for scriptural accuracy when they disagree with the reformers.
But when the ECF's look very Catholic that's acceptable. But when the reformers, who actually look much different than the Catholics have some area that is supposedly similar to Catholicism that is bad. Even though it was the reformers who largely opposed the Roman system. If you really believe what you say then you will want to stay miles away from the ECF's.
They did quote them a lot. But they did not look like them, although I believe they thought themselves in a similar position (in a way, they were - symbolically the Reformers spoke of the RCC as first century Jews, and Jews as if they were RCC).
But they were nothing like the Early Church. Take Calvin. He relied a lot on Augustine, but only where it suited his philosophy (Augustine held a Ransom- Recapitulation view of Christ's work, most famously with describing Christ as a "trap" for the Devil).
@Martin Marprelate
Can you explain the difference between Medical Substitution (Ontological Substitution) as expressed by Gregory of Nazianzus and Penal Substitution Theory, or do they still appear identical to you?
I understand that how it appears to you had no bearing on the truth, but I am wondering if you can even tell the difference.
Can you explain the difference between Medical Substitution (Ontological Substitution) as expressed by Gregory of Nazianzus and Penal Substitution Theory, or do they still appear identical to you?
I understand that how it appears to you had no bearing on the truth, but I am wondering if you can even tell the difference.
Spot on. It's a good assumption that anything other than what he believes he considers to be "deadly dangerous".
Please don't turn these threads into "Martin hurls endless false charges to change the subject" thread.
Arminians believe Christ died for all humanity.
" What Do Arminians Believe: "...Also known as Unlimited Atonement. This statement says that Jesus died for everyone, even those who are not the elect."
Last edited:
PSA is a Trojan horse for Limited Atonement, because it falsely claims Christ died only for the specific sins of specific individuals chosen before creation. However Christ died as a ransom for all, those to be saved and those never to be saved. 1 Timothy 2:6; 2 Peter 2:1
Thank you for answering my question. You really haven't had enough of C vs A arguments.
Why not go to the C vs A section and pursue your obsession there?PSA 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.
You are free to suppose that the "us" means all mankind if you wish to. It doesn't really change the doctrine.