Article: what is wrong the substitutionary theory of atonement.

[StormyOne]

It comes across as if you are a guilty party here...Why are you so rattled and hostile. The tone that came through is as such. If thats your position kindly own up to it with out such a tone.

AT

trying to make sense out of the nonsense, was giving your comment some reasonable consideration.....

. <-------- the point




\|/
00 <------ your head
L


moving on......

 

[StormyOne]

The problem with the above veiw is that the author (James McGrath) never takes into account the covenant God established with Abraham. If one understands and take into account the covenant God made with Abraham, then they understanad the so called penitential psalms where of the covenant.


(Act 3:25) Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed.

(Act 3:26) Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.

(1Co 10:16) The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?


(Mat 26:27) And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;
(Mat 26:28) For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.


AT


​

again....


. <-------- the point




\|/
00 <------ your head
L

 

[Adventtruth]

trying to make sense out of the nonsense, was giving your comment some reasonable consideration.....

. <-------- the point




\|/
00 <------ your head
L


moving on......

Yes lets move on....let not attack each other please.


AT

 

[Adventtruth]

again....


. <-------- the point




\|/
00 <------ your head
L

I must be doing something right if you are attacking me as such...but I must ask, would it be correct in asking that we all refrain from personal attack of one another and kindly discuss the content of the postings.


AT

 

[StormyOne]

I must be doing something right if you are attacking me as such...but I must ask, would it be correct in asking that we all refrain from personal attack of one another and kindly discuss the content of the postings.


AT

not attacking you at all AT, just making an observation.... if you believe you are doing something right, you are entitled to that opinion of yourself.... just realize as I am sure you must that not everyone shares your opinion....

 

[JohnT]

Stormy,

If you propose another theory of the Atonement, that is OK. Just make sure that none of these are violated:

FIRST it must not violate in any form any attribute of the Godhead.

SECOND it must show mankind in his true statue; incapable of doing anything to change the mind of a just, holy God&#8217;s anger against our sin.

THIRD it must take into account the nature of expiation, as stated in the OT, a sacrifice of an innocent to pay for the sins of a sinner.

FOURTH it must have an efficacious effect on both the offended party, God, and the offending party, mankind bring reconciliation by its inherent nature.

LAST, it must be eternal. Once applied, it never &#8220;slips off&#8221;. Otherwise, it raises the sovereignty of mankind above that of God, violating the first principle. That means it is God who perseveres us or keeps his covenant. to those whom he loves, independent of our whims.


​

In one way, or another one or many tenets are violated in the alternate explanations.

These are important because they are Biblical concepts, and they constitute five strong, interlocking segments.

The Moral Influence Theory errs because it

1) gives greater sovereignty to man than to God
2) creates a "magical" experience whereby one suddenly, and independent of divine intervention gets "conscience of the divine"
3) there is no recognition of God's righteous anger against sin.
4) it has no final "cure" for sin
5) it has no sense or reconciliation between aggrieved parties
​

Therefore the ONLY theory meeting those five criteria listed previously is the Penal Substitution Theory. (Anselm)

 

[Adventtruth]

not attacking you at all AT, just making an observation.... if you believe you are doing something right, you are entitled to that opinion of yourself.... just realize as I am sure you must that not everyone shares your opinion....

I can't see how you making fun of me in a drawing has anything to do with the argument of what James McGrath wrote in that article.

The other day you asked RC if what he wrote was necessary. I am now asking you was that necessary?


AT

 

[StormyOne]

Stormy,

If you propose another theory of the Atonement, that is OK. Just make sure that none of these are violated:

FIRST it must not violate in any form any attribute of the Godhead.

SECOND it must show mankind in his true statue; incapable of doing anything to change the mind of a just, holy God&#8217;s anger against our sin.

THIRD it must take into account the nature of expiation, as stated in the OT, a sacrifice of an innocent to pay for the sins of a sinner.

FOURTH it must have an efficacious effect on both the offended party, God, and the offending party, mankind bring reconciliation by its inherent nature.

LAST, it must be eternal. Once applied, it never &#8220;slips off&#8221;. Otherwise, it raises the sovereignty of mankind above that of God, violating the first principle. That means it is God who perseveres us or keeps his covenant. to those whom he loves, independent of our whims.


​

In one way, or another one or many tenets are violated in the alternate explanations.

These are important because they are Biblical concepts, and they constitute five strong, interlocking segments.

The Moral Influence Theory errs because it

1) gives greater sovereignty to man than to God
2) creates a "magical" experience whereby one suddenly, and independent of divine intervention gets "conscience of the divine"
3) there is no recognition of God's righteous anger against sin.
4) it has no final "cure" for sin
5) it has no sense or reconciliation between aggrieved parties
​

Therefore the ONLY theory meeting those five criteria listed previously is the Penal Substitution Theory. (Anselm)

JohnT.... I don't agree with the 5 criteria as they are arbitrary and based on a theory (that cannot be proven).... the jury is still out on the "Godhead" as I believe there is one God who can manifest himself in multiple ways.... I do not subscribe to the idea that a God of love is angry about anything, anger is usually a sign of fear, and God has nothing to be afraid of.... The OT has already been dealt with there was no sacrifice for deliberate moral sins, and forgiveness for an act against another person was done by seeking forgiveness from that person.... Items 4 and 5 can be accomplished when God chooses simply to forgive....

Given that the PSA was not taught by the early church but came into existence in the 16th century, it is speculative at best... though I am enjoying the dialog and the information being exchanged.....

Thank you again for sharing your views.....

 

[Adventtruth]

1) gives greater sovereignty to man than to God
2) creates a "magical" experience whereby one suddenly, and independent of divine intervention gets "conscience of the divine"
3) there is no recognition of God's righteous anger against sin.
4) it has no final "cure" for sin
5) it has no sense or reconciliation between aggrieved parties

And I would add...

6) It destroys the imputation of righteousness.

7) Does not take into account Gods dealing with mankind through the covenants.

AT

 

[StormyOne]

I can't see how you making fun of me in a drawing has anything to do with the argument of what James McGrath wrote in that article.

The other day you asked RC if what he wrote was necessary. I am now asking you was that necessary?


AT

yes it is necessary... or as you told me, you can put me on ignore if you don't like what I am saying.... everything you post is fair game.....

 

[StormyOne]

And I would add...

6) It destroys the imputation of righteousness.

7) Does not take into account Gods dealing with mankind through the covenants.

AT

the covenant concept is moot because God did not deal with all mankind in that manner... there is no indication that God entered into covenant relationships with other people of other cultures save the Jews..... thus you are extrapolating an idea that was designed for one group of people to all people who existed.... that is a leap you cannot make....

 

[Adventtruth]

the covenant concept is moot because God did not deal with all mankind in that manner... there is no indication that God entered into covenant relationships with other people of other cultures save the Jews..... thus you are extrapolating an idea that was designed for one group of people to all people who existed.... that is a leap you cannot make....

God has delt with all men through covenants....begining with Adam.

(Hos 6:7) But like Adam they transgressed the covenant; there they dealt faithlessly with me.


AT

 

[StormyOne]

God has delt with all men through covenants....begining with Adam.

(Hos 6:7) But like Adam they transgressed the covenant; there they dealt faithlessly with me.


AT

you have no proof.... the bible is not the history of God's interaction with all men, just some..... The south Americans, The North Americans, The Chinese, etc, no indication that God entered covenant with any of these groups.....

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

You misunderstand.

The Moral Influence Theory is semiPelagian in that it attributes something to mankind that is impossible: the ability to do something well-pleasing unto God.

It eliminates the doctrine of total depravity, and THAT is a very serious issue.

Another good reason to dump the penal theory. the doctrine of total depravity which easily half of Christianity don't accept also means that man has no free will, cannot choose to even say that something is good or not good.

But that is an interesting concept we might want to look at, when the Penal theory came out was it based upon using the idea that there is no free will so man can't be urged toward God by a revelation about God or man but salvation can only be by God's fiat choice and to justify his arbitrary choices he has to perform the legal fiction of substitution and say that those who He arbitrarily chose are also viewed by God as having the righteousness of Christ imputed on them. Interesting. it destroys the whole concept of belief and faith which is why some of you tried to say faith is a gift, therefore belief is a gift...all to explain that God can act arbitrarily.

Not a terribly reasonable view or a very reasonable God.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

you have no proof.... the bible is not the history of God's interaction with all men, just some..... The south Americans, The North Americans, The Chinese, etc, no indication that God entered covenant with any of these groups.....

Except for such as believed in Christ, and were baptized into the church. The rest God simply allowed to go their own way.

Another good reason to dump the penal theory. the doctrine of total depravity which easily half of Christianity don't accept also means that man has no free will, cannot choose to even say that something is good or not good.

The question is not whether man has free will, but whether his free will can reconcile him to God.

But that is an interesting concept we might want to look at, when the Penal theory came out was it based upon using the idea that there is no free will so man can't be urged toward God by a revelation about God or man but salvation can only be by God's fiat choice and to justify his arbitrary choices he has to perform the legal fiction of substitution and say that those who He arbitrarily chose are also viewed by God as having the righteousness of Christ imputed on them. Interesting. it destroys the whole concept of belief and faith which is why some of you tried to say faith is a gift, therefore belief is a gift...all to explain that God can act arbitrarily.

1.) Whose choice is salvation, if not God's? Who will be the Judge on Judgment Day?

2.) Why do God's choices need justification?

Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? Romans 9:20-21

3.) If the imputation of the righteousness of Christ on the sinner is a "legal fiction" the the imputation of the sinners sin on Christ must also be a "legal fiction". In which case, as Christ did not bear our sins, what to we have to rely upon but our own works? Where does grace fit in?

 

[JohnT]

JohnT.... I don't agree with the 5 criteria as they are arbitrary and based on a theory (that cannot be proven).... the jury is still out on the "Godhead" as I believe there is one God who can manifest himself in multiple ways.... I do not subscribe to the idea that a God of love is angry about anything, anger is usually a sign of fear, and God has nothing to be afraid of.... The OT has already been dealt with there was no sacrifice for deliberate moral sins, and forgiveness for an act against another person was done by seeking forgiveness from that person.... Items 4 and 5 can be accomplished when God chooses simply to forgive....

Given that the PSA was not taught by the early church but came into existence in the 16th century, it is speculative at best... though I am enjoying the dialog and the information being exchanged.....

Thank you again for sharing your views.....

Stormy, I appreciate your concern, but chronology has nothing to do with the validity of an idea. Yes, Anselm developed it but in the 11th century. (1033 – April 21, 1109) He solidified the doctrine of the Atonement in his work Cur Deus homo, but if you dismiss his theory merely on the "relative newness of the doctrine", you have to dismiss his ontological , teleological and cosmological proofs for the existence of God. Likewise would all of the 95 thesis of Luther on the Wittenburg Church door be trashed.

The doctrines do not change, but the statements defining them more clearly do. They are more precise each time they are re written, You need to read a good historical theology to appreciate the falseness of your argument.

While you are at it, you also need to read a good systematic theology, for coincidentally it was Anselm who developed the "Shield of the Trinity" to describe the Trinity.

Imagine an equilateral triangle with Jesus, Father and Holy Spirit positioned at each exterior angle. If you bisect each angle, and draw a circle around the center meeting point. With a compass draw a circle, label it God, and on each bisected angle line write the word "IS".

On the angles labeled Jesus, Father and Holy Spirit write the words "IS NOT" between them. That is the "trinity Shield" and it explains the trinity exactly, thanks to Anselm.

As far as the "theory being arbitrary" it is far from that. They are vital criteria that must not be violated if we are to determine the validity of ANY doctrine. In your calling that "arbitrary" you are actually being capricious.

That means that you could develop your own theory, and have it violate God's sovereignty, make God be responsive to the works of man, deny the fact that ALL have sinned, say that God is not REALLY angry with sin, the problem of sin will be permanent, and God and man will never be reconciled. BUT YOU WOULD LACK BIBLICAL FOUNDATIONS.

In your reply as to which alternative theory is best, please explain how they would NOT violate any of the five criteria I mentioned, While you are at it, please explain why they are "arbitrary without being capricious."

 

[StormyOne]

Stormy, I appreciate your concern, but chronology has nothing to do with the validity of an idea. Yes, Anselm developed it but in the 11th century. (1033 – April 21, 1109) He solidified the doctrine of the Atonement in his work Cur Deus homo, but if you dismiss his theory merely on the "relative newness of the doctrine", you have to dismiss his ontological , teleological and cosmological proofs for the existence of God. Likewise would all of the 95 thesis of Luther on the Wittenburg Church door be trashed.

I have no problem dismissing all of Anselm, while his stuff can be used as a springboard for discussion, it is not gospel nor is it written in stone. Thus it is not the last word on theological issues for me, though it may be for you. As for Luther's 95 thesis, are they beneficial here and now? I don't think so.... Protestants are protesting much anymore.......

The doctrines do not change, but the statements defining them more clearly do. They are more precise each time they are re written, You need to read a good historical theology to appreciate the falseness of your argument.

While you are at it, you also need to read a good systematic theology, for coincidentally it was Anselm who developed the "Shield of the Trinity" to describe the Trinity.

I may or may not choose to check out some of the topics you have mentioned, but I do not NEED to read them to form a belief about who I believe The Creator is. Afterall in the end it is their opinion (whomever you choose to read and believe) of who he is.... as I quoted elsewhere, the bible has no voice, it cannot tell us how it should be interpreted, so in the end it is some man who is suggesting it should be analyzed....

Imagine an equilateral triangle with Jesus, Father and Holy Spirit positioned at each exterior angle. If you bisect each angle, and draw a circle around the center meeting point. With a compass draw a circle, label it God, and on each bisected angle line write the word "IS".

On the angles labeled Jesus, Father and Holy Spirit write the words "IS NOT" between them. That is the "trinity Shield" and it explains the trinity exactly, thanks to Anselm.

Interesting illustration, but I don't share the view, and no man really knows the true nature of God.... One God, multiple manifestations is where I am at presently, and see no need to move at the moment....

As far as the "theory being arbitrary" it is far from that. They are vital criteria that must not be violated if we are to determine the validity of ANY doctrine. In your calling that "arbitrary" you are actually being capricious.

Vital to you because it is the theory you have chosen to believe. It is not vital to me because I do share your view. Likewise, unlike a hard science there are no consistent rules for establishing doctrine from the bible. So since it is someone's interpretation it is arbitrary..... I may be capricious, I do know that at the end of the day it is Anselm's theory of how man is reconciled based on what he believes, and I am under no obligation to share that belief....

That means that you could develop your own theory, and have it violate God's sovereignty, make God be responsive to the works of man, deny the fact that ALL have sinned, say that God is not REALLY angry with sin, the problem of sin will be permanent, and God and man will never be reconciled. BUT YOU WOULD LACK BIBLICAL FOUNDATIONS.

There are many doctrines that have been taught and followed that lack biblical foundations, too numerous to list I suspect. So since we were not there and Jesus did not explain exactly how humans would be reconciled to himself, we have no clue how atonement really works. We have ideas, or theories, but we cannot say for certain......

In your reply as to which alternative theory is best, please explain how they would NOT violate any of the five criteria I mentioned, While you are at it, please explain why they are "arbitrary without being capricious."

We are currently discussing the PSA theory, separate threads would be needed to dissect the other theories.... but again the 5 criteria you mentioned I don't agree with so I don't feel any obligation to offer alternative theories that don't violate the 5 criteria you believe are important.... (you must have thought I was not paying attention)

 

[Adventtruth]

you have no proof.... the bible is not the history of God's interaction with all men, just some..... The south Americans, The North Americans, The Chinese, etc, no indication that God entered covenant with any of these groups.....

Adam was the father of all human life. God entered a covenant relationship with Adam in the garden with a covenant of works, and therefore all of humanity was in that same covenant with Adam as the representative of all of humanity. The following is biblical proof that Adam is the representative of all human flesh.

(Rom 5:12) Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned--(in Adam)

All men fell in Adam because of Adams sin of breaking the covenant with God.

(Act 17:26) And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place,
(Act 17:27) that they should seek God, in the hope that they might feel their way toward him and find him. Yet he is actually not far from each one of us,

(1Co 15:21) For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead.
(1Co 15:22) For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.






The bible declares God made all from one man (Adam) and that they should all seek God. That would include North and South Americans, the Chinese, and all other people groups. If they are in the old Adam, they are still under that covenant of works God made at creation that Adam broke, and are subject to eternal death being fallen in Adam. If they are in The last Adam (Christ) they are in the covenant God established with Abraham, which is an everlasting covenant, and will inhert the kingdom of God.


(1Co 15:45) Thus it is written, "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit.


(Gen 12:3) I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed."


The meaning of the word is a binding agreement or arangement between to parties that includes obedience, obligations, and responsibilities.


AT

 

[Adventtruth]

yes it is necessary... or as you told me, you can put me on ignore if you don't like what I am saying.... everything you post is fair game.....

And kindly tell me why its necessary to continue down the path of insults? I have no intentions of the ignore list, because mere insults don't faze me, unless you are playing the mama game. My concern is for the lurker who maybe searching. I think it would be wise for us both to act mature if we are to continue.


AT

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

2.) Why do God's choices need justification?

Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? Romans 9:20-21

3.) If the imputation of the righteousness of Christ on the sinner is a "legal fiction" the the imputation of the sinners sin on Christ must also be a "legal fiction". In which case, as Christ did not bear our sins, what to we have to rely upon but our own works? Where does grace fit in?

It is not that God's needs justification it is that man has a tendancy to create God after man. The justification is that we have to rightly understand God apart from simply placing irrationality upon Him. God could be pure evil and He would still be God, but that is not what the revelation of God indicates, neither does it indicate the irrational and fictional God that many people through their tradition place on God.

As for 3 you begin to see the problem with imputation. You have to ask the question what is sin, how can it be transferred from time and place to one time and place. Again not rational because sin is the attitude of a person. They were never transferred, Jesus did not have our attitude of sin. He was the subject the object of rebellion and selfishness that man because of his attitude rejected their own creator.

I have never heard anyone really explain who Christ bore our sins, sins that had not even existed, the reason of course is that they use the trite phrases and never think about what they are really saying. Tradition is the major element in the acceptance of the Penal Atonement theory. And that is not a good enough reason for me and many other people.