Satisfaction Atonement

[JonC]

Maybe develop a little humility.

It is humility. I submitted myself to God's words even before I read them without PSA. Because of His Word I had to abandon PSA. I did not have a "plan B" but had to start all over undoing the myths I had been taught.

And even then, reading Scripture I had to submit to God's words and not add to them in order to have the concise theory many seek. It was little by little, being willing not to lean on my own understanding.

God says ABC. I beliece it means ABC. Men you find compelling tell you it means DEF. You believe it means DEF.

That is fine. You alone are responsible for your briefs (not those men you find compelling, not me, just you). But don't codemn those of us who accept God's words and reject the words of men who you find compelling.

I will ALWAYS default to God's words. Not because I believe my understanding is superior but because I believe it is not. Had I leaned on my own understanding, or followed men I found compelling, I would still be a Calvinist holding PSA.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

This is dishonest.

You and @Martin Marprelate have provided verses, but the passages you provide do not support PSA any more than they support my view....or other views.

If you provide a passage stating the doctrine of PSA (without men you find compelling telling us what those passages "really" mean) then I will address them. But so far you have not even provided one.

I have provided two.

Do you believe that viewing the just as guilty, clearing the guilty, and punishing the righteous are all abominations to God?

Yes I do. That is why God Himself, in the Person of Jesus Christ has shed His own blood (Acts 20:28) forthe salvation of sinners.
But you are aping the objections of Stuart Murray Williams and Tom Smail. But the Biblical writers don't share your concerns. Peter 2:23 tells us that God 'judges justly' and the very next verse tells us that the Lord Jesus 'bore our sins.' And of course Romans 3:25-26 tells us that putting Christ up as a propitiation for our sins, far from being a violation of God's justice, is actually a demonstration of it. You will have to argue the matter out with God when you meet Him. Good luck with that!

Do you believe that God can forgive sins on the basis of true repentance?

Now that Christ has died for the ungodly (Romans 5:6), yes, by all means, though it will be found that repentance is actually the gift of God (Acts 11:18; 2 Tim. 2:25).

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I did change my mind. I chose God's words.

So you think, and so did the Galatians. Yet Paul says to them, "You were running a good race. Who cut in on you and kept you from obeying the truth?" (Gal. 5:7, NIV).

 

[Martin Marprelate]

"What, O Chosen Child of my Lord God, hadst Thou done to deserve such bitterness, to deserve such shame? Nothing, nothing. Undone mortal that I am, 'tis I that was the cause of all Thy tribularion and all Thy shame; 'tis I who ate the sour grapes, and Thy teeth were numbed, for Thou hast paid what Thou tookest not away."
Anselm (Ninth Meditation of the Humanity of Christ).

Very good! Also, when, towards the end of his life when he was trying to bring comfort to a dying believer troubled by his sense of sinfulness, and fearful of judgment, Anselm counselled him to cry out to God, '"Lord, I place the death of Your Lord Jesus Christ between me and Thy judgment; in no other way do I contend with Thee" ... If He shall say that He is angry with thee, say, "Lord, I place the death of our Lord Jesus Christ between me and Thy anger."'
[quoted by H.D. McDonald, The Atonement of the Death of Christ in Faith, Revelation and History (Grand Rapids, Baker Books, 1985)]

 

[JonC]

I have provided two.

Yes I do. That is why God Himself, in the Person of Jesus Christ has shed His own blood (Acts 20:28) forthe salvation of sinners.
But you are aping the objections of Stuart Murray Williams and Tom Smail. But the Biblical writers don't share your concerns. Peter 2:23 tells us that God 'judges justly' and the very next verse tells us that the Lord Jesus 'bore our sins.' And of course Romans 3:25-26 tells us that putting Christ up as a propitiation for our sins, far from being a violation of God's justice, is actually a demonstration of it. You will have to argue the matter out with God when you meet Him. Good luck with that!

Now that Christ has died for the ungodly (Romans 5:6), yes, by all means, though it will be found that repentance is actually the gift of God (Acts 11:18; 2 Tim. 2:25).

No, Martin, you have not.

I also believe God judges justly. We disagree because you believe this means God cannot forgive sins without punishing them while I believe God recreates us (literally makes us just).

You have to provide a passage stating what PSA teaches (where PSA differs) in order to provide a passage stating what PSA teaches.

You have not, although you have tried for almost 20 years.

I, on the other hand, can and have provided passages stating exactly my belief.

 

[JonC]

So you think, and so did the Galatians. Yet Paul says to them, "You were running a good race. Who cut in on you and kept you from obeying the truth?" (Gal. 5:7, NIV).

We do have to obey. This is something PSA kinda glosses over.

But yes, I chose to believe God's words (the actual text of Scripture rather than what various theologians say it really teaches).

When you read the Bible as if it is teaching God's words (as if the biblical text is what is taught) you wind up with a very different belief than you currently hold.

 

[JonC]

Here is the debate:

The biblical text ("what is written", God's words) say A

1. I believe it means A
2. Calvin says it means B
3. Luther say it means C
4. Aquinas says it means D
5. Abelard say it means E
6. Anselm says it means F
7. The RCC says it means G

@DaveXR650 trusts his own intelligence to choose #2 because he has ascertained that the men who teach B are more compelling.

@Martin Marprelate chooses #2 because that is the only way he can grasp passages about the cross.

I choose #1, not because of my own understanding (it took me a long time to reel in my own understanding) but because it is God's own words. And having chosen His words I believe they make perfect of the atonement.

But people can choose to believe God's words or any of the men they find compelling.

 

[DaveXR650]

But people can choose to believe God's words or any of the men they find compelling.

Yes. This is a good example of your humility. I suppose none of those men listed above used God's words but JonC. That is the real difference. I at least think those men may have something to say and they may be more reliable than JonC.

But we live in the age of the common man. You can get on the internet and look up pancreatic cancer and find an article from the Mayo Clinic and right above it is an article from Joe's pancreas website, and Joe is sitting in the basement of his parents house in his pajamas. But hey, it's equally as valid.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Here is the debate:

The biblical text ("what is written", God's words) say A

1. I believe it means A
2. Calvin says it means B
3. Luther say it means C
4. Aquinas says it means D
5. Abelard say it means E
6. Anselm says it means F
7. The RCC says it means G

@DaveXR650 trusts his own intelligence to choose #2 because he has ascertained that the men who teach B are more compelling.

@Martin Marprelate chooses #2 because that is the only way he can grasp passages about the cross.

I choose #1, not because of my own understanding (it took me a long time to reel in my own understanding) but because it is God's own words. And having chosen His words I believe they make perfect of the atonement.

But people can choose to believe God's words or any of the men they find compelling.

Your arrogance is almost beyond belief!
Originally you claimed you were following God's words and chided us all for not believing the Bible. When it was pointed out to you that God's word supports PSA, you claimed to be following the ECFs. When it was shown that the ECFs mostly believed in PSA, you turned to Anselm and Aquinas. Now that you are being shown that those people did not believe what you have said they did, you have turned back to the word of God and claim that no one but you believes it! Amazing! It would be funny if it weren't so sad. You'll be back with the ECFs again any time now.

 

[JonC]

Yes. This is a good example of your humility. I suppose none of those men listed above used God's words but JonC. .

You misunderstand. Those men do use God's words. I am not saying they didn't.

I am suggesting that you read the Bible - just to see the difference - without using God's words. Instead just see what those words say.

 

[JonC]

Your arrogance is almost beyond belief!
Originally you claimed you were following God's words and chided us all for not believing the Bible. When it was pointed out to you that God's word supports PSA, you claimed to be following the ECFs. When it was shown that the ECFs mostly believed in PSA, you turned to Anselm and Aquinas. Now that you are being shown that those people did not believe what you have said they did, you have turned back to the word of God and claim that no one but you believes it! Amazing! It would be funny if it weren't so sad. You'll be back with the ECFs again any time now.

No, I have not changed my position or argument. I know you made this false accusation in ignorance, so no big deal. I will once again explain to you my experience.

1. I believe that foundational doctrines (doctrines that are central to our faith, doctrines upon which other doctrines are built) are in the text of Scripture.

2. I realized that PSA is not in the biblical text itself. Elements are there, but these elements are common to all Christians. They only support PSA when PSA is assumed to be correct.

3. I abandoned PSA. I did not replace PSA but spent the next few years reading Scripture without reading into Scripture. It was difficult at first as I automatically wanted to read into the text what was not there. But I needed to read God's words alone.

4. Reading "what is written", the words coming forth from God rather than leaning on my own understanding, I wrote down the passages about the cross (verbatim, without adding to them).

5. I found that God's words about the cross made sense as delivered in the Bible.

6. I knew that our understanding is flawed, and wanted to make sure that I was not reading Scripture in a new way. So I read other theologies.

7. I found that my view was traditional Anabaptist theology of the cross. I also found that this theology was developed in the same way (they did not read or study the ECF writings).

8. I then read Clement of Rome's writing to the Corinthians. I chose this as it is the oldest known extant writing, thr only writing known to be of Clement, and Clement was a student of Paul. I found affirmation in his teaching.

9. I then read all of the Ante Nicene writings and realized that they echoed what I had found in Scripture.

10. Like you, I knew Calvin arrived at PSA by trying to correct Anselm. But I knew from studying other sects that trying to correct a theology by making it biblical never results in biblical theology.

 

[JonC]

@Martin Marprelate and @DaveXR650

You two have done a great job at presenting PSA. I doubt anybody here would walk away not understanding PSA - you laid it out perfectly.

My appeal is not that you adopt my belief. I only wish you would take the time to understand it as I have taken the time to understand each of your beliefs.

Read what the biblical text says about the cross as if PSA was wrong. Write it down verbatim. Pretend PSA is wrong. Read what you wrote down.

If it still does not make sense to you, at least you would have given it an honest effort.

If it makes sense then simply choose which to believe.

Those are not my pearls I am tossing your way, but literally God's words. I am simply asking you to consider the literal text apart from what you think it teaches, and only to understand a different doctrine (to understand it, not to adopt it).

What you will find is a doctrine that holds sin as an greater problem than PSA holds. But you will also find that the cross is eternally more significant than PSA presents it to be.

Then you can decide which to believe, but you will be doing so with understanding rather than out of ignorance.

 

[JonC]

Your arrogance is almost beyond belief!

No need to resort to insults. When you do it shows you have no valid argument and can't control your emotions.

Originally you claimed you were following God's words and chided us all for not believing the Bible.

Yes, I believe when it comes to foundational doctrines we need to stick with "what is written". But no, I have not chided anybody. Everyone is free to follow whomever they like and believe whatever they want.

When it was pointed out to you that God's word supports PSA, you claimed to be following the ECFs.

No, it was never shown that God's word supports PSA. You showed us this when you said "elements" are there and that the Reformers corrected Satisfaction Atonement by making it biblical. One can take any doctrine and go back to the bible to make it biblical. That is not the Bible supporting the doctrine but the doctrine using the Bible. @DaveXR650 literally pointed this out when he noted that the teachers he find compelling use the Bible.

I never claimed to follow the ECF's. I said I was pleased to find their writings mirrored my belief on the atonement.

When it was shown that the ECFs mostly believed in PSA, you turned to Anselm and Aquinas.

No, what you said was a few things the ECF's wrote that we all agree on (divorced from ideas they expressed that you reject) were "elements" of PSA. Obviously the problems here is it ignores the ECF's own definitions and the fact that we all believe thise "elements" to be true.

I never held Anselm's theory. You said the Reformers "corrected" Anselms theory. So we agreed that Anselm was important in the development of PSA as Calvin tried to make it biblical.

I never held Aquinas' theory either.

Now that you are being shown that those people did not believe what you have said they did

Nobody challenged that Aquinas and Anselm believed what I said they believed (probably because I provided references where they outline exactly what I said they believed.

you have turned back to the word of God and claim that no one but you believes it!

No, I never turned from God's words. Many believe as I believe. And many believe as you believe. At least one is wrong. Both are probably wrong to an extent.



@Martin Marprelate

You have posted in a very dishonest manner. You are overly emotional and this is influencing you to post foolishly.

Why don't you take a couple of days to gather yourself. You profess to be in the ministry, which is great, but you are allowing discussions like this to compromise your character.

This is an online forum. It is basically a big chat group where we can discuss one another's beliefs to better understand each other.

There is nothing here worth you forfeiting your integrity and character over. But that is what you are doing. At the moment your posts do not reflect the character of a man who should ever step behind a pulpit.

I encourage you to pause and gather yourself, and then,if you find you have the maturity to divorce your emotions from discussions rejoin the conversation.

 

[DaveXR650]

You have posted in a very dishonest manner. You are overly emotional and this is influencing you to post foolishly.

It took me about 25 times to realize that @JonC thinks everyone who disagrees with him is a. ignorant or b. foolish. To find a post where Jon doesn't is like trying to find a Ranger who hasn't drank water from a hoof print.

And the level of discussion is about the same tenor.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

No need to resort to insults. When you do it shows you have no valid argument and can't control your emotions.

When you claim that you alone have the true version A of the truth and that far better and greater men than you or I believe versions B,C,D or E, then you are showing appalling arrogance and someone has to challenge you on it.

Now then. What will prove PSA in your eyes? It seems to me that there are three elements to the doctrine:
Firstly, that the Lord Jesus took our sins upon Himself and bore them.
Secondly, that He took and bore them in the way of undergoing the punishment of them.
Thirdly, that He did this in our stead (in our place, instead of us). These three things, it seems to me, are the basis of Penal Substitution, and I will undertake to prove them from the Bible in the hope of putting this seemingly endless discussion to bed.

Is there anything else that you would like to add to that? I am not interested in proving your theory about PSA, but I will try to satisfy any reasonable objections to the doctrine that you may have.

 

[JonC]

It took me about 25 times to realize that @JonC thinks everyone who disagrees with him is a. ignorant or b. foolish. To find a post where Jon doesn't is like trying to find a Ranger who hasn't drank water from a hoof print.

And the level of discussion is about the same tenor.

No, ignorance about a topic is not foolishness. It simply means you do not understand something.

You do not understand how the Classic view accounts for justice.

What I said was @Martin Marprelate resorting to insults was foolish. He professes to be in the ministry (we all should be) but he insults me for disagreeing with him. His character is better than his posts indicate.

The same applies to you. You are better than your posts demonstrate. Posting these insults are beneath your calling.

Our disagreement is about what constitutes PSA. You present my belief as PSA. I believe there is a distinction you are missing.

 

[JonC]

When you claim that you alone have the true version A of the truth

I never claimed or presented that I alone hold the true version of A.

The passages you offered, the quotes you offered of the ECF's, the quotes I offered from Hubmaier, Derek, etc., the quotes from Anabaptist theology...that is what I believe.

You call my belief "PSA", and that is fine. I just view PSA a little more specific.

What will prove PSA in your eyes?

It is not about proving PSA, but defining PSA.

All of the passages you offered and all of the ECF quotes you offered as PSA express my belief. By your standard I hold PSA.

You did not view other beliefs expressed in Scripture and in the ECF writings to make the belief not PSA but I did.

I am more than willing to work within your view of the ECF and Scripture to confirm we all believe PSA.

I have absolutely no objections to PSA as you offered it from actual quotes of Scripture and from quotes from ECF writings. That PSA is exactly what I believe.

I only objected to some things that are not in the biblical text itself but a minority insist is true.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I never claimed or presented that I alone hold the true version of A.

Here is the debate:

The biblical text ("what is written", God's words) say A

1. I believe it means A
2. Calvin says it means B
3. Luther say it means C
4. Aquinas says it means D
5. Abelard say it means E
6. Anselm says it means F
7. The RCC says it means G

'Nuff said.

 

[JonC]

'Nuff said.

Yes, I do not hold Calvin's view, the RCC view, Luther's view, Aquinas' view, or Anselms' view. But that does not mean I alone hold my view.

You hold believers baptism.

Calvin, Luther, Abelard, Anselm, Aquinas, the RCC....these do not. They hold infant baptism. Does that mean you developed and hold your view in isolation? No, of course not.

Christianity is not limited to Latin Christianity (all of those I mentioned).

But per your definition you and I hold the same belief in PSA. I may disagree with some of your other beliefs associated with PSA.

The quotes you and @DaveXR650 provided from Scripture and the ECF writings, what you said IS PSA...well....that is what I believe. I just do not call it PSA.

Perhaps the distinction may simply be Anselm's framework (how he built his doctrine). @Martin Marprelate noted that the Reformers corrected Anselm's doctrine. I am not sure that framework itself is biblical.


But insofar as PSA goes, my position falls well into your view (I believe the quotes you called PSA from Scripture and the ECF writings). I do not believe Calvin was correct.

So I hold that older version of PSA ratger than neo-PSA (or Reformed PSA....I am not sure how you make the distinction).

 

[DaveXR650]

But per your definition you and I hold the same belief in PSA. I may disagree with some of your other beliefs associated with PSA.

The quotes you and @DaveXR650 provided from Scripture and the ECF writings, what you said IS PSA...well....that is what I believe. I just do not call it PSA.

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. Other times you say things and agree with things others say that are hateful and extremely biased against the views that I hold and the tradition I come from, all the while while complaining that we don't respect other faith traditions. It's almost like two people are posting in your name.

You do not understand how the Classic view accounts for justice.

I do not accept that there is a "Classic view". The classic writers said things and mostly seemed to focus on cosmic justice, Christ's defeat of Satan, and somewhat on justice as penal substitution. They did not have a systematic or unified doctrine. I have not arrived at that on my own but can site numerous writers who have been saying that for a long time. You don't have to agree and it may be wrong but to dismiss it as uncommon thought or ignorant just reflects back on you. But I respect that you don't agree. I mean, when the theologians I listen to said those things they were in rebuttal of someone else who disagreed with them.

Our disagreement is about what constitutes PSA. You present my belief as PSA. I believe there is a distinction you are missing.

But you disagree with us posting definitions of PSA that come from the major writings on PSA and from old and new sources. We won't be able to have meaningful conversations if you won't even have enough respect for us to accept, not as true, but even as a real definition, something quoted from one of these works. That leaves us with no common ground even for discussion.

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. If that is the case, then write out the parts or the emphasis that you disagree with and we could go from there. But I won't keep doing this where there will be a series of posts where you disparage Calvinism, PSA and those who hold it, and then fan boys come on and say they "hate PSA" and have nothing but contempt for all of us fanatics who hold to it, and 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!