PSA

[DaveXR650]

I have great news for everyone!!

What we think about what Jesus did doesn’t affect what Jesus did. What we think doesn't change the course of Jesus Christ as the Savior of men.
All you are required to do is trust Him to handle the details. That is faith.
That said, I think we can deescalate the conflict several degrees.

This is true as far as the minimum requirement for being saved. I mean, sometimes in the New Testament the gospel message is simply Jesus is Lord and he can forgive sins. I certainly believe the early church members were saved, and we probably are not worthy to clean their sandals. I also believe that there is real evidence they were developing penal substitution just as they were still developing the idea of what it truly meant that "Jesus is Lord".

But when a modern man who has all scripture available, and 2000 years of saints before him who wrote down their thoughts, and he decides to use arguments almost word for word from the Socinians that Owen argued with, or chooses to go with the idea that the devil was paid a ransom or that God had to trick him, I am concerned.

 

[JonC]

As you have done 100 times and then I answer 100 times, as well as the answers found in this post, including post 98 above.

Don't worry about it. I forgive you for the insults.

I just wanted you to know that I used thise words because when I asked you if that was what you believed you said it was.

The problem with PSA is that God violates His own justice in order to allow those for whom Christ died to escape accountability for their sins.

We have to word it that way because God is not, under PSA, forgiving sins. He is literally punishing Christ for our sins so that we will not be accountable at judgment.

Biblical atonement is much different. In the Bible the Atonement is foretold by the Exodus and the sacrifice system.

In the Exodus death passed over not because the sheep was killed but because the blood was applied.

Same with sacrifices. In ANE pagan cults sacrifices were made to appease the gods. The pagans had a skewed and twisted form of worship. In the Bible sins were not placed on the animal and then the animal slain for forgiveness. Sins were symbolically placed on the animal, the animal was slain. But this was outside of the Temple. It was the blood that purified.

Same with Christ. He bore our sins, suffered all it is to be human to include the death produced by sin, the power of the author of sin, the one who held us in bondage.

His death was not the payment of a sin debt. Instead Christ's blood cleanses us from all unrighteousness.

 

[JonC]

Bottom line - either Jesus experienced the consequences of our sins or He did not.

If He did then He suffered the same death sin produces, although without sin He suffered under the same oppression from Satan man experienced because of sin, the same death that man experiences as the power of Satan.

What you guys are saying is essentually Docetism, that Jesus was not really human, did not experience what man would because of sin. That is heresy.

 

[DaveXR650]

Don't worry about it. I forgive you for the insults.

I just wanted you to know that I used thise words because when I asked you if that was what you believed you said it was.

How very benevolent. Your pattern is to complain about the first definition of PSA taken from the original article from the OP as being too general because after all, everyone believes that. Then you go into detail about why you really don't believe that. You insist then on a more detailed explanation, which was there posted all the time, and then misinterpret the details to create a straw man to argue against, all the while refusing to allow the people who put up the definition to explain what they put up. Only you can correctly interpret what we put up, even though what we put up is from real theologians who themselves fully explained what it was they wrote. But they did not satisfy you. Only you are allowed to explain what they said just as only you can come up with a fully developed early church theology on the atonement which would be news to scholars of the early church. Even the sources you put up clearly state that they did not have an organized or unified view of the atonement - except they had not I guess discussed it with you. You should write a book.

 

[JonC]

How very benevolent.

No, not really. I forgive you your sin against me because God forgives my sins against Him. We are to forgive as we are forgiven by God.

I asked you if God punished Jesus in our place so that He would not have to hold us accountable for our actions. You said "yes". I had no way of knowing you changed your mind that quickly.

Like I said, that is fine. People change their views all the time. Now I know that you no longer believe that is a true statement.

I forgave you for insulting me. It is no big deal. I don't wear my feelings on my sleeve, so they remained unscathed.

 

[JonC]

Only you are allowed to explain what they said

No. Not even me. Nobody can explain what they said. They wrote what they wrote. Since they are no longer alive we have to accept their words as being what they believed.

They said Jesus suffered our penalty for sin.
They said the penalty Jesus suffered was Satan's wrath.

We have to accept their writings about their beliefs.

Tertullian accepted Montanism (which I think we all consider a heresy).

Origen believed that souls existed before God created the material world.

Augustine taught that baptism removes original sin, unbaptized infants go to Hell if they die while baptized ones go to Heaven.

Gill taught that the Archangel Michael is the pre-incarnnate Christ (many believed this).

John Owen believed Gen 3:15 was merely explaining why humans have an aversion to snakes.

We have to accept history for what it is.

 

[DaveXR650]

The problem with PSA is that God violates His own justice in order to allow those for whom Christ died to escape accountability for their sins.

We have to word it that way because God is not, under PSA, forgiving sins. He is literally punishing Christ for our sins so that we will not be accountable at judgment.

Bottom line - either Jesus experienced the consequences of our sins or He did not.

I asked you if God punished Jesus in our place so that He would not have to hold us accountable for our actions. You said "yes". I had no way of knowing you changed your mind that quickly.

Once again, overlooking the feigned having difficulty in understanding, this is the standard Socinian objection so I'll explain it again.
We have no ability to get out of the situation we find ourselves in as humans. We are sinners and the penalty is eternal separation from the Father. That penalty, we are told in scripture is satisfied in the judgement of the Father, by that which happened to Jesus at the cross. It is not equivalent in the sense that Jesus did not suffer eternal separation from the Father. It is sufficient in that it propitiates and satisfies the Father so that he can forgive us without doing cosmic injustice which would violate his own nature.

So in that sense, we do indeed escape accountability for our actions. But given that the charge of the skeptic has always been "what shall we say then, shall we continue in sin that grace may abound?", it must be remembered that to really have this attitude is to trample under foot the Son of God and count his blood as unworthy, thus my severe warning to anyone who would reject this with full understanding.

 

[JonC]

Once again, overlooking the feigned having difficulty in understanding, this is the standard Socinian objection so I'll explain it again.

??

I was simply asking if that was correct. You said it was. Then you insulted me for saying it.

I am not asking for an explanation. If you have decided it is not correct that is perfectly fine.

I read in my Bible that:

1. He was put to death in the body but made alive in the Spirit.

2. Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might break the power of him who holds the power of death—that is, the devil—

3. One who justifies the wicked and one who condemns the righteous,
Both of them alike are an abomination to the Lord.

4. But if the wicked person turns from all his sins which he has committed and keeps all My statutes and practices justice and righteousness, he shall certainly live; he shall not die.

5. For I take no pleasure in the death of anyone who dies,” declares the Lord God. “Therefore, repent and live!”

6. It is not good to punish the righteous.

7. And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her Seed; He shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise His heel."

So I obviously cannot believe PSA.


I believe that Christ experienced what man suffers because of sin (the oppression from Satan, the death produced by sin, the power of the one who holds the power of death, that is Satan, the author of sin). And then I believe God judged Him.

 

[DaveXR650]

You know, if I were to parse your words like you do ours I would do this:

1. He was put to death in the body but made alive in the Spirit.

So you are denying the bodily resurrection of Jesus.

2. Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might break the power of him who holds the power of death—that is, the devil—

So the devil can kill anyone at anytime because you only live as long as he desires.

3. One who justifies the wicked and one who condemns the righteous,
Both of them alike are an abomination to the Lord.

This is the word for word Socinian objection, repeated once again, after all the explanation of how in the end, it is the Father himself absorbing the wrongdoing back upon himself by the atonement. So why do you keep accusing God of doing an abomination.

5. For I take no pleasure in the death of anyone who dies,” declares the Lord God. “Therefore, repent and live!”

To explain all of Christianity as "repent and believe" without the context of the atoning sacrifice of Jesus is once again the Socinian argument word for word and is totally anti-Christian.

I believe that Christ experienced what man suffers because of sin (the oppression from Satan, the death produced by sin, the power of the one who holds the power of death, that is Satan, the author of sin). And then I believe God judged Him.

In a way. I find a lot of truth in that statement and if it were not for the other things you have said, you know, like PSA was blasphemous, I would be OK with that as an overall statement. The question I would have is does not that statement "God judging him" violate your own point 3 above?

 

[JonC]

So you are denying the bodily resurrection of Jesus.

No. That is what I mean by errors in reading between the lines. The conclusion is a logical fallacy. Like saying "Jesus bore our sins" means "instead of us" or "God laid our iniquities on Him" means "and took them off us". "Jesus died in the flesh and was made alive in the Spirit" is a statement in itself (not stating anything about a bodily resurrection, which other passages state occurred).

So the devil can kill anyone at anytime because you only live as long as he desires.

I believe that God appoints the time. But man sins (and I believe Jesus bore our sins). Sin produces death. The author of sin is Satan. Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might break the power of him who holds the power of death—that is, the devil.

If Jesus did not suffer the power of Satan (this death sin produces, the power he holds) then He did not suffer and die for our sins. We still have that death to suffer.

This is the word for word Socinian objection

No, that is God's words (word for word). I do not believe God subscribes to socinianism.

To explain all of Christianity as "repent and believe" without the context of the atoning sacrifice of Jesus is once again the Socinian argument word for word and is totally anti-Christian.

Not sure who explained all of Christianity that way (obviously I did not as that was #5 of why I could never go back to PSA).

The socinian argument was a bit more involved. But as far as I know, not even that heresy explained all of Christianity as "repent and believe".

the context of the atoning sacrifice

This is an important distinction. Of all the true doctrines we see perverted by pagan cults, you seem to believe they got this part right. Where pagan's sacrificed to appease their gods we see something different in the Hebrew religion.

The sacrifice was obedience. Sacrificing the animal in the OT was not to cover or remove sin. Sin was not viewed to be transferred to the sin offering. This was not viewed as an appeasement to God.

The animal was slaughtered. This was outside the temple. But what they viewed was the blood, and they viewed blood as life. The blood was used to purify and cleanse from sin.

Now, we know that what God sought was not sacrifice but obedience. But that was the symbolism.

The question I would have is does not that statement "God judging him" violate your own point 3 above?

No, it doesn't. You have to remember that it is appointed man once to die (sin produces death, Satan is the author of sin and holds the power of death).

BUT you also have to remember that not only is man appointed once to die, but then there is God's judgment.

Had Jesus suffered death under the power of Satan (had Jesus literally been a human being, the "Son of Man") then He would be judged by God.

God did not condemn Jesus. Instead God raised Him on the third day, placed Him at the right hand of the Father, have Him a name above every name.

 

[DaveXR650]

You really would go back through all this again. Let me ask you, seriously. In your mind, is this new to you or do you realize that this annoying and useless repeated parsing of everyone's words has been done numerous times?
You really could go back through all this again. Not that I don't understand somewhat. I'm getting to the point where I can hide my own Easter eggs but man, I hope I'm not that far gone yet. These things have been explained numerous times. Enough sources have been cited that any reasonable person can form their own opinion. I do want to encourage anyone questioning PSA to read the work done on the early church writings and you will find Jon is making up this organized system he imagines. I don't know really what else can be said and don't wish to repeat the same things again.

 

[JonC]

You really would go back through all this again. Let me ask you, seriously. In your mind, is this new to you

I do not mind. It is not new to me at all. I am very accustomed to members asking me a question and then insulting me when I answer. I think many consider that the name of the game.

I attribute the ad hominem as an inability on their part to rationally discuss a topic. That is fine. I studied theology, but if we were debating muscle cars then I may be tempted to do the same. I know nothing about cars, except you press the accelerator to go, the brake to stop. I love adaptive cruise control, and the hybrid setting. Don't have a clue how they work. I just push the buttons.

Anyway, it does not bother me at all. You have to remember I was in the Army for 23 years. Feelings were never the top priority.

I would rather members take out their insecurities on me, in an online forum, than on their family or friends. They put so much into it, I am entertained (I imagine them working, searching heresies to try to insult me, that sort of thing) . But if they took it home to their loved ones it could damage relationships (which I would hate).

I am kinda like one of those rage rooms where you go in and break everything then go home and don't kick the dog and don't beat the wife. I do not get the appeal (anger was never one of my many faults). But I hear it helps some people. My boss wants to go to one. Probably because of me.

 

[DaveXR650]

@JonC. That is a relief to me as I do get frustrated in thinking my clumsy attempts to explain things might cause someone really searching for truth to come up short because of me. Now at least I know that you are just jerking everyone else around as you have so stated. My only objection is that you taking the high ground is somewhat dubious considering some of the things you have been saying recently about PSA adherents and Calvinists in general but at least I know now that it was all in good fun.

 

[JonC]

@JonC. That is a relief to me as I do get frustrated in thinking my clumsy attempts to explain things might cause someone really searching for truth to come up short because of me.

You should always have that concern. Paul gives this caution to those who desire to teach others. With this topic all it may take to become a stumbling block is for one to teach their understanding and it not resonate or the other person discover it is not actually in the Bible.

Now at least I know that you are just jerking everyone else around as you have so stated.

I hate to tell you, but I have not been jerking anybody around. I would never do that with Scripture.

I legitimately believe that Jesus bore our sins and experienced what man does because of sin (the death produced by sin, the oppression of Satan, dying in the flesh under the power of the author of sin, judgment after this "first death").

Anything less would mean Jesus was not the "Son of Man" and would not be the Second Adam.

My only objection is that you taking the high ground

I am not taking the higher ground. I am standing on the higher ground (God's Word). There is a difference. Taking the higher ground is conquering while standing on the "faith once given" is submission.

I would love to have continued holding PSA. It fits the Western palate. It is simplistic. It is easy believism. It is benign. But it is unbiblical, so I submitted to God.

considering some of the things you have been saying recently about PSA adherents and Calvinists in general

Not PSA theorists, but the doctrine itself. I draw a distinction. People can be a Calvinist and a Christian. Holding onto a philosophy is not the same as being carried away by that philosophy. And, obviously, people can just be a Calvinist.

at least I know now that it was all in good fun.

Honestly discussing doctrine is not just in fun, although I do enjoy it. But when the discussion gets dishonest no true discussion can be had. When people give me lemons I make lemonade. No sense in getting flustered. Life is too short.

 

[JonC]

But when a modern man who has all scripture available, and 2000 years of saints before him who wrote down their thoughts...

I do need to address this.

Some indeed believe the early Christians were ignorant when it came to redemption. In some ways, they probably were. Certainly they viewed Scripture through their circumstances. But at the same time these were the people who were closest to the accomplishment of our redemption. Some were disciples of Apostles.

Some believe that centuries of theological development abd progress brought our understanding closer to truth. Others believe it cast us farther away. The early church certainly did not hold theology as we think of it.

That said, your post is not entirely honest. While your view is the main view within Westwrn Protestantism it is far from the only one. And when you include Christianity as a whole it is far from the majority position.

When you talk about 2000 years of writings you mean about 600 years of Reformed writings.

Take your view. A significant population holds it. But we'll over half of that number holds my view. We are talking over 300 million Christians alive today that share my belief. And neither of us hold the majority Christian position.

 

[DaveXR650]

That said, your post is not entirely honest.

First of all, my post is entirely honest unless I said something that I know for a fact not to be true. I might be totally wrong, but I assure you I am entirely honest in this belief I have.
I believe that the early church writings that we have available show a lot of error in quite a few areas, not just the atonement.

But at the same time these were the people who were closest to the accomplishment of our redemption.

They certainly were closest time wise but I honestly don't know how much scripture they had available, or if they were reading excerpts as they had them available. I mean that while scripture was available overall, did everyone who wrote the works we now have - have at their disposal a complete set of scriptures at the time they completed those works. Even as late as Augustine, he writes in the Confessions of literally weeping and thanking God after I think Ambrose obtained a brief portion of scripture for him that he did not have. Others have written that he often used poor translations in his work, which I take at their word.

Some believe that centuries of theological development abd progress brought our understanding closer to truth. Others believe it cast us farther away. The early church certainly did not hold theology as we think of it.

I too am skeptical of something being better just because it's new but that doesn't mean that decline is always inevitable, especially given the putting together of scripture over time and the sorting out of things which we do know for sure improved - like the divinity of Christ.

Take your view. A significant population holds it. But we'll over half of that number holds my view. We are talking over 300 million Christians alive today that share my belief. And neither of us hold the majority Christian position.

I'm not going to do like you do to me and claim that everyone who disagrees is dishonest. But I have noticed that you may have some issues there yourself. These debates are not new. When I first started engaging you in this area you claimed for instance that Torrance was against penal substitution. I bought his book on the atonement (and I am glad for you putting me onto it) but I found almost immediately that you had mislead me in that he was not against penal substitution. Rather, he had a multifaceted view of atonement. Now I'm wondering if then your claim above that 300 million claim your belief is true. Or, do they view other facets of the atonement as also true and it is you who assumes that they oppose penal substitution like you did with Torrance. I just have noticed, and I'll say it again that you can't seem to identify these groups and when I trace them I always so far have found other serious areas of concern. So I would ask for clarification on this. In other words, after making this claim can you name some denominations or churches where penal substitution is officially rejected, where you would proudly desire to identify with? This should be quite easy with 300 million people in this camp.

 

[DaveXR650]

My copy of "Pierced for Our Transgressions" just arrived via Amazon's electrical van. I wish the print was larger and I wish I had a copy of it earlier. A lot of @JonC 's objections are listed and refuted in detail and I've found that in only an hour or so. Since this thread is about PSA let me just say I think it will be a good book for anyone looking into this subject. But I'll post more as I have time.

 

[JonC]

First of all, my post is entirely honest unless I said something that I know for a fact not to be true.

You may be honest and wrong. The post itself may not be.

I believe that the early church writings that we have available show a lot of error in quite a few areas, not just the atonement.

I agree that all writings of men have this flaw. Gill teaching Michael was Jesus pre-incarnate, Tertullian with prophesy. Men are men.

I did not study the Early Church writers to adopt their atonement view. I realized PSA was not in the Bible and studied the Bible to see what was said in the text about the Atonement. I then looked at contemporary teachings and found many held my conclusion. When I got to the ante-nicene writers I found all, despite differences on other areas, stated my belief when writing of the Atonement.

I knew from seminary that they held a common view of the cross (which is why it was called the "Classic view"). And I knew the view I held at the time was a Latin view (a different approach).

But prior to leaving PSA I had never concentrated on their Atonement view. In reading the writings I glossed over that as I considered their theology underdeveloped. Now I have a different opinion.

I'm not going to do like you do to me and claim that everyone who disagrees is dishonest.

I have never claimed people are dishonest for disagreeing with me. Your post, however, was dishonest (intellectually dishonest...it is a post and has no motive).

You, however, was dishonest and I pointed that out. I asked if xyz was what you believe. You said it was. Then a few posts later you called me ignorant and blasphemous for saying you believed xyz. That is dishonest, and the members here (a few, anyway) have recognized it. But that is in the past, forgiveness but not forgotten (it impacts how I, and others, view your character). It was probably just carelessness.

I jjust have noticed, and I'll say it again that you can't seem to identify these groups and when I trace them I always so far have found other serious areas of concern. So I would ask for clarification on this. In other words, after making this claim can you name some denominations or churches where penal substitution is officially rejected, where you would proudly desire to identify with? This should be quite easy with 300 million people in this camp.

I have identified one denomination. Other than that most are non-denominational (like churches in the SBC, traditional Anabaptist congregations, etc). I am not denominational, so where you look to the Presbyterian Church for guidance on the Atonement I am more content that I have arrived at a conclusion that is not in isolation.

My copy of "Pierced for Our Transgressions" just arrived via Amazon's electrical van. I wish the print was larger and I wish I had a copy of it earlier. A lot of @JonC 's objections are listed and refuted in detail and I've found that in only an hour or so. Since this thread is about PSA let me just say I think it will be a good book for anyone looking into this subject. But I'll post more as I have time.

They do try to address objections. But they do not do so honestly (they misquote the Early Church, for example, by extracting portions they can use and leaving out the writers own definitions). I have the book in hard copy (somewhere) and on my kindle. I would have sent you the hard copy snd saved you some money.

I spoke with Jehovah Witinesses thinking I could reason with them. They would pull out a book to answer my objections. They actually offered several writings I could have that would explain why I was wrong and JW teaching was right. Cults are like that.