It was mostly a figure of speech to say that the Reformers did not extract Paul from Scripture.
We have to look at Scripture as a whole. Paul's justification is Christ's justification.
-
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
We have to look at Scripture as a whole. Paul's justification is Christ's justification.
JonC atonement view seems to be more in line with NPP then reformed or baptist!
This is a poor attempt at slander that you have repeated on this forum.
I understand that you disagree with my position, and many do. That is fair. But disagreeing with me does not grant you the right to post dishonestly.
We have had this discussion on the forum and then later via PM. So you know my view is unrelated.
That said, I do agree with Sanders that Paul's use of "works" was sometimes referring to works of the Law. That makes sense to me given the Jewish view of the Law. But this idea is not exclusive to the NPP. And not all of Paul's letters were to a primary Jewish audience.
I am really not sure what your fascination is with the NPP. I have personally not found it that interesting (I suppose perhaps in Reformed circles it may be intriguing, but I'm not Reformed ).
I repeat; I am not interested in your theory.
What I believe is that the LORD has laid upon Christ the iniquity of us all and that while He was bearing that iniquity it has please God to crush the Christ and to put Him to grief. That putting to grief included piercing, crushing, chastisement, scourging, oppression and striking. Moreover, it is by His wounds that we are healed. That is not theory; that is the word of God.
I have laid out time without number a definition of the Doctrine of Penal Substitution which I support.
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 have said:
Tell us what difference you think that would make.
It is hard to say since he seems unable to articulate it clearly.
A lie is not a figure of speech.
What you do not understand is that a figure of speech is not a lie.
burn at the stake
This expression refers to a method used in the Middle Ages for putting heretics to death, but now it is used as a hyperbolic metaphor for harsh punishment, as in She was sure she'd be burned at the stake for losing the contract. In fact, the stake can be used loosely for any extreme punishment. William Makepeace Thackeray so used it in Henry Esmond (1852): “'I know I would go to the stake for you,' said Harry.”
I do not expect an apology from you for calling me a liar, as I think that would be above you. But I don't want you to think poorly of others when they use the metaphor.
Often learning English is via experience. We encounter an expression for the first time, explanation removes ignorance, and we learn. I am glad to have taught you something, even if it is related to the English language rather than Christianity.
As far as I can tell, I articulated my view of the Atonement clearly. I think it will s more that it does not meet your expectations. But I never claimed to be a wordsmith.
I'll simplify and offer a comparison of theories by allowing another articulate. You also struggled with understanding the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement. Here is Morrisons' summary of the two:
The Classic View
Classically, the Christus Victor theory of Atonement is widely considered to be the dominant theory for most of the historical Christian Church. In this theory, Jesus Christ dies in order to defeat the powers of evil (such as sin, death, and the devil) in order to free mankind from their bondage. This is related to the Ransom view with the difference being that there is no payment to the devil or to God. Within the Christus Victor framework, the cross did not pay off anyone but defeated evil thereby setting the human race free.
The Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement
Penal Substitutionary Atonement is a development of the Reformation. The Reformers, Specifically Calvin and Luther, took Anselm’s Satisfaction theory and modified it slightly. They added a more legal (or forensic) framework into this notion of the cross as satisfaction. The result is that within Penal Substitution, Jesus Christ dies to satisfy God’s wrath against human sin. Jesus is punished (penal) in the place of sinners (substitution) in order to satisfy the justice of God and the legal demand of God to punish sin. In the light of Jesus’ death, God can now forgive the sinner because Jesus Christ has been punished in the place of the sinner, in this way meeting the retributive requirements of God’s justice. This legal balancing of the ledgers is at the heart of this theory, which claims that Jesus died for legal satisfaction. It’s also worth mentioning that in this theory the notion of imputed righteousness is postulated.
Perhaps you are not aware that the Reformers lived at the end of the MIddle Ages and that many of them actually were burned at the stake, and some of them were guilty of inflicting it on others.. Your attempt at humour (or whatever it was) is therefore misplaced .Your claim is still untrue unless you can produce some evidence for it.. The term 'Pauline Justification' is a modern one, but for you to claim that the Reformers were opposed to the doctrine is not true. Your antipathy towards the Reformers is no excuse for you to blackguard them. 'Pauline Justification' is a development of a doctrine discovered by the Reformers.
This view had entered a well-deserved oblivion for hundreds of years until Gustav Aulen resuscitated it between the wars. It is true just as far as it goes. As I've said before, no one believes in Christus Loser. Christ did rise victorious from the tomb. 'Declared to be the Son of God with power according to the Spirit of holiness, by His resurrection from the dead.' But to say that He defeated sin, death and the devil, one has to explain exactly how He did it, and that is what you have do. Penal Substitution explains exactly how..
You keep saying that you believe that Christ was pierced for our transgressions that He was made a curse for us and so on, but you never say how and you never say why, and your quote from Morrison (never heard of him, I'm afraid) does not explain either.
Yes, I know the Reformers were both persecuted and persecutors.
But we speak and write in the contemporary vernacular.
37818
Well-Known Member
It did. Study the various expressions of Ransom Theory in the 1st century. Aulen brought it to light in a setting where it was ignored.
I am not talking about Gustav Aulen. As you note, it was a theme - the Ransom Theory, Recapitulation, and Moral Influence Theory would fall into the "Classic view".
It is a bit dishonest to say "nobody believes in "Christ loser". That is like saying everybody believes Penal Substitution because nobody rejects that Christ died for our sins, suffered the consequences of sin on our behalf, etc.
My suggestion for you is to ether discuss honestly or don't discuss at all.
You really don't understand, do you? If you write, "She was sure she'd be burned at the stake for losing the contract," it is clear that it is a hyperbole because it is also an anachronism. If you write of the Reformers burning people at the stake for teaching Pauline Justification, it is a claim you should be able to substantiate because burnings were a part of life at that time, and not hyperbolic or funny at all.
It is not the least bit dishonest. To talk of "Christus Victor" is a truism, and as such it is pretty meaningless unless you spell out what you mean by it, which you seem very reluctant to do. I will repeat my point from my earlier post: you keep saying that you believe that Christ was pierced for our transgressions that He was made a curse for us and so on, but you never say how and you never say why, and your quote from Morrison (never heard of him, I'm afraid) does not explain either.
I see your error.
You read "the Reformers burned people at the stake for separating justification as expressed by Paul from justification expressed in Scripture".
For some reason you thought I was addressing dead people when in fact I was addressing JesusFan, who was not alive in the 16th century.
Sure it is dishonest. You are ake my position (specifically Ontological Substitution, which would fall under the "Classic view of Atonement" and pretend the opposite of the Christus Victor view is the Christ loser view.
That is dishonest because the Classic view (the Christus Victor view and the theories that fall within) is more than simply Christ was victorious just as the Penal Substitution Theory is more than Christ died for our sins and experienced the wages of sin for us.
For example, the Classic view presents the atonement completely different from the Latin view (Satisfaction Theory, Substitution Theory and Penal Substitution Theory). Where the Latin view sees Christ as appeasing some aspect of God the Classic view sees Christ as conquering the powers that culminated at the Cross.
They are competing views. If you indeed believe the Christus Victor position is true then you believe that Christ suffered and died under the powers of the World (of Satan) rather than Christ suffering under God's wrath.
It is extraordinary dishonest and foolish to dismiss other views (particularly one that has been the predominant Christian understanding) to simply "Christ was victorious". It shows an ignorance beyond reasonable expectation.
You wrote:
This is a false statement. The first Calvinists would not have burned anyone at the stake for citing Pauline Justification. I accept that you may have meant it jocularly, but there is nothing jocular about people being burned at the stake and the statement is still false.
What is dishonest is your failure to set out what you understand about Christus Victor. And yes, I absolutely believe that Chrsit was victorious over Satan, but I think we shall find that I believe it for very different reasons than you appear to. I say appear, becaue you seem unable to articulate the very doctrine that you say you hold to. My knowledge of Christus Vicor centres on the writings of Gustav Aulen, but you say you don't want to discuss him, so come on, 'brace yourself like a man,' and lay out your doctrine.
- Status