What denomination...

[Michael Wrenn]

could a person who lives in the rural Deep South go to on Sunday and not hear the penal substitution theory 0f the atonement being taught?

 

[Moriah]

could a person who lives in the rural Deep South go to on Sunday and not hear the penal substitution theory 0f the atonement being taught?

Hi Michael,
I am not sure what you are saying.
Are you saying you do not believe Jesus died for your sins?

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Hi Michael,
I am not sure what you are saying.
Are you saying you do not believe Jesus died for your sins?

I'm saying I don't believe in the penal substitution theory of the atonement; I believe it is false doctrine, and that it's harmful and abhorrent.

I believe what the early church believed -- Christus Victor, although many of the fathers also believed the moral influence view. I know Christus Victor is held by the EOC and many Anabaptists, and some Lutherans. But The RCC and Protestant Evangelicals hold to some form of legalistic view -- satisfaction, or penal substitution, or governmental.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Michael, the term that I have heard that describes the manner in which many Baptists etc. believe in the atonement is termed the literal payment theory. It suggests that the atonement literally paid for certain sins of the elect in a forensic sense, a specific amount of suffering for a specific debt so to speak as one might expect a specific punishment attached to a specific crime in a court of law. Then that specific punishment handed down by God being literally paid for by Christ on the cross again for specific sins of the elect. Is that what you are calling a 'penal' substitution theory? If not, can you explain what you see it as ? Then explain in detail the theory you hold to and why. Thanks.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Michael, the term that I have heard that describes the manner in which many Baptists etc. believe in the atonement is termed the literal payment theory. It suggests that the atonement literally paid for certain sins of the elect in a forensic sense, a specific amount of suffering for a specific debt so to speak as one might expect a specific punishment attached to a specific crime in a court of law. Then that specific punishment handed down by God being literally paid for by Christ on the cross again for specific sins of the elect. Is that what you are calling a 'penal' substitution theory? If not, can you explain what you see it as ? Then explain in detail the theory you hold to and why. Thanks.

Here are two articles, one on penal substitution, and the other on Christus Victor, which is what I believe:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penal_substitution

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christus_Victor


I believe Christus Victor is a much more wholistic view which also much better reflects the character of God.

 

[steaver]

Here are two articles, one on penal substitution, and the other on Christus Victor, which is what I believe:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penal_substitution

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christus_Victor


I believe Christus Victor is a much more wholistic view which also much better reflects the character of God.

I read over both articles and in appears to this layman that 1) both have elements of biblical truth and 2) thus, isn't worth arguing over. Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved. Go into all the world and preach the Good news!

 

[Alive in Christ]

All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.

..................

 

[The Biblicist]

I read over both articles and in appears to this layman that 1) both have elements of biblical truth and 2) thus, isn't worth arguing over. Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved. Go into all the world and preach the Good news!

Steaver, you should read more widely. Here are some practical implications spelled out by one who embraces the Christus Victor theory of the atonement. See if you agree:

God does not need the cross to forgive us or love us. Jesus forgave and loved people before the cross. But some of us needed the cross to be able to really accept that forgiveness. God does not need the cross to love us: God has always loved us. But many of us needed the cross to really grasp that. God does not need the cross to be reconciled to us. But many of us needed the cross to be reconciled to Life, to break the cycle of rivalry and to heal our estranged authority image. The cross speaks to us at the point of our need. And while these are not God's problems, but our alienation, still for us that alienation is very real. So to the one wracked with guilt God says through the cross, "I take the blame. I pay the price." To the one who is locked in self-hate God says through the cross "I love you so much I would give my life defending you." To the one in rebellion to life God says through the cross, "See me here. I am not a threat; I am love."

The Christus Victor theory is absolute heresy. This theory does not see men as law breakers but as victims. This theory does not see sin as a violation of the Law of God that deserves a just penalty. This theory does not recognize the cross as the means of reconciliation between God and sinners in satisfying God's justice against sin but only an example of God's love - sloppy agape - at the expense of God's violated holiness. This theory does not provide the Biblical answer to the question of Jesus "My God, My God why hast thou forsaken me" found in Psalm 22 "Because thou are holy" but changes the Biblical response to merely show God's love for his creation to free them as victims from sin, Satan and death.

 

[Amy.G]

Penal substitution simply means that Christ was our substitute in taking the penalty of the Law. The wages of sin is death. Death is the penalty of the Law which we richly deserve. Christ died in our place for our sins.

Why Michael finds this so abhorrent is beyond me. It is what the bible clearly teaches.

Michael, do you deny that Jesus was crucified by Roman authority? Have you ever studied Roman crucifixion? Now that is abhorrent, yet it is a fact that Jesus was crucified by this horrible method.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Penal substitution simply means that Christ was our substitute in taking the penalty of the Law. The wages of sin is death. Death is the penalty of the Law which we richly deserve. Christ died in our place for our sins.

Why Michael finds this so abhorrent is beyond me. It is what the bible clearly teaches.

Michael, do you deny that Jesus was crucified by Roman authority? Have you ever studied Roman crucifixion? Now that is abhorrent, yet it is a fact that Jesus was crucified by this horrible method.

So does that mean he doesnt believe the bible?

 

[The Biblicist]

So does that mean he doesnt believe the bible?

It means he rejects the very essence of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

 

[DHK]

for [the Christus Victor] view, the domination system, understood as something much larger than the Roman governor and the temple aristocracy, is responsible for the death of Jesus… The domination system killed Jesus and thereby disclosed its moral bankruptcy and ultimate defeat[7].

Complete heresy.
It denies that Christ had the power to lay his own life down and take it up again.

 

[The Biblicist]

Steaver, you should read more widely. Here are some practical implications spelled out by one who embraces the Christus Victor theory of the atonement. See if you agree:

God does not need the cross to forgive us or love us. Jesus forgave and loved people before the cross. But some of us needed the cross to be able to really accept that forgiveness. God does not need the cross to love us: God has always loved us. But many of us needed the cross to really grasp that. God does not need the cross to be reconciled to us. But many of us needed the cross to be reconciled to Life, to break the cycle of rivalry and to heal our estranged authority image. The cross speaks to us at the point of our need. And while these are not God's problems, but our alienation, still for us that alienation is very real. So to the one wracked with guilt God says through the cross, "I take the blame. I pay the price." To the one who is locked in self-hate God says through the cross "I love you so much I would give my life defending you." To the one in rebellion to life God says through the cross, "See me here. I am not a threat; I am love."

The Christus Victor theory is absolute heresy. This theory does not see men as law breakers but as victims. This theory does not see sin as a violation of the Law of God that deserves a just penalty. This theory does not recognize the cross as the means of reconciliation between God and sinners in satisfying God's justice against sin but only an example of God's love - sloppy agape - at the expense of God's violated holiness. This theory does not provide the Biblical answer to the question of Jesus "My God, My God why hast thou forsaken me" found in Psalm 22 "Because thou are holy" but changes the Biblical response to merely show God's love for his creation to free them as victims from sin, Satan and death.

It is this very type of theory where the love of God is at the expense of the holiness of God, that lays the foundation for rejecting hades, Gehenna and everalsting punishment. A God who loves his creatures so much would never send them to hell and if he did he would never allow them to eternally exist in the lake of fire in conscious pain!

However, the cross and hell are both very vivid realites that express the terribleness of sin in God's eyes. Death on the cross was one of the most heinious and terribly slow and painful death man has invented. There are a lot more humane and loving ways for Christ to die than the cross if the cross was merely a symbol of God's love for man merely to free man from being a victim of sin, death and Satan. The cross demonstrates the holiness of God according to Psalm 22:1-3

My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? why art thou so far from helping me, and from the words of my roaring?
2 O my God, I cry in the daytime, but thou hearest not; and in the night season, and am not silent.
3 But thou art holy, O thou that inhabitest the praises of Israel.

The sacrificial system and the penalty of death for violating the mere symbolisms of the atonement in the Tabernacle/Temple pattern demonstrates there is more than the Love of God involved but the very holiness of God in regard to sin.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Penal substitution simply means that Christ was our substitute in taking the penalty of the Law. The wages of sin is death. Death is the penalty of the Law which we richly deserve. Christ died in our place for our sins.

Why Michael finds this so abhorrent is beyond me. It is what the bible clearly teaches.

Michael, do you deny that Jesus was crucified by Roman authority? Have you ever studied Roman crucifixion? Now that is abhorrent, yet it is a fact that Jesus was crucified by this horrible method.

Of course I don't deny that.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Steaver, you should read more widely. Here are some practical implications spelled out by one who embraces the Christus Victor theory of the atonement. See if you agree:

God does not need the cross to forgive us or love us. Jesus forgave and loved people before the cross. But some of us needed the cross to be able to really accept that forgiveness. God does not need the cross to love us: God has always loved us. But many of us needed the cross to really grasp that. God does not need the cross to be reconciled to us. But many of us needed the cross to be reconciled to Life, to break the cycle of rivalry and to heal our estranged authority image. The cross speaks to us at the point of our need. And while these are not God's problems, but our alienation, still for us that alienation is very real. So to the one wracked with guilt God says through the cross, "I take the blame. I pay the price." To the one who is locked in self-hate God says through the cross "I love you so much I would give my life defending you." To the one in rebellion to life God says through the cross, "See me here. I am not a threat; I am love."

The Christus Victor theory is absolute heresy. This theory does not see men as law breakers but as victims. This theory does not see sin as a violation of the Law of God that deserves a just penalty. This theory does not recognize the cross as the means of reconciliation between God and sinners in satisfying God's justice against sin but only an example of God's love - sloppy agape - at the expense of God's violated holiness. This theory does not provide the Biblical answer to the question of Jesus "My God, My God why hast thou forsaken me" found in Psalm 22 "Because thou are holy" but changes the Biblical response to merely show God's love for his creation to free them as victims from sin, Satan and death.

Heresy originally meant a minority opinion. But it's not even that because this the view held by the earliest churches and the fathers, held for the first thousand years of Christianity, held by the Eastern Orthodox Church. Penal substitution is a relative newcomer; it was unknown in the earliest churches. I won't even call it heresy; it wasn't a minority opinion -- it wasn't held at all. it's false doctrine, abhorrent, and dangerous.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

It means he rejects the very essence of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Only according to you, not according to the early church, the fathers, and Christendom for the first millennium A.D.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Complete heresy.
It denies that Christ had the power to lay his own life down and take it up again.

Simply not true.

I knew all of you would come out of the woodwork and start spouting misinformation.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Back to the point of the OP: What denomination doesn't hold to the Western, Latinized views of the atonement -- penal substitution, satisfaction theory, governmental theory?

 

[mandym]

Back to the point of the OP: What denomination doesn't hold to the Western, Latinized views of the atonement -- penal substitution, satisfaction theory, governmental theory?

Heretical denominations, you could try the Mormons or the Jehovah's Witness

 

[DHK]

Simply not true.

I knew all of you would come out of the woodwork and start spouting misinformation.

I gave that quote from the link provided. What does it mean if not what it says.

for [the Christus Victor] view, the domination system, understood as something much larger than the Roman governor and the temple aristocracy, is responsible for the death of Jesus… The domination system killed Jesus and thereby disclosed its moral bankruptcy and ultimate defeat[7].

It doesn't say Jesus laid his life down.
Rather: "The domination system killed Jesus." What is that supposed to mean?