PSA

[JonC]

Right there is a fundamental difference. Do you not view the atonement as having a multitude of purposes and things accomplished? I do. Torrance covers them but never does he refute PSA and more importantly he includes it several times as a predominate theme.

You miss my point. I was not saying Torrance rejected PSA because of what it included. He believed it fell short.

I do not really care because I do not hold Torrances view. At the time you were just astonished that I hint that anybody would dare contradict the Reformers. So I offered Torrance.

In one of your recent threads, the one you started at first falsely as if it was mine,

I never started a thread as if it was yours. The thread was started as if it were mine. Then I moved Martin's post there. Later I moved yours there but it put that post in the 1st position. I already told you this. And I fixed it. You are not being honest.

I don't have a high opinion of the Presbyterian church.

I have a high opinion of any local body of Christ. That you would view them lowly is sad. They are brothers in Christ.

I was speaking of Presbyterian doctrine. I do not have a high opinion of Presbyterian theology (particularly the Presbyterian doctrine we have been discussing).

So is there a functioning church that is openly against PSA that has a name. I have looked up Mennonite churches and am not satisfied with them in other areas. Same with Anabaptists. But out of 300 million who do you recommend?

Yes. As you mention there are Mennonite churches and Anabaptist churches. Mennonite is a denomination, and there are several sub-sects (some are conservative, some are not, some are traditional, others are not).

Anabaptist in general is not really a denomination but some Anabaptists have used the term as a name for their denomination.

The SBC may not be a denomination, but it is close. You will find many SBC churches that hold my view - although most do not.

You have the Anglican Church, although they also hold Anslem's theory along side it.

Probably the largest is the Eastern Orthodox Church.

accepting most of PSA.

All Christians mostly agree with PSA.

If you changed Jesus as suffering God's wrath to Satan's wrath and Christ as a simple substute to representative substitute you would be in agreement with most churches.

Your "almost" is not good enough. Almost saved is still lost. Almost PSA is still not PSA. You are keen on seeing hazy theology.

Greg Boyd ... I find Greg to be reasonable and a nice guy and also mostly agreeing with Craig and accepting most of PSA.

There is a reason you appreciate the neo-theistic open-theism of Boyd. You see PSA in every statement, so you do not recognize the doctrine. This is why I say we need to look at what is different rather than what is similar. Sure he sounds close to PSA. What makes Boyd different from PSA? He says God does not demand a price be paid in order to forgive. Atonement is not a legal transaction. PSA does not accomplish anything (he is right there), it is "cheap grace", it seeks to get men "off the hook" rather than transform them. I have no interest in watching a video of Boyd.

I posted the video before so watch it before saying that is dishonest. You have not answered this and I think you are being deliberately evasive.

I am not being evasive at all (although you can believe what you want). I told you flat out I was mot watching the video. I told you I disagree with Boyd. Your theology disagrees Boyd. Why should I watch a video of Boyd??

 

[DaveXR650]

You miss my point. I was not saying Torrance rejected PSA because of what it included. He believed it fell short.

I believe it falls short as the sum total and complete explanation of all aspects of the atonement. So did Owen for that matter. I do believe it is at the core of our salvation.

I never started a thread as if it was yours. The thread was started as if it were mine. Then I moved Martin's post there. Later I moved yours there but it put that post in the 1st position. I already told you this. And I fixed it. You are not being honest.

You have a bizarre idea of honesty. I had people come on and complain that I had started a new thread with a quote from someone else. Where did they get that idea? Please knock it off with the everybody else is dishonest.

I have a high opinion of any local body of Christ. That you would view them lowly is sad. They are brothers in Christ.

Doesn't that sound so open minded. One, that doesn't match other things you have recently ranted about Calvinists and PSA advocates. Two, some of the churches I am thinking of do not preach the gospel. I have complete contempt for anyone with a seminary degree who does that. Think of what happens to anyone who might come in to one of those churches looking for answers.

I am not being evasive at all (although you can believe what you want). I told you flat out I was mot watching the video. I told you I disagree with Boyd. Your theology disagrees Boyd. Why should I watch a video of Boyd??

Boyd was one of the guys you had originally recommended. I didn't know of him until you brought up his name a while back.

Bottom line. We have some Mennonites, some Anabaptists, and the Anglicans. I'll agree that your numbers probably are not wrong, if you count apostate denominations within that number and groups like the Eastern Orthodox church who I don't know enough about to be sure but I have read enough of their discussions to know that they would not consider me a fellow believer so I'll leave it at that. The fact is, there really are no Christians who we would be remotely comfortable with doctrinally, who dispute PSA. This is precisely why you have been so evasive when I ask you who is doing this.

 

[JonC]

What people do not seem to understand is when a new doctrine is developed concerning an old subject it is developed to correct what existed before.

Maybe what was before is viewed too narrow, or incomplete. Maybe it is viewed as wrong.

Torrance viewed PSA as missing the Atonement by focusing on atonement as a legal transaction. He had no issue with it as such, but thought it missed the mark (his view is ontological or total atonement and sought to combine the Classic view with PSA).

Anselm viewed the Classic view as wrong. It did not address what he viewed as the problem of man (Adam robbed God of His honor).

Aquinas accepted Anselm's view but "corrected" what he viewed as insufficient.

Calvin did the same when developing PSA. Obviously we, the Western World, had moved past the family honor of the Middle Age.


That said, you can find a common thread and a common language throughout all of these views. What makes them a legitimate position is not what they have in common but in those areas where they differ.

Each position was not simply affirming the view of the past. What they were expressing was their disagreement with previous views.

Presbyterian theology and Methodist theology have a lot in common. But it would be wrong to look at what they share and conclude that Presbyterians must be Methodists.

 

[JonC]

Boyd was one of the guys you had originally recommended. I didn't know of him until you brought up his name a while back.

I understand your confusion. I was not recommending Boyd. You asked for a list of those challenging PSA and he was on the list.

if you count apostate denominations within that number and groups like the Eastern Orthodox church

I believe that the Eastern Orthodox are Christian. I disagree with their theology as a whole, but they are not apostate any more than you are apostate for worshipping Reformed writers. People revere what they know.

The fact is, there really are no Christians who we would be remotely comfortable with doctrinally, who dispute PSA. This is precisely why you have been so evasive when I ask you who is doing this.

That is fine. Those Christians may not be comfortable with those who teach PSA.

I have not been evasive at all. You just try to exclude Christians who believe the gospel of Jesus Christ from the faith because they do not hold PSA.

I know you would not be comfortable with Lutherans, Mennonite, SBC churches that dont affirm PSA, Anglicans, Anabaptists, and Eastern Orthodox.

I am not sure that your comfort trumps their state in Christ because of the gospel and the blood He shed for them. In fact, I am sure it does not.

I mean, you have expanded your condemnation from Christians who hold my belief to Christians who disagree with you. You now add Lutherns, and a few Wesleyan denominatins.

 

[JonC]

You have a bizarre idea of honesty.... Please knock it off with the everybody else is dishonest.

How dishonest of you to say that. I never said everybody else is dishonest. I said you were dishonest.

The only reason I said you were dishonest is I provided a statement and asked you if that is what you believed. You said it was. A few posts later you insulted me and said that statement you had just agreed with was blasphemous.

What did Christ's death, per PSA, accomplish?

So basically God punished Jesus in our place so that He would not have to hold us accountable for our actions?

Well, yes but the way I would put it is more like this. ...

"so God cannot hold us accountable" is the most blasphemous and deliberately ignorant statement and yet you continue to use it. ... I'm done with your willing ignorance on this Jon. At least I hope it is ignorance.

You agreed with "so God can't hold us accountable" when I asked you if that is what you mean. Next thing I know you are insulting me and calling what you had just agreed with blasphemous.

How is that not dishonest?


I already told you that I forgive you for the dishonesty. I am not sure why you keep bringing it up. You seem to be wrestling with that sin, but write a note as a reminder of what you posted if you need a reminder. I already forgave and have no need of revisiting it. If you want to speak to somebody about it I would recommend friend or your pastor. I am neither.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

No. I may be dense but not intentionally so.

Dense, either way

I am trying to go off of what you wrote about your belief.

So Jesus did experience, in your opinion, God's wrath. God's wrath was against our sins.

Let's try and find some common ground.
'Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise Him; He has put Him to grief.' So we can agree, can't we, that it was God, and not the devil who bruised or crushed Christ and put Him to grief? So why did God do that? Was it because He hated Christ and really wanted to beat up on Him? No, it was love that caused Him to bruise His beloved Son. 'For so God loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son....' There is nothing, nothing at all, that shows the love of God so clearly as penal substitution. Read Romans 8:31-32. Salvation is God, Father, Son and Spirit together, working to redeem mankind whilst upholding the righteousness of God.

Do you draw a distinction between the death that our sin produces, or the death that is the power of Satan as Satan is the author of sin and the "father" of sinners and God's judgment?

Or do you view the death all men are appointed to experience and the judgment that follows as one and the same?

Satan's 'power of death' disappeared at the cross. The stronger Man bound him and is currently engaged in taking his goods (Mark 3:27; Rev. 6:4). Satan may appear as a 'roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour,' but he may not devour us because we belong to Christ.
Christians already have eternal life (John 3:36; 6:47; 11:26; 2 Cor. 5:17; Heb. 10:14; 1 John 3:14).

BTW, I don't recall you replying to my question about where exactly you disagree with the definition of PSA I have been using, '... that God gave Himself in the Person of Jesus Christ to suffer instead of us the death, punishment and curse due to fallen humanity and the penalty for sin.' Here is your opportunity to make you objections clear.

 

[DaveXR650]

You agreed with "so God can't hold us accountable" when I asked you if that is what you mean. Next thing I know you are insulting me and calling what you had just agreed with blasphemous.

How is that not dishonest?

This is how you are dishonest. I have explained to you that God devised this plan for our redemption out of love for us even when we were stilled committed sinners. (This is why you get the statement from Calvin "God loved us even when he hated us") So the Father by Christ's suffering and death, on account of our sin, can be true to himself and forgive us without doing injustice to his own nature. You take that and turn it around and flippantly say "so God can't hold us accountable", even while fully aware of a repeated post that I put up saying that God was not operating under some external system that he had to abide by. This sacrifice and self absorbing of our due punishment you call cheap grace while deliberately misrepresenting what occurred. Yes you are being blasphemous when you do that with all the understanding that you claim to have. You are deliberately mocking God's method of satisfaction for our sins.

 

[JonC]

Dense, either way

Yes, but with the distinction God made me this way.

'Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise Him; He has put Him to grief.' So we can agree, can't we, that it was God, and not the devil who bruised or crushed Christ and put Him to grief? So why did God do that? Was it because He hated Christ and really wanted to beat up on Him? No, it was love that caused Him to bruise His beloved Son. '

No, we can't. We can agree that it "pleased the Lord to crush Him; He has put Him to grief." But we are reading that differently.

I see it as this pleasing God, it being His will (like us serving at the pleasure of a king). I do not view the passage as God crushing Jesus but as God offering Him as a sacrifice to that fate.

You may find this interesting. We talked about the Early Church writings. Do you know why only the Latin view considers God to have "crushed" Him?

The NT and early church did not use a Hebrew translation. The early church used the LXX (Clement quotes this verbatim).

It reads: "The Lord also is pleased to purge him from his stroke. If ye can give an offering for sin, your soul shall see a long-lived seed"

Jerome went back to the Latin. The Eastern church uses the LXX as well.

Anyway, neither here nor there. Just a side note. I accept the Hebrew text - just remember that the Hebrew word means "pleased", "will", "desire".

'For so God loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son....' There is nothing, nothing at all, that shows the love of God so clearly as penal substitution. Read Romans 8:31-32. Salvation is God, Father, Son and Spirit together, working to redeem mankind whilst upholding the righteousness of God.

I agree. I view this as the Father sending His Son to do His will. The Son accomplished His will. The Father judged Him as righreous. Christ did all through the Spirit.

Satan's 'power of death' disappeared at the cross. The stronger Man bound him and is currently engaged in taking his goods (Mark 3:27; Rev. 6:4). Satan may appear as a 'roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour,' but he may not devour us because we belong to Christ.
Christians already have eternal life (John 3:36; 6:47; 11:26; 2 Cor. 5:17; Heb. 10:14; 1 John 3:14).

I agree, with the clarification that we "hold fast to the faith once given until the end" (to prevent misunderstanding that a faith lost was never a faith that saves).

BTW, I don't recall you replying to my question about where exactly you disagree with the definition of PSA I have been using, '... that God gave Himself in the Person of Jesus Christ to suffer instead of us the death, punishment and curse due to fallen humanity and the penalty for sin.' Here is your opportunity to make you objections clear.

Sorry....I thought I did. But I am getting old. I might catch up with you at this rate.

I agree with this version:

that God gave Himself in the Person of Jesus Christ to suffer the death, punishment and curse due to fallen humanity.


I disagree with "instead of us". I would agree with "in our place" (small difference. Adam sinned "in our place" as in place of the human race. I view Christ as a Second Adam. Representative substitution rather than simple substitution).


I am not sure what you mean by "the penalty of sin" if not "the death, punishment and curse due to fallen humanity".

 

[JonC]

This is how you are dishonest.

Me??? I asked YOU if that statement was what you believed. You said "yes, but I would word it differently".

I did nit read hpw you'd word it because I did not care. You said that was what you believed. Why would I use your words when you agreed with mine?

Then you calld what you affirmed as your belief "blasphemous".

It is NOT my belief. If it was not yours you should have simply said "No, that is not what I believe" instead of "Yes, but I would word it differently".

Again, thos no longer has anything to do with me. It is between you and God. If you are struggling with repentance then talk to a friend, a pastor, a counselor or a priest. Not me.

PM @Martin Marprelate. He and I disagree. We do not really like each other (I actually like him, but it's a one sided thing). He is at least honest. He can read my question and your reply. Let him give you an honest feedback.

But via pm. Nobody cares but you and God. We have moved on. I have forgiven you and continued forward. I hold no grudges.

 

[DaveXR650]

did nit read hpw you'd word it because I did not care. You said that was what you believed. Why would I use your words when you agreed with mine?

Yeah, it's quite obvious you don't care. You would rather look for an opportunity to take someone's words and rather than ask for clarification, attribute some absurd meaning to what they said or just call them dishonest. That's your problem.

PM @Martin Marprelate. He and I disagree. We do not really like each other (I actually like him, but it's a one sided thing). He is at least honest. He can read my question and your reply. Let him give you an honest feedback.

Well you called him dishonest about 5 times in the earlier thread so I am glad he has redeemed himself in your eyes. You just like provoking people but don't like it dished back to you. I think we have exhausted any meaningful discussion here so I'll leave it to you.

 

[JonC]

Yeah, it's quite obvious you don't care. You would rather look for an opportunity to take someone's words

1. I asked you if that stament correctly stated your belief.

2. You said it did.

3. I accepted your answer.

I do not know why you keep on with this.

You know that you were wrong.
Every member who read the exchange knows you were wrong.
I am NOT asking you to admit it.
I am NOT asking for an apology.
Frankly, I really do not care why you did it or even that you did it.

If your conscience bothers you that much then talk to somebody that is not me.

 

[DaveXR650]

1. I asked you if that stament correctly stated your belief.

2. You said it did.

3. I accepted your answer.

Now that's dishonest. That is referring to post 76 in this thread. My answer was complete and it explained why I would say it in that way. You deliberately took a partial quote, redefined it as saying that I was agreeing that now God can't hold us accountable for our sins when what I was saying was that it was a part of his plan and the result of his love so that he could justly forgive us and remain true to his own nature. By having that clearly stated in the post your partial lifting of my quote is indeed dishonest. Yes, people on this board are welcome to look for themselves.

 

[DaveXR650]

If your conscience bothers you that much then talk to somebody that is not me.

And I should point out that you are the one who follows everyone around on any thread mentioning PSA, while simultaneously using your moderato status to ban us from commenting on a thread purported to be about other theories of atonement but do indeed end up slamming PSA with the only difference being that we can't comment on your thread, even while you come over and comment on this one, while all the while claiming that if we want to discuss PSA then start our own thread. In fact, as this shows, it's more than just comment, you tried to blow PSA out of the water once again. Yes, I'm a little disgusted with you and your tactics.

 

[JonC]

Now that's dishonest. That is referring to post 76 in this thread. My answer was complete and it explained why I would say it in that way. You deliberately took a partial quote, redefined it as saying that I was agreeing that now God can't hold us accountable for our sins when what I was saying was that it was a part of his plan and the result of his love so that he could justly forgive us and remain true to his own nature. By having that clearly stated in the post your partial lifting of my quote is indeed dishonest. Yes, people on this board are welcome to look for themselves.

Ummm....no. I was giving you how I understood your position (post 75). I was asking if you agreed because I did not want to misrepresent your position.

You said "yes" but you would not word it that way. All I wanted to know was if I understood you correctly, which you affirmed.

Like I said, it does not matter to me.

BUT going off your answer and to get back on track:

I take your "yes" to mean "no" or "partially" as you now object to the idea God does not hold us responsible for our actions.

Here was how I understood your view.

So basically God punished Jesus in our place so that He would not have to hold us accountable for our actions?

So I take it you believe that God punished Jesus in our place (you did not object to this part).

You objected to God not holding us responsible for our actions.

How does God hold us responsible?

 

[JonC]

And I should point out that you are the one who follows everyone around on any thread mentioning PSA, while simultaneously using your moderato status to ban us from commenting on a thread purported to be about other theories of atonement but do indeed end up slamming PSA with the only difference being that we can't comment on your thread, even while you come over and comment on this one, while all the while claiming that if we want to discuss PSA then start our own thread. In fact, as this shows, it's more than just comment, you tried to blow PSA out of the water once again. Yes, I'm a little disgusted with you and your tactics.

No, read the OP.

I was surprised nobody wanted to start a thread limited to explaining PSA.

 

[JonC]

The reason I cannot say PSA holds God punished Jesus for our sins - or punished our sins on Jesus - so that He could forgive our sins is this by definition is not forgiveness.

Forgiveness is foregoing retribution or the collection of a debt.

PSA holds that it is impossible for God to forgive, but God can allow men to avoid being punished if the debt is collected by other means.

 

[Charlie24]

The reason I cannot say PSA holds God punished Jesus for our sins - or punished our sins on Jesus - so that He could forgive our sins is this by definition is not forgiveness.

Forgiveness is foregoing retribution or the collection of a debt.

PSA holds that it is impossible for God to forgive, but God can allow men to avoid being punished if the debt is collected by other means.

That's your view and I respect that, Jon.

I see it as man separated himself from a Holy God through a direct act of disobedience.

Now man must be destroyed according to God's Law, but in God in mercy allowed His Son to intervene on our behalf to reconcile us back into good terms with the Holy God.

The relationship man vs man is nowhere the same as the relationship between a Holy God vs man.

But I'm not pushing the issue, I can understand your position.

 

[JonC]

That's your view and I respect that, Jon.

I see it as man separated himself from a Holy God through a direct act of disobedience.

Now man must be destroyed according to God's Law, but in God in mercy allowed His Son to intervene on our behalf to reconcile us back into good terms with the Holy God.

The relationship man vs man is nowhere the same as the relationship between a Holy God vs man.

But I'm not pushing the issue, I can understand your position.

We agree on a lot here.

I agree that man has separated himself from God through disobedience.

I agree that man must be destroyed, but more because of God Himself - His righteousness which is not His law (otherwise this righteousness could not be manifested apart from the law).

The main difference is I believe that in Christ God destroys and recreates man, His blood cleansing us from all unrighteousness.

God accomplishes what the law could not, and the law is fulfilled (we become righteous and are justified, the wicked are punished).

 

[Charlie24]

We agree on a lot here.

I agree that man has separated himself from God through disobedience.

I agree that man must be destroyed, but more because of God Himself - His righteousness which is not His law (otherwise this righteousness could not be manifested apart from the law).

The main difference is I believe that in Christ God destroys and recreates man, His blood cleansing us from all unrighteousness.

And I believe that if you believe that, you shall do well!

 

[JonC]

And I believe that if you believe that, you shall do well!

You as well. Just not as well as me.