Featured Penal Substitution Theology and the faith of those without it

Thanks for clarifying. If I'm on track then you are basically saying that Christ's death on the cross is not the atonement itself but the basis for the atonement. On the cross Christ became the sacrifice (the propitiation) which is the basis for atonement/reconciliation.

Your objection to PSA is that it takes atonement as the "payment" rendered at the cross (apart from faith) applied two thousand years ago to a specific group of people alone. Jesus died for A,B, and C but not for D, E and F. Therefore ABC are essentially "saved" before birth and DEF were never afforded the opportunity but still inherit condemnation for disbelief.

That is what I understand you to be saying, anyway (please correct me if I've misinterpreted your reply).

 

I honestly don't care what you call it. For my part I was making a suggestion, not a demand. You can call my belief that the Doctrine of the Atonement includes and implies removing guilt, appeasing wrath, reconciliation, perfect obedience. and forgiveness (from the Incarnation to the Resurrection) anything you like. You can think it confusion, heterodox, or heresy. It simply does not matter to me, and the sentiments which arise towards you are far from hostility. Our discussion is not outside of brotherly love. That does not change the fact I believe you are horribly and sadly mistaken. I also believe you are making an error concerning the doctrine of Atonement.

 

Ok

 

It is wrong, IMHO, to conclude that this “ransom” was “paid to” anyone. Within the Christus Victor motif there are different views. Some, like Origen, viewed this ransom being paid to Satan. This was the view of the medieval Church (and the view that Anselm strove to correct with Satisfaction). But others viewed this ransom being paid to God (Justin Martyr, for example), and others simply settled on a “ransom” being paid for mankind (not to anyone). And we can see Origen's conclusions being engaged from Anthanasius to Anselm.

The shedding of blood is necessary for the for the forgiveness of sins. This points to the sacrificial system (the sacrificial system was not implemented because it was the only way to forgive sins, but instead to point to the way that God would forgive sins).

Christ became a sin offering. He became "sin for us' and was presented by God as a "guilt offering".

Keep in mind, however, that we probably disagree in I that I believe the Atonement itself "removed guilt" from mankind in the sense that both salvation and judgment (mercy and wrath) are Christocenteric because of the obedience of the Son, the work of the Spirit, and the faithfulness of the Father. This is what I mean when I say that Christ "purchased" a legitimate offer of salvation to all men. Our biggest disagreement is probably going to be that Christ secured the salvation of the elect.

 

Yes, I am. But not because I believe that “atonement” means "Christ’s purchase of blood". Instead I am speaking of the Atonement as the work of Christ from the giving of the Son (the Incarnation) through the Cross (the shedding of blood) to the vindication It is because I believe that there is no atonement without that purchase and I still and stubbornly insist that God’s work of redemption cannot be separated into stand-alone doctrines.

There are several reasons for my choice of words. First, passages like Hebrews 10:4,11 come to mind (“It is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins…Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins”). While Hebrews clearly teaches that the OT animal sacrifices were incapable of securing atonement for sin, the author’s use of precisely those sacrifices forms a link to the “shedding of blood” in the “sacrificial system” with “atonement”. It would be incorrect to examine the Atonement apart from the blood of Christ shed as a purchase.

Second, and more importantly, “atonement” itself is an English word which has grown to encompass not only the “removal of guilt” or “reconciliation” but also the work of the Cross as a whole. As evidence, I offered Leon Morris’ book on the Atonement (If I recall, that was the title as well). Others who you could look to include John Murray, Paul Eddy, Thomas Torrance, John Piper, J.I. Packer, John Gill, John Owen, Jonathan Edwards (who identified atonement as propitiation in defending against “free grace”), pretty much all of the Early Church Fathers (sometimes a bit inventive), etc. My point is that historically the doctrine of the Atonement has entailed not only the reconciliation of the individual to God but also the work of God in bring about that reconciliation and implications in general in association with that work. Is it a sloppy use of the word? Maybe, I don’t know. But if our only disagreement is in my use of the word, then feel free to change it to “reconciliation” (I’m not sure that that will suit every OT usage, but that’s another topic).

 

Yes, brother, we both suspect the same of each other. It is good, however, to discuss these differences and see exactly where the other stands (not only to understand another position but also to correct or strengthen our own).

Other than definitions, I do not see a wide division between our understanding of reconciliation being based on Christ's death rather than that death being the event that itself reconciles individuals to God. The Cross, in my understanding, reconciles humanity to God yet the ministry of reconciliation continues as we urge men to be reconciled. In this sense, the Cross made possible (or, as John Piper puts it, "purchased") the genuine offer of salvation to all men. Humanity is reconciled at the Cross, although individual men are not.

The sense by which I mean Christ secured on the Cross the salvation of the elect, or that He died to redeem only those who would believe, is a different perspective. The purpose for Christ's death was obedience to the Father and a laying down of His life for the Church. Does that mean Jesus died for my sins but not for those who won't believe? No, of course not. That is misunderstanding sin by actually equating it to the illustration of a "debt" and making it a business transaction. But it does mean that God had in mind those who would believe for a specific and unique purpose.

We disagree, but I really do not think that we disagree to the degree you take it on this point. Our disagreement is more along the lines of election and free-will. I believe in particular redemption, but not because I think that Jesus died for the sins of the elect and not the sins of the reprobate. I place the difference between the elect and the reprobate on God's election and drawing. The difference is that I believe the business transaction, or the divine courtroom setting, takes illustration to unbiblical proportions. When you look at Calvinism you'll see a sharp divide here. I believe that the majority of "five-pointers" now represent what was a minority a couple of centuries ago.
.