Penal Substitution Theology and the faith of those without it

[JonC]

So you have redefined "Atonement" in such a way that no orthodox Christian in history would agree?

You are free to have your own opinions but you are not free to have your own facts.

The above is NOT the theological definition of "Atonement."

Do you disagree that there was a universal scope to the atonement? If so, we can certainly walk through the many orthodox Christians throughout history of which you seem unaware.

I like John Piper, and consider him orthodox. So let's start there (mostly because that is my position - that Christ died to redeem the elect but the cross "makes possible and purchases a bonafide offer for every person on the planet."

 

[TCassidy]

Christ died to redeem the elect but the cross "makes possible and purchases a bonafide offer for every person on the planet."

Yeah, but that is not "Atonement."

Atonement theologically speaks of God's removal of the guilt of man. It is the complete expiation of both sin and the consequences of sin.

You have mistaken sacrifice, death, etc. for Atonement. They are NOT the same thing.

 

[HankD]

I was reading your posts.....as a series. ... I know you quoted the verse. ..
Explain it please.

I quoted it in support of un-limited atonement or that Christ died for the sins of all mankind.

HankD

 

[JonC]

Yeah, but that is not "Atonement."

Atonement theologically speaks of God's removal of the guilt of man. It is the complete expiation of both sin and the consequences of sin.

You have mistaken sacrifice, death, etc. for Atonement. They are NOT the same thing.

I am speaking of the doctrine of the Atonement (which, within orthodox Christianity, includes topics associated with Christ's death on the Cross as God presented Him a guilt offering).

I do not want to get into playing word games with you, brother. You can declare that the doctrine of the Cross is not the same as the doctrine of Atonement and I'm sure you have valid point in there. Technically, I suppose you could say that Christ died only for human sin in general. It is not the sacrifice but the one presenting the sacrifice that determines it's application. So it's not "for whom did Christ die" but "for whom did the Father sacrifice the Son", and any limitation belongs there (which, BTW, is how I view the scope to be determined).

But God sacrificed Jesus with a purposed universal scope. Jesus died on the cross for the same universal purposes. I know that this is not how you'll define the doctrine, and I think perhaps your doctrine is too narrow. But it is what it is. I am speaking of a broader doctrine - the doctrine of the Atonement, which historically deals with more than the removal of guilt.

To be clear - I believe that there are universal aspects of the atonement, and I do not believe these to be unintended consequences. I believe that Jesus died in such a way as to make possible the salvation of all men, but to effectively redeem the elect. Do you disagree?

 

[HankD]

For whom? What is the scope of the Atonement?

2 Peter 2:1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

1 Corinthians 6:20 For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.

1 Corinthians 7:23 Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the servants of men.

Whatever the purchase transaction for us in the 1 Corinthians passages seems the same as for those who are the recipients of the "swift destruction" in 2 Peter.

Romans 5:11 And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.

atonement : katallage A change from enmity to friendship - LS, Friberg, Greek Lexicon.

HankD

 

[Iconoclast]

I quoted it in support of un-limited atonement or that Christ died for the sins of all mankind.

HankD

It seemed that you were doing that...
Now you know why I did not agree.

 

[TCassidy]

I do not want to get into playing word games with you

Words mean things. You can't just make up new definitions of words which have specific, theological, meaning.

 

[TCassidy]

2 Peter 2:1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

1 Corinthians 6:20 For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.

1 Corinthians 7:23 Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the servants of men.

Whatever the purchase transaction for us in the 1 Corinthians passages seems the same as for those who are the recipients of the "swift destruction" in 2 Peter.

Romans 5:11 And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.

atonement : katallage A change from enmity to friendship - LS, Friberg, Greek Lexicon.

HankD

Yes, we all believe the bible here, but none of your post tells us the scope of the Atonement.

 

[TCassidy]

I quoted it in support of un-limited atonement or that Christ died for the sins of all mankind.

HankD

Atonement means the complete expiation of all sin and the eternal consequences of all sin.

If the Atonement includes all people everywhere without exception, then nobody could ever be condemned to hell as all people everywhere without exception would have received complete expiation of all sin and the eternal consequences of all sin.

However, I can easily prove that even you believe in limited Atonement.

Do you believe the Devil and his Demons will be saved? If not you limit the Atonement to humans only.

Do you believe all people everywhere without exception will be saved? If not you limit the Atonement to believers only.

 

[Van]

Lets see if we can unravel the knot being tied in this thread.

The NT speaks (4 verses) of "reconciliation." This occurs when God transfers someone from the realm of darkness into the kingdom of His Son. To claim that "atonement" refers to the cross rather than the reconciliation is twaddle.

Two, Christ died for all mankind, sinful humanity, the whole world. To claim otherwise is simply to deny scripture. What did this accomplish? What was purchased with Christ's death. God purchased the right to remove the sin burden from any and every person transferred into Christ. So those never saved were purchased, but God choose to exercise His right to leave them in the realm of darkness. Thus the ransom for all did not result in all being saved.

People who mix these two very different spiritual transactions together peddle confusion and not enlightenment.

 

[HankD]

Atonement means the complete expiation of all sin and the eternal consequences of all sin.

If the Atonement includes all people everywhere without exception, then nobody could ever be condemned to hell as all people everywhere without exception would have received complete expiation of all sin and the eternal consequences of all sin.

However, I can easily prove that even you believe in limited Atonement.

Do you believe the Devil and his Demons will be saved? If not you limit the Atonement to humans only.

Do you believe all people everywhere without exception will be saved? If not you limit the Atonement to believers only.

The ninth inning has yet to be played

The one thing (well at least one) that is missing in the 1 Corinthians and 2 Peter differential i.e agorazo and katallage is a willingness of restoration and fellowship with God. A restoration to friendship.

Neither demons nor an unknown % of mankind will ever accept that relationship (in all probability).

Just because their sins are expiated does not give us (IMO) the right to conclude that God is under any obligation to admit them into His presence.

He does as He pleases without our logical and rational approval.

HankD

 

[Van]

What if the doctrine under discussion was called Penal Substitutionary Ransom? Everybody would have it. Then we could discuss the ministry of reconciliation. Everyone has been bought with a price, the blood of Christ. But to benefit from Christ's purchase you have to believe in Christ. Be reconciled with God through faith in Christ.

Our faith toward Christ as Lord and Savior will be counted to us who believe in Him who raised from the dead Jesus our Lord, who was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification.

 

[TCassidy]

Just because their sins are expiated does not give us (IMO) the right to conclude that God is under any obligation to admit them into His presence.

So you believe God is capricious and unjust when it comes to allowing people into heaven?

There are people who are absolutely sinless, are spiritually perfect, yet God won't allow them into heaven? Why not? Why would God disallow a person whose sins were completely expiated, and the consequences of that sin were completely expiated, from entering heaven? How could God do that and remain holy and just and true?

And if we can't take God at His word, IE conclude He will do as He promised, what hope do any of us have?

 

[JonC]

Words mean things. You can't just make up new definitions of words which have specific, theological, meaning.

Indeed they do. As does terms like "honest", "sincere", etc. Words have meaning, and sometimes people are just unaware that there may be uses beyond their exposure. I think that may be the confusion here. The Atonement is not necessarily limited to "the removal of guilt" (expiation). But in that term, the scope is all of it. Jesus removes all of our guilt.

The doctrine of the Atonement throughout orthodox Christianity has included more than "removing guilt". I am surprised you thought otherwise, but I also realize we all come from a variety of backgrounds and educations. But as an example that it is not "unorthodox" to treat the Atonement as a more extensive doctrine I will again point to my reference to Piper and add Leon Morris (I glanced at my shelf and saw one of his books on the Atonement). Morris wrote an entire book on the Atonement, explaining it's meaning and significance. And no, it's not a tract. He goes through the Atonement in terms of propitiation, reconciliation, redemption, etc.

So my understanding that the Atonement includes Christ's purchase of an legitimate offer of salvation for all mankind and the effectual redemption of the elect is not a view outside of orthodox Christianity. It is just that you are unfamiliar with the Atonement as a more complete doctrine, which, if you are being honest, is surprising given your stated background.

 

[JonC]

Words mean things. You can't just make up new definitions of words which have specific, theological, meaning.

I though that perhaps this definition would help you understand how others have defined the Atonement. Here is the definition that Daniel Akin gave for Atonement:

"Jesus Christ, the Son of God, by offering Himself as a sacrifice, by substituting Himself in our place, paying in full the penalty of our sin and actually bearing the punishment which should have been ours, satisfied the Father, effected a reconciliation between God and man, and became our justification by imputing His righteousness to us through faith in His perfect work of atonement."

Regardless as to your disagreement with the definition, it is within orthodox Christian faith, and it includes more than the expiation of guilt. So even in mere definition we have some disagreement, but I was treating the topic as the broader doctrine. I hope this help clarify how the word is actually used within Christian theology to indicate more than expiation so that this confusion can be avoided in the future. That said, it is good to clarify terms and not take for granted our own definitions.

 

[HankD]

So you believe God is capricious and unjust when it comes to allowing people into heaven?

There are people who are absolutely sinless, are spiritually perfect, yet God won't allow them into heaven? Why not? Why would God disallow a person whose sins were completely expiated, and the consequences of that sin were completely expiated, from entering heaven? How could God do that and remain holy and just and true?

And if we can't take God at His word, IE conclude He will do as He promised, what hope do any of us have?

I can answer every inquiry with one portion of scripture Dr Tom:

...I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy...

Each and everyone of us is at the mercy of God the Logos

HankD

 

[TCassidy]

Each and everyone of us is at the mercy of God the Logos

So you do believe God is unrighteous and fails to keep His promises?

 

[TCassidy]

paying in full the penalty of our sin and actually bearing the punishment which should have been ours, satisfied the Father, effected a reconciliation between God and man, and became our justification by imputing His righteousness to us through faith in His perfect work of atonement."

So, according to your definition you don't believe the above? ". . . paying in full . . . " ". . . satisfied the Father . . . "

Note what it actually says. The Atonement effected a reconciliation. The Atonement is not the reconciliation. It is that which effected the reconciliation. Even your "proof" disagrees with your revisionist definition of Atonement.

 

[JonC]

So, according to your definition you don't believe the above? ". . . paying in full . . . " ". . . satisfied the Father . . . "

Note what it actually says. The Atonement effected a reconciliation. The Atonement is not the reconciliation. It is that which effected the reconciliation. Even your "proof" disagrees with your revisionist definition of Atonement.

Not at all. I believe the Atonement effectual not only in expiation but also propitiation and reconciliation. So I disagree with your semi-potential view (that the Atonement is only the removal of sins, excluding propitiation, external towards "purchase" and only making reconciliation a possibility). Like I stated on another thread, we are forgiven BY the work of the Cross, not because it was made possible through that work.

I agree with you that the Atonement can be defined in terms of expiation. I disagree that it is only potential in all other terms (propitiation, reconciliation, etc). I think your view too centered on man.

"The word atonement, is almost the only theological term of English origin. It was likely first used in Tyndale's English translation as derived from the adv. phrase atonen, meaning "in accord," literally, at one. In the English Bible, it is mainly used to translate theHebrew word kipur, although it is used once in the King James New Testament to translate the Greek word katallage (see Romans 5:11). Most modern translations render this word "reconciliation" in its other occurrences throughout the N.T."

 

[HankD]

So you do believe God is unrighteous and fails to keep His promises?

μη γενοιτο!

HankD