What denomination...

[The Biblicist]

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

I view their record as the record of apostasy. Here is your problem! You are looking to the wrong source for your theology. You are looking to uninspired post-biblical traditions (which I veiw as the history of apostasy predicted in scripture) instead of the scriptures.

 

[The Biblicist]

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.

Any view of the atonement that denies the cross is ESSENTIAL for reconcilition between God and sinners is absolute damnable error. Any view of the atonement that emphasizes the Love of God at the expense of the holiness of God is absolute damnable error as it is a repudiation of the very heart of the gospel found in the doctrine of justification.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

I view their record as the record of apostasy. Here is your problem! You are looking to the wrong source for your theology. You are looking to uninspired post-biblical traditions (which I veiw as the history of apostasy predicted in scripture) instead of the scriptures.

The earliest churches held to Christus Victor, and they got the view from the scriptures.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

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

Stop deflecting. The EOC is not heretical. Also, many Lutherans hold to Christus Victor.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

I know what all of you think about the Christus Victor view and about me. That is not the point. I simply asked if there was a denomination apart from the EOC which predominantly holds to Christus Victor -- one that hasn't been corrupted by Latin Christianity and Reformed theology.

Even Wesleyanism, which somewhat resembles Eastern Christianity in some respects, is corrupted by the Latin West.

 

[The Biblicist]

The earliest churches held to Christus Victor, and they got the view from the scriptures.

That remains to be seen! Easily boasted but more difficult to demonstrate! Every heretic and every heresy makes the same boast but the proof is in the pudding and I don't see any proof yet!

 

[annsni]

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?

None that I know of. I don't believe any Biblical church would follow this teaching.

 

[The Biblicist]

That remains to be seen! Easily boasted but more difficult to demonstrate! Every heretic and every heresy makes the same boast but the proof is in the pudding and I don't see any proof yet!

Think about this! Under the Mosaic Law, there were PENAL consequences for violating, transgressing the law of God. The death penalty was administered for violation of God's law. The only thing that would protect Israel from the wrath of God in destroying them was a blood sacrifice. This can be illustrated numerous times in the Old Testament.

In the New Testament, sin is defined as the transgression of the law and the "wages of sin is death." The "wages" refer to its PENALTY because violation brings the violater under the "CURSE" of the law (Gal. 3:13). In Old Testament terms to be brought under the "CURSE" of the law is to come under the LEGAL POSITION of condemnation whereby the PENAL consequences for violating the law are justly administered. This is so self-evident that it is bewildering that anyone would even attempt to deny it. They just as well deny the inspiration of Scriptures as to deny this obvious spelled out fact repeatedly stated over and over in the Old Testament.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

That remains to be seen! Easily boasted but more difficult to demonstrate! Every heretic and every heresy makes the same boast but the proof is in the pudding and I don't see any proof yet!

Then you obviously haven't read enough early church history. Doesn't anyone wonder why these earliest churches which by consensus gradually decided which books were scripture did not hold to penal substitution but rather the Christus Victor view, combined with the moral influence view? It took 15 centuries until Calvin finally discovered penal substitution in the NT -- coincidentally (?) when rationalist legalist jurisprudence was becoming the mindset.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

None that I know of. I don't believe any Biblical church would follow this teaching.

The EOC is not "Biblical", huh? No, of course not; the Eastern Churches were only a part of those who helped decide the NT canon.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Think about this! Under the Mosaic Law, there were PENAL consequences for violating, transgressing the law of God. The death penalty was administered for violation of God's law. The only thing that would protect Israel from the wrath of God in destroying them was a blood sacrifice. This can be illustrated numerous times in the Old Testament.

In the New Testament, sin is defined as the transgression of the law and the "wages of sin is death." The "wages" refer to its PENALTY because violation brings the violater under the "CURSE" of the law (Gal. 3:13). In Old Testament terms to be brought under the "CURSE" of the law is to come under the LEGAL POSITION of condemnation whereby the PENAL consequences for violating the law are justly administered. This is so self-evident that it is bewildering that anyone would even attempt to deny it. They just as well deny the inspiration of Scriptures as to deny this obvious spelled out fact repeatedly stated over and over in the Old Testament.

(See bolded part) Of course, and that is perfectly consistent with the Christus Victor view.

Where penal substitution goes wrong is to suggest that God punished and killed Jesus in our place, to satisfy His wrath and justice; that puts a stain on God's character -- it is reprehensible.

 

[The Biblicist]

(See bolded part) Of course, and that is perfectly consistent with the Christus Victor view.

Where penal substitution goes wrong is to suggest that God punished and killed Jesus in our place, to satisfy His wrath and justice; that puts a stain on God's character -- it is reprehensible.

Acts 2:23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:

Ac 4:28 For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done.

Isa 53:10 ¶ Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.

QUESTION: It pleased who? "the Lord". Who hath put him to Grief?

Ro 8:32 He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?

Ga 3:13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:

You have to explain away these scriptures.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Acts 2:23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:

Ac 4:28 For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done.

Isa 53:10 ¶ Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.

QUESTION: It pleased who? "the Lord". Who hath put him to Grief?

Ro 8:32 He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?

Ga 3:13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:

You have to explain away these scriptures.

I almost dreaded to come back and read responses because I don't want to argue. But at least you posted scripture and didn't call me an apostate.

 

[The Biblicist]

I almost dreaded to come back and read responses because I don't want to argue. But at least you posted scripture and didn't call me an apostate.

Well, I shall try to restrain myself so you won't have to dread it so terribly:wavey:

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Well, I shall try to restrain myself so you won't have to dread it so terribly:wavey:

I like discussion and debate, and I hold my positions passionately and expect others to do so, as well. But I don't like personal insults, even though I have done that myself.

We all see through a glass darkly, and we should all remember that.

 

[saturneptune]

Well, I shall try to restrain myself so you won't have to dread it so terribly:wavey:

I think your doctrine is correct, but I also think the use of words like heretic, damnable, and apostate when directed towards individuals needs to be used very rarely in the most extreme of circumstances and carefully worded. There is way too much implication, usually indirectly because of board rules, that someone is not saved based on a difference of opinion in doctrine.

 

[annsni]

The EOC is not "Biblical", huh? No, of course not; the Eastern Churches were only a part of those who helped decide the NT canon.

They didn't decide the church canon. They only confirmed what was already known....

 

[The Biblicist]

I think your doctrine is correct, but I also think the use of words like heretic, damnable, and apostate when directed towards individuals needs to be used very rarely in the most extreme of circumstances and carefully worded. There is way too much implication, usually indirectly because of board rules, that someone is not saved based on a difference of opinion in doctrine.

I generally agree with you. I think for the most part I use such terms to describe the position or doctrine.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Biblicist, who do you think you are fooling. Here was just one of your many heretic remarks directly directly to me as an individual.

Biblicist quote:"When a person has not a leg to stand on, when all the evidence proves them wrong and they still refuse to acknowledge what is obvious - that they are wrong, then what good does it do for anyone to continue to discuss ANYTHING with that kind of person????? What kind of person is that? That kind of person is what the Bible describes as aheretic whose conscience is seared by false doctrine and will not admit the truth no matter what!!!!

 

[Michael Wrenn]

They didn't decide the church canon. They only confirmed what was already known....

My point is, the Bible as we have it was not dropped down out of heaven in its present form; the canon was decided on through a consensus process of the churches over a period of time. So they didn't just confirm what was already known.

No book made it into the canon which was widely rejected, but some that were widely accepted did not make it in -- such as the Shepherd of Hermas.

So, if everybody already knew what the canon was, there would have been no need to debate, test, and discuss over a fairly long period of time to determine what the canon was.