You agree means essentially reconciliation but disagree that atonement means reconciliation?
-
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!
JonC's view of Substitution in the Atonement
- Thread starter JonC
- Start date
- Status
Atonement can bring about reconciliation (by no means guaranteed in human affairs), but the two words are not synonymous. Neither Beeke nor Piper say that they are.
ATONEMENT: 1510s, "condition of being at one (with others)," a sense now obsolete, from atone + -ment. Theological meaning "reconciliation" (of man with God through the life, passion, and death of Christ) is from 1520s; that of "satisfaction or reparation for wrong or injury, propitiation of an offended party" is from 1610s.
Yes, that is correct. Do you really not understand? The atonement (better IMO propitiation) of the Lord Jesus Christ opens the way for reconciliation between man and God. Christ has satisfied the outraged justice of God. Do you see now that atonement and reconciliation are not the same thing but the one leads to the other
Yet the theological meaning of Atonement is literally "reconciliation".
Reconciliation is a biblical word. Atonement is not. Atonement literally means reconciliation.
You add to this by saying reconciliation (atonement) was achieved by Christ satisfying the outraged justice of God but that is not in the Bible (you understand that, right?).
You have a theory about how our reconciliation was accomplished (how atonement was accomplished) and you allow your theory to dictate every aspect of your faith.
Why on earth do you believe our reconciliation is based in God satisfying God's justice? Why do you believe God's justice demands sins be punished in order to be forgiven?
See? You redefine words. You redefine reconciliation to be something brought on by our being made "at one" or in unity with God. You redefine forgiveness to mean punishment.
In fact, your theory is so far from the Christian faith handed to us, so far from Scripture, it is a miracle you are saved rather than damned because of it. But I am glad miracles occur (I was also saved believing your theory as well). People like us were saved not because of these theories but despite them. It just goes to show salvation is a work of God and not man.
But there comes a point when we really should lay aside these fables fit for old women, these myths and mythologies, and simply trust in God's Word. That's what I'd love for you, to see you grow in the Spirit and not be carried away by vain philosophies.
Interesting that you are the one who has bought into Atonement theory that is not that supported in the scriptures, and never held by reformed nor that many Conservative Baptists!
Thru his death, by his propitiation of the wrath of God, we are thus able to be reconciled back to the father!
It is interesting that it is new to you. Even when I held the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement I knew of the "classic view", and I knew of it being held by conservative Baptists (at the time I just thought they were wrong).
Perhaps you would do well to learn about Baptist (beyond your tradition) and Christianity as a whole. You may never change your views, but I think you may find Christian History an interesting topic.
Put that on a chronological timeline and see how it looks. You may be surprised.
I am no kind of Hebrew scholar, but I do know that the Hebrew word kapar or kaphar (Strong's 3722) means to 'cover over,' 'atone,' 'propitiate', 'pacify.' It is translated atonement' at least 16 times in most translations of Leviticus 16, the chapter that deals with - yes - the Day of Atonement. Atonement for sins is necessary before there can be reconciliation.
In the NT, the Greek word katallage is wrongly translated 'atonement' in the KJV of Romans 5:11. The modern translations, including the NKJV, correct the error. The NIV translates hilasmos and hilasterion as 'atoning sacrifice' though I think that 'propitiation'. (NKJV, ESV) is better, though the meaning is very similar. I do not see therefore how you can say that 'atonement' is not a Biblical word, or how you can say that the theological meaning of 'atonement' is 'reconciliation.' It isn't.
Oh boy! I've been through this so many times! Do you really want me to do it again? I will if you want, but not tonight; it's bed-time in Britain.
I do none of these things. You are getting overwrought. I would say, stop before you make a fool of yourself, but I'm afraid it's too late for that.
You must know that, to put it mildly, I am not unsupported. Why are you making yourself ridiculous by pretending otherwise?
John Piper wrote the foreword to Pierced for our Transgressions; Don Carson, Dale Ralph Davis, R. Kent Hughes, Mark Dever and many others wrote commendations for it. You need to stop being silly and emotional.
You may well be right about the early General Baptists - the ones who disappeared into Unitarianism and Quakerism in the early 18th Century - but I am happy to be in the Biblical tradition of Kiffin, Keach, Bunyan and many others.
Yes, I know.
I prefer to be in the Biblical tradition of the Bible.
Just saying that what you call unbiblcal, man made, and it seems to border on heresy is what is the traditional view among reformed and vast majority of Baptists, while your views are held by those such as the NPP and Greek orthodox!
JonC seems to want to get the very concept of wrath of God out of the Bible, as CH Dodd tried his best to get it watered down from propitiation to Expiation in his Neb!
The Reformers did, for the most part, accept the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement.
A more fair comparison of my view would be Irenaeus or traditional Anabaptist Theology. The reason is the NPP, as expressed by NT Wright, is a Reformed doctrine. And the Greek Orthodox takes a more mystical approach. I hold closer to Ontological Substitution.
No need for comment.I prefer to be in the Biblical tradition of the Bible.
Obviously. That has been my main point - what matters is the doctrine written in the text of Scripture - NOT what we think might have been there in embryo, not doctrines in addition to Scripture that we feel the Bible teaches, and not what the Bible means to you.
The problem with the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement is that it cannot be verified with the text of Scripture. The best you can do is text what you believe Scripture teaches against what you believe is taught by Scripture. In other words, you have absolutely no test for your doctrine.
The issue is that you are utterly inconsistent. When confronted with the indisputable Scriptural evidence for Penal Substitution, you argue (wrongly) that it the doctrine is not supported by the Church Fathers and (even more wrongly) by the early Baptists. When your errors are pointed out you dive back into the utterly incredible claim that Penal Substitution is not found in Scripture. Now is it really worth my time trotting out all the Biblical proofs yet again, if what you will do is trot out the Church Fthers again?
Around six years ago, you challenged me to show the Biblical basis of Penal Substitution . When I actually produced it (not your theory, the doctrine), you never so much as touched upon it, but of course you have continued to make your crazy claim that you reat above. However, I put my post on my blog, and here it is again for those with sufficiently open minds to read it.
The Theological and Biblical Basis of Penal Substitution
I am aware that not too many people read long posts, so I can divide it up into crunchy, bite-sized morsels if people prefer.
You have not presented ANY actual evidence for the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement. To do so you would have show a passage stating that God must punish sin in order to forgive sin (that is the philosophy of judgment you lay upon God, but it is foreign to Scripture).
You keep on posting passages that we agree on, claiming those passages as proof. The problem is you never prove the basis for interpreting those passages (which you interpret to be more than they actually say).
You do this with the ECF's as well. You can't find Penal Substitution Theory so you say it is there "in embryo" (to quote you). BUT the fact is, it is NOT there. You see "his flesh for our flesh, his life for our life" and say "There! That's Penal Substitution!" When we all believe it is his flesh for our flesh and his life for our life.
- Status