Satisfaction Atonement

[JonC]

This is what I find confusing and more than a little frustrating. Sometimes you say things that I would consider perfectly within a view of Christ's atonement as far concerns a Christian brother. ...

All of what I say are perfectly within a view od Christ's atonement as far concerns a Christian brother (as are what you say). There is not one single view of atonement held by all believers. There are, instead, many different understandings.

It's almost like two people are posting in your name.

This is because when you understand aspects that are similar to PSA to be PSA. You could say the same of the Early Church writings, or traditional Anabaptist theology. On one hand they state what you see as PSA, but on another they hold doctrines that oppose PSA.

The solution is to take my belief (and their beliefs) for what they are rather than how they would fit within a different framework.

I do not accept that there is a "Classic view".

You do not have to. But if it helps, no Christian theologian rejects that there is a Classic view.

Had I not been required to study Church history, the differences between the Latin (Western) and Greek (Eastern) Church writers, and historical theology then I would not know either.

But, ironically, you not believing there is a Classic view is one you hold in isolation from Christian theology. Are you a Landmark Baptist by chance?

But you disagree with us posting definitions of PSA that come from the major writings on PSA and from old and new sources.

No, I do not disagree with you posting definitions of PSA. I also posted the definition from Sproul, MacArthur, Enns and Beeke (all Reformed).

I told you that I am willing to acceot your definition of PSA, even though that means my belief falls under that definition.

I am just not sure how we discuss differences if we lump all of Christianity as PSA. You considered the Eastern Orthodox statement to be PSA, but we know that they hold a very different view.

May I suggest, from what you have just said, that since you have agreed that according to some of my definitions and descriptions of PSA you are in agreement with part of what is described as PSA.

I am in agreement with what PSA has in common with my belief.

1. On one page list all of the passages you provided, the ECF writings we both offered, take the theologians I offered.

2. On a second page list the definitions of PSA offered.

3. Erase everything from the second page that is not on the first page, and you have my belief.

you hit "like" and agree, and then turn around a few posts later in a conciliar mood and make a series of statements which to me at least agree with PSA!

We do not have an "agree" option. Like and agree ate not the same thing.

I agree with 90% of PSA (how it is traditionally defined) as it is common to every view of the Atonement. It is that 10% that you dismiss which I find wrong.

So per your definition I do hold PSA (but per your definition every Christian holds PSA).

 

[JesusFan]

A brief comment: I view Anselm's Satisfaction Theory as somewhat less objectionable than PSA, and if I had to choose between the theories of Aquinas and Anselm, I'd reluctantly choose Aquinas. But I reject all theories developed in the West, PSA being the most heinous, because they totally misrepresent the character of God.

No, Psa upholds the truth that for God to remain Holy Judge, and still eb able to freely justify the ungodly, someone must atone for personal sins

 

[JesusFan]

@Charlie24

What I have learned through these forums is Calvinists can only understand through Calvinism. When they read the Bible they read through that lens.

Think of our disagreement. I objected to PSA because, as you acknowledged, it is not in the Bible (the biblical text). But you said that reading the text you see PSA and cannot understand it differently.

You are in the shoes I wore when dealing with PSA.

Calvinists have been told the ink blot is a bat. They will never see the ink for what it really is. They will always see a bat.

You do the very same thing though Brother, as you have chosen to just see the atromement thru the lens of PSA must be false, so however Calvinists see it as being int he scriptures must also be false

 

[JesusFan]

PSA holds that God punished and killed Jesus. Isaiah 53 contradicts that. And the theory is an insult to God's character.

No, you have just strawman our views, as we hold that Isaiah 53 teaches to us that the promised messiah would come and die in the place of, and for the sin debt of His own people, to take upon himself what we deserved in order to atone for us, and to have the father now able to justify us forgive and save us due to Jesus being willing to take upon Himself what was meant to be for us

 

[JesusFan]

Yes. Calvin tried to correct Satisfaction theory by going back to the Bible. That is why PSA could never reflect Biblical doctrine.
The Reformers were wrong to try and make unbiblical doctrine biblical. Satisfaction Atonement was a doctrine Calvin should have simply abandoned (the framework was wrong).

When we start with a doctrine and go back to the Bible to make it biblical we always end up with error.

Except the psa atonement view fist best the Pauline Justification theology inspired by the Holy Spirit

 

[JonC]

@DaveXR650

A lot of the disagreement we have is based on the presuppositions we hold. I tried to discuss these in the past but was "shouted down".

Everybody has presuppostions. These are based on our experiences, our cultures, our worldviews, etc. Every doctrine of the atonement carries its own presuppositions.


I disagee with PSA "proper" (the theological definition of "Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement") as it assumes several ideas I do not share.

One difference is justice. I hold a different philosophy of justice, which means I hold a different philosophy of divine justice.

Other differences are how we understand repentance and sin. I view sin as a more severe problem. I view repentance as more substantial than, to quote @Martin Marprelate , "saying I'm sorry". We also differ on what was accomplished on the cross. We hold a different focus (between the Father forgiving and Christ accomplishing).

On the surface we would use the same words, but beneath the surface there is a different understanding.

So yes, by your standard I do hold PSA. But coming from a theological background, to me I do not hold PSA.


The disagreements are substantial but not so substantial as to divorce either of us from being a child of God (which you imply to be the case).

I approach historical Christianity not to find "elements" that would become something else centuries later but to understand what they actually believed and why.

I approach Scripture the same way - to see what is being stated in the actual text and how it would have been received by the original audience rather than looking for biblical support of my belief.