Satisfaction Atonement

[kyredneck]

It's based on God having mercy on those who believe and obey Him, and doubling down with hardness on those who choose not the believe and obey Him.

...and you are literally inserting man's free will into the context when it's literally the opposite:

Romans Chapter 9

20​	Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why didst thou make me thus?
21​	Or hath not the potter a right over the clay, from the same lump to make one part a vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor?
22​	What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering vessels of wrath fitted unto destruction:
23​	and that he might make known the riches of his glory upon vessels of mercy, which he afore prepared unto glory,
24​	even us, whom he also called, not from the Jews only, but also from the Gentiles?

Your CDS totally blinds you, you're literally ate up with it.

Carry on with your railing.

 

[Charlie24]

...and you are literally inserting man's free will into the context when it's totally the opposite:

Romans Chapter 9

20​	Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why didst thou make me thus?
21​	Or hath not the potter a right over the clay, from the same lump to make one part a vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor?
22​	What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering vessels of wrath fitted unto destruction:
23​	and that he might make known the riches of his glory upon vessels of mercy, which he afore prepared unto glory,
24​	even us, whom he also called, not from the Jews only, but also from the Gentiles?

Your CDS totally blinds you, you're literally ate up with it. Carry on with your railing.

We are looking through different lenses and see a totally different God, based on God doing the choosing vs the free will given man for him to choose.

The Scripture you quoted in Rom. 9 is dealing with the Jews finding fault with God in being dealt with the same as the Gentiles.

God has laid down the rules and who are you to question His authority? That is what Paul is explaining.

The Jews believed they were merited a special favor of God by being given the Law. They believed it equaled salvation.

Paul is showing them in 9:16 that salvation is not of man by his merits or his being born a Jew, but of God who accepts man by faith, and will harden the hearts of man who will not believe and resists him, with Pharaoh being an example.

God creates man, and he becomes a vessel of honor or dishonor based on God's rules not the proposed rules of man.

 

[JonC]

@Charlie24

"Being carried away by philosophy" is a legitimate concern. Although I believe this is dependent on how we hold our understanding (if we lean on it, believing it is God's Word, or simply hold it at arms length as our limited understanding), we can see this throughout theological developments.

1. Augustine created a doctrine based on a Latin mistranslation of Romans 5:12 - in quo omnes peccaverunt (death spreading to all men because all have sinned became death coming to all who sinned with Adam).

2. This would birth a doctrine of original sin, a separate "sin nature", and a third type of death (in addition to, and prior to, physical death and the "second death"). It changed the doctrine of the Fall, and therefore the doctrine of the atonement.

3. Calvin moved the atonement to fall under divine law, articulating PSA.

4. PSA holds Christ died to pay our debt, our individual sins.

5. If PSA is true then what about those who do not believe? Did Jesus pay their debt on the cross? Calvinists would say no, as this would be universal salvation. So you get limited atonement

6. Beza moved salvation under the category of divine Providence. If salvation is God's sovereign work, given their doctrine of the Fall, then God has to unconditionally elect people to salvation

7. If God sovereignty elects people, and they naturally reject God, then He saves them regardless of their will. His grace cannot be resisted.

Same with Covenant Theology.

If under God's economy God interacts with man through divine covenants then every significant interaction has to be within a covenant whether stated or not.


See what I mean? By building on theology each step is a step further from Scripture.

 

[Charlie24]

@Charlie24

"Being carried away by philosophy" is a legitimate concern. Although I believe this is dependent on how we hold our understanding (if we lean on it, believing it is God's Word, or simply hold it at arms length as our limited understanding), we can see this throughout theological developments.

1. Augustine created a doctrine based on a Latin mistranslation of Romans 5:12 - in quo omnes peccaverunt (death spreading to all men because all have sinned became death coming to all who sinned with Adam).

2. This would birth a doctrine of original sin, a separate "sin nature", and a third type of death (in addition to, and prior to, physical death and the "second death"). It changed the doctrine of the Fall, and therefore the doctrine of the atonement.

3. Calvin moved the atonement to fall under divine law, articulating PSA.

4. PSA holds Christ died to pay our debt, our individual sins.

5. If PSA is true then what about those who do not believe? Did Jesus pay their debt on the cross? Calvinists would say no, as this would be universal salvation. So you get limited atonement

6. Beza moved salvation under the category of divine Providence. If salvation is God's sovereign work, given their doctrine of the Fall, then God has to unconditionally elect people to salvation

7. If God sovereignty elects people, and they naturally reject God, then He saves them regardless of their will. His grace cannot be resisted.

Same with Covenant Theology.

If under God's economy God interacts with man through divine covenants then every significant interaction has to be within a covenant whether stated or not.


See what I mean? By building on theology each step is a step further from Scripture.

Yes, I certainly agree!

Jon, I have a rule that I've lived by all of my adult life. I believe what I believe by faith in being led by the Holy Spirit.

I admit that Charlie24 gets in the way at times, and maybe quite often of being led in truth.

The Holy Spirit has not confirmed in my spirit that PSA is incorrect and until I feel that He has, I must believe what I see as the truth.

I'm not some great spiritual rock as a Paul, Peter, or John, but my faith for the truth is reliant on the Spirit and His confirmation, even though this vessel is weak and at times can't see the stumbling block laying right in front of me.

 

[JonC]

Yes, I certainly agree!

Jon, I have a rule that I've lived by all of my adult life. I believe what I believe by faith in being led by the Holy Spirit.

I admit that Charlie24 gets in the way at times, and maybe quite often of being led in truth.

The Holy Spirit has not confirmed in my spirit that PSA is incorrect and until I feel that He has, I must believe what I see as the truth.

I'm not some great spiritual rock as a Paul, Peter, or John, but my faith for the truth is reliant on the Spirit and His confirmation, even though this vessel is weak and at times can't see the stumbling block laying right in front of me.

I wasn't condemning your belief. I was simply saying that Calvinists hold theirs the same way. Until the Spirit leads them to see that Calvinism is not in the Bible they will continue to see it even though it is not in the biblical text.

I would have never let go of PSA had the Spirit not shown me it was not in the biblical text. But I was in a position of teaching others and PSA was influencing that teaching.

It was not something that I had questioned (just woke up one morning with the conviction to test it against Scripture). Prior to that moment the issue was further down the line (free-will). I never thought to question PSA.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

@Charlie24

"Being carried away by philosophy" is a legitimate concern. Although I believe this is dependent on how we hold our understanding (if we lean on it, believing it is God's Word, or simply hold it at arms length as our limited understanding), we can see this throughout theological developments.

1. Augustine created a doctrine based on a Latin mistranslation of Romans 5:12 - in quo omnes peccaverunt (death spreading to all men because all have sinned became death coming to all who sinned with Adam).

What happened to 'In Adam all die, but in Christ all shall be made alive' (1 Cor. 15:22)?

2. This would birth a doctrine of original sin, a separate "sin nature", and a third type of death (in addition to, and prior to, physical death and the "second death"). It changed the doctrine of the Fall, and therefore the doctrine of the atonement.

'Therefore just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned' (Rom. 5:12).

3. Calvin moved the atonement to fall under divine law, articulating PSA.

4. PSA holds Christ died to pay our debt, our individual sins.

Yes, praise God! Though Calvin was by no means the originator of PSA, nor indeed of 'Calvinism.'

5. If PSA is true then what about those who do not believe? Did Jesus pay their debt on the cross? Calvinists would say no, as this would be universal salvation. So you get limited atonement

Yep! The truth steadily dawns. Everyone except universalists limits the atonement. How can the Lord Jesus have died for prople He never knew (Matt. 7:23).

6. Beza moved salvation under the category of divine Providence. If salvation is God's sovereign work, given their doctrine of the Fall, then God has to unconditionally elect people to salvation

7. If God sovereignty elects people, and they naturally reject God, then He saves them regardless of their will. His grace cannot be resisted.

All men naturally reject God (Romans 3:11; 1 Cor. 2:14). If God did not save some, no one would be saved. If God had not saved me, I would never have saved myself.

Same with Covenant Theology.

If under God's economy God interacts with man through divine covenants then every significant interaction has to be within a covenant whether stated or not.


See what I mean? By building on theology each step is a step further from Scripture.

On the contrary, by 'building on theology' - which is nothing else but studying the Bible - men have been able to move away from Roman Catholic error to Protestant truth. Covenant Theology is a wonderful way of seeing the unity of the Scriptures.

 

[Charlie24]

I wasn't condemning your belief. I was simply saying that Calvinists hold theirs the same way. Until the Spirit leads them to see that Calvinism is not in the Bible they will continue to see it even though it is not in the biblical text.

I would have never let go of PSA had the Spirit not shown me it was not in the biblical text. But I was in a position of teaching others and PSA was influencing that teaching.

It was not something that I had questioned (just woke up one morning with the conviction to test it against Scripture). Prior to that moment the issue was further down the line (free-will). I never thought to question PSA.

I've never thought to question it ether, although I was aware of the various theories.

I know from experience that I have to many thoughts of my own and fall short of total surrender in being led.

But as Paul said, I push forward, but in my case praying He will break though my ignorance.

 

[easternstar]

@Charlie24

"Being carried away by philosophy" is a legitimate concern. Although I believe this is dependent on how we hold our understanding (if we lean on it, believing it is God's Word, or simply hold it at arms length as our limited understanding), we can see this throughout theological developments.

1. Augustine created a doctrine based on a Latin mistranslation of Romans 5:12 - in quo omnes peccaverunt (death spreading to all men because all have sinned became death coming to all who sinned with Adam).

2. This would birth a doctrine of original sin, a separate "sin nature", and a third type of death (in addition to, and prior to, physical death and the "second death"). It changed the doctrine of the Fall, and therefore the doctrine of the atonement.

3. Calvin moved the atonement to fall under divine law, articulating PSA.

4. PSA holds Christ died to pay our debt, our individual sins.

5. If PSA is true then what about those who do not believe? Did Jesus pay their debt on the cross? Calvinists would say no, as this would be universal salvation. So you get limited atonement

6. Beza moved salvation under the category of divine Providence. If salvation is God's sovereign work, given their doctrine of the Fall, then God has to unconditionally elect people to salvation

7. If God sovereignty elects people, and they naturally reject God, then He saves them regardless of their will. His grace cannot be resisted.

Same with Covenant Theology.

If under God's economy God interacts with man through divine covenants then every significant interaction has to be within a covenant whether stated or not.


See what I mean? By building on theology each step is a step further from Scripture.

This is an excellent post.
JonC, I don't need to say much, with you posting.

 

[easternstar]

What happened to 'In Adam all die, but in Christ all shall be made alive' (1 Cor. 15:22)?

'Therefore just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned' (Rom. 5:12).

Yes, praise God! Though Calvin was by no means the originator of PSA, nor indeed of 'Calvinism.'

Yep! The truth steadily dawns. Everyone except universalists limits the atonement. How can the Lord Jesus have died for prople He never knew (Matt. 7:23).

All men naturally reject God (Romans 3:11; 1 Cor. 2:14). If God did not save some, no one would be saved. If God had not saved me, I would never have saved myself.

On the contrary, by 'building on theology' - which is nothing else but studying the Bible - men have been able to move away from Roman Catholic error to Protestant truth. Covenant Theology is a wonderful way of seeing the unity of the Scriptures.

They didn't move too far away from RC error when they (Calvin and Luther) took Anselm's Satisfaction Theory and expanded and worsened it into PSA. Also, the Magisterial Protestant view of God and man fits right in with the Roman/Latin/Western errors.

 

[Charlie24]

They didn't move too far away from RC error when they (Calvin and Luther) took Anselm's Satisfaction Theory and expanded and worsened it into PSA. Also, the Magisterial Protestant view of God and man fits right in with the Roman/Latin/Western errors.

How could it be any other theory than PSA considering Paul said He was made a curse for us?

The penalty on the curse of the Law was the wrath of God on man for his sin, which meant death. "The wages of sin is death."

Christ has never sinned, so He was not bound to the Law of Sin and Death as we are, but yet He suffered the penalty of the broken Law in our place, the wrath of God in death, "the just for the unjust."

How is PSA not correct?

 

[easternstar]

How could it be any other theory than PSA considering Paul said He was made a curse for us?

The penalty on the curse of the Law was the wrath of God on man for his sin, which meant death. "The wages of sin is death."

Christ has never sinned, so He was not bound to the Law of Sin and Death as we are, but yet He suffered the penalty of the broken Law in our place, the wrath of God in death, "the just for the unjust."

How is PSA not correct?

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

 

[Charlie24]

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

God allowed Christ to be our substitute to take our place and that meant death.

Your tone is revealing in that you believe God did something against His will, when actuality "it pleased God to bruise Him."

 

[Charlie24]

God allowed Christ to be our substitute to take our place and that meant death.

Your tone is revealing in that you believe God did something against His will, when actuality "it pleased God to bruise Him."

Is He a monster God in that He allowed Christ to suffer in our place and it pleased Him?

Or is He pleased with the results of what Christ achieved for man to live?

 

[easternstar]

God allowed Christ to be our substitute to take our place and that meant death.

Your tone is revealing in that you believe God did something against His will, when actuality "it pleased God to bruise Him."

No, I don't believe God did something against His will, because I do not believe that God punished and killed Jesus. If it has been His will to do so, He would have. Isaiah says we thought that's what God did , but we were mistaken. God could not have done that; it was impossible because that was not in God's character to do something like that. WE -- and Satan -- killed Jesus; God did not.

 

[easternstar]

Is He a monster God in that He allowed Christ to suffer in our place and it pleased Him?

Or is He pleased with the results of what Christ achieved for man to live?

The latter.

 

[easternstar]

I feel sorry for people who believe PSA, who hold to such a monstrous view of God. It is a pagan concept.

 

[Charlie24]

I feel sorry for people who believe PSA, who hold to such a monstrous view of God. It is a pagan concept.

I'm sorry you feel that way! The Scripture reeks of PSA, any other way is a violation of God's Law.

God upheld His Law out of love for mankind, and His Christ willingly gave up His life to secure life for us.

 

[Charlie24]

I'm sorry you feel that way! The Scripture reeks of PSA, any other way is a violation of God's Law.

God upheld His Law out of love for mankind, and His Christ willingly gave up His life to secure life for us.

You see, easternstar, when God told Adam "you shall surly die" He meant it and couldn't go back on it.

His Law states "the wages of sin is death" and Adam was told directly.

Man had to die (spiritual death), but He sent another man to take our sins upon Him to pay the debt man owed to God, and that debt was death.

Christ never sinned and the Law of Sin and Death never applied to Him, but as a man and for man's sin, He volunteered to take the wrath of God upon Himself for us and He died in our place.

Christ had never sinned and could not be eternally separated from God, but He was separated from God for those 3 hours on the Cross when all the land became dark and the sins of mankind were being laid on Him.

He took the wrath of God in death for us having been made a curse for us that we who believe in what He has done for us might have life.

 

[easternstar]

I'm sorry you feel that way! The Scripture reeks of PSA, any other way is a violation of God's Law.

God upheld His Law out of love for mankind, and His Christ willingly gave up His life to secure life for us.

I totally agree with your last sentence. I totally disagree with your second sentence.

 

[easternstar]

You see, easternstar, when God told Adam "you shall surly die" He meant it and couldn't go back on it.

His Law states "the wages of sin is death" and Adam was told directly.

Man had to die (spiritual death), but He sent another man to take our sins upon Him to pay the debt man owed to God, and that debt was death.

Christ never sinned and the Law of Sin and Death never applied to Him, but as a man and for man's sin, He volunteered to take the wrath of God upon Himself for us and He died in our place.

Christ had never sinned and could not be eternally separated from God, but He was separated from God for those 3 hours on the Cross when all the land became dark and the sins of mankind were being laid on Him.

He took the wrath of God in death for us having been made a curse for us that we who believe in what He has done for us might have life.

I agree with much of your post. What I disagree with is the 'wrath of God' part -- that is PSA and unscriptural.