Article: what is wrong the substitutionary theory of atonement.

[JohnT]

Stormy,

By any chance ate you Arian? You dismiss so much critical to orthodoxy, and that makes me wonder of you are JW.

For example you dismiss the 95 thesis of Luther.

As for Luther's 95 thesis, are they beneficial here and now? I don't think so....

that it makes me wonder if you also dismiss the doctrine of justification by faith.

You also dismiss any Biblical “filter” for the truth of any doctrine.

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...

.
This is making anything you believe independent of Scripture, and making you the source of all truth, not the Bible. And that part about “the Bible having no voice…” is poppycock. It is the written revelation of the Covenant-keeping God, and it He is clear in one thing, then He is clear in all. Because it is God’s record, we can read it with confidence, knowing that it says what He means, and it means what He says.

As to your need to check out both a systematic and a historical theology, I strongly urge it, for you are arguing from a knowledge vacuum.


You reject the illustration of the Trinity.
You reject the penal Substitution Theory
However, you have not provided any Biblically supported alternatives to either.

For no other reason other than caprice, you seem to dismiss the need to check with the Bible for what you believe. What is the source for your system of belief if not the Bible? For example you can believe that the manger was a hollowed out pumpkin, but you will find no Scripture supporting that. Therefore it is false. See what I am saying?

As to your statement that “Jesus did not tell us how to be reconciled with God”, that is banal. There are four important New Testament passages, which speak of the work of Christ under the figure of reconciliation, namely Romans 5:10 2 Corinthians 5:18ff Ephesians 2:11ff.; Colossians 1:19ff. The important Greek words are the noun katallagē and the verbs katallassō and apokatallassō I will spare you the discussion of the terms because my point is established below.

Paul wrote them, he was an Apostle, and he saw the risen Jesus. Are you saying somehow that he is in error? If hat is true, then you make yourself to be better and more important than the Apostle. If true, that is astonishing.

Therefore we have LOTS that you say you do not support, but we have ZERO explanations of why they are wrong, using the Bible as a reference. Your offerings are all in the negative, and nothing in the positive. That is why I believe that you may be Arian, and it is what the JWs believe.

Some here may not realize that Arianism was declared a heresy in 325 at Nycea, and if indeed you are, then we are dealing with someone here who is a poser.

If you are NOT a poser, then please supply a valid reason why it is wrong to use the Bible to frame our beliefs.

 

[Adventtruth]

Stormy,

By any chance ate you Arian? You dismiss so much critical to orthodoxy, and that makes me wonder of you are JW.

For example you dismiss the 95 thesis of Luther. that it makes me wonder if you also dismiss the doctrine of justification by faith.

You also dismiss any Biblical “filter” for the truth of any doctrine. .
This is making anything you believe independent of Scripture, and making you the source of all truth, not the Bible. And that part about “the Bible having no voice…” is poppycock. It is the written revelation of the Covenant-keeping God, and it He is clear in one thing, then He is clear in all. Because it is God’s record, we can read it with confidence, knowing that it says what He means, and it means what He says.

As to your need to check out both a systematic and a historical theology, I strongly urge it, for you are arguing from a knowledge vacuum.


You reject the illustration of the Trinity.
You reject the penal Substitution Theory
However, you have not provided any Biblically supported alternatives to either.

For no other reason other than caprice, you seem to dismiss the need to check with the Bible for what you believe. What is the source for your system of belief if not the Bible? For example you can believe that the manger was a hollowed out pumpkin, but you will find no Scripture supporting that. Therefore it is false. See what I am saying?

As to your statement that “Jesus did not tell us how to be reconciled with God”, that is banal. There are four important New Testament passages, which speak of the work of Christ under the figure of reconciliation, namely Romans 5:10 2 Corinthians 5:18ff Ephesians 2:11ff.; Colossians 1:19ff. The important Greek words are the noun katallagē and the verbs katallassō and apokatallassō I will spare you the discussion of the terms because my point is established below.

Paul wrote them, he was an Apostle, and he saw the risen Jesus. Are you saying somehow that he is in error? If hat is true, then you make yourself to be better and more important than the Apostle. If true, that is astonishing.

Therefore we have LOTS that you say you do not support, but we have ZERO explanations of why they are wrong, using the Bible as a reference. Your offerings are all in the negative, and nothing in the positive. That is why I believe that you may be Arian, and it is what the JWs believe.

Some here may not realize that Arianism was declared a heresy in 325 at Nycea, and if indeed you are, then we are dealing with someone here who is a poser.

If you are NOT a poser, then please supply a valid reason why it is wrong to use the Bible to frame our beliefs.

These are the some of the same things I have asked and got nothing but scorn...I hope you make out better than I.

AT

 

[StormyOne]

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

then move on.... I have...

 

[StormyOne]

Stormy,

By any chance ate you Arian? You dismiss so much critical to orthodoxy, and that makes me wonder of you are JW.

I am human and I am black male, 48 yrs old... no arian anything in me.... never been a JW, born and raised sda.... next question.....

For example you dismiss the 95 thesis of Luther.

that it makes me wonder if you also dismiss the doctrine of justification by faith.

nope justification by faith is a keeper, though there are few that really believe that, its usually Jesus + the sabbath or Jesus + something....

You also dismiss any Biblical “filter” for the truth of any doctrine.

.
This is making anything you believe independent of Scripture, and making you the source of all truth, not the Bible.

no I believe what I believe and yes I can believe things without it being filtered by the bible.... that's me, not asking you to do so, but some people do this without difficulty....

And that part about “the Bible having no voice…” is poppycock. It is the written revelation of the Covenant-keeping God, and it He is clear in one thing, then He is clear in all. Because it is God’s record, we can read it with confidence, knowing that it says what He means, and it means what He says.

so you say.... God didn't write one word of the bible... NOT ONE, and your saying it repeatedly does not change that fact... God did NOT write the bible.... but we have had this discussion remember? We agreed that we would not be on the same page with this issue...

As to your need to check out both a systematic and a historical theology, I strongly urge it, for you are arguing from a knowledge vacuum.

You reject the illustration of the Trinity.
You reject the penal Substitution Theory
However, you have not provided any Biblically supported alternatives to either.

I am not arguing from a vacuum, I am choosing not to view as authoritative the same sources you do, that's all.... as such you are finding your efforts to convince me of what you believe frustrating..... I think.... could be wrong though....

For no other reason other than caprice, you seem to dismiss the need to check with the Bible for what you believe. What is the source for your system of belief if not the Bible? For example you can believe that the manger was a hollowed out pumpkin, but you will find no Scripture supporting that. Therefore it is false. See what I am saying?

I don't need scripture to support the belief that there is a Supreme Creator and that he created.... everything after that fact is commentary......

As to your statement that “Jesus did not tell us how to be reconciled with God”, that is banal. There are four important New Testament passages, which speak of the work of Christ under the figure of reconciliation, namely Romans 5:10 2 Corinthians 5:18ff Ephesians 2:11ff.; Colossians 1:19ff. The important Greek words are the noun katallagē and the verbs katallassō and apokatallassō I will spare you the discussion of the terms because my point is established below.

Paul wrote them, he was an Apostle, and he saw the risen Jesus. Are you saying somehow that he is in error? If hat is true, then you make yourself to be better and more important than the Apostle. If true, that is astonishing.

Are you sure Paul wrote them? How do you know? Did you see him write them? How do you know what he wrote was not altered..... you don't know... you hope he wrote it....Is Paul in error? Yes, he said it.... we see through a glass darkly, which means to me, he himself realized he could be wrong... too bad you don't believe him....

Therefore we have LOTS that you say you do not support, but we have ZERO explanations of why they are wrong, using the Bible as a reference. Your offerings are all in the negative, and nothing in the positive. That is why I believe that you may be Arian, and it is what the JWs believe.

Some here may not realize that Arianism was declared a heresy in 325 at Nycea, and if indeed you are, then we are dealing with someone here who is a poser.

If you are NOT a poser, then please supply a valid reason why it is wrong to use the Bible to frame our beliefs.

Do labels make you feel better, give you a sense of who you are speaking with? Sorry to disappoint but I am neither arian or JW, neither am I a poser, though you may think of me whatever you wish... my point is simple, there are various theories of atonement, none of them may be correct because no one has interviewed God to ask him how exactly He has reconciled man to himself..... Now why all the bluster? Because I am not accepting all the theobabble that man has utilized in an attempt to describe the Creator and how he loves humans? Sorry JohnT, I appreciate your sharing your views, some I may agree with, most I probably won't.... I am okay with that, though you may not be..... still getting a chuckle at you calling me a poser.... that's a new one.... Now maybe after we are done with the PSA theory we can go to another theory and dissect it.. this thread is about that theory and I am under no obligation to offer an alternative theory, but at some point I can start a thread with my ideas of atonement, but I suspect you won't like it, nor agree with it.... I never said that it is wrong to use the bible to frame what you believe in, what I said was I don't do it necessarily....

 

[StormyOne]

These are the some of the same things I have asked and got nothing but scorn...I hope you make out better than I.

AT

tsk tsk.....your questions were answered, several times...

 

[JohnT]

Stormy,

Your usage of the Bible reminds me of an old Chinese menu. You take some from column A, and some other from column B.

There is no consistency in your approach; it is pure whimsy. You have absolute no hermeneutical principle through you develop a point of view. You reject this ancient, but not that one.

You "like" this Scripture, but not that. For no valid reason you dismiss Pauline authorship and authority and capriciously believe whatever else you want, even non-Christian sources, as well-attested in your sig lines. BTW what on earth is that clay quote about or from?

Therefore it is impossible to rationally discuss Christian theology with you. You CLAIM to be a Christian, but from your pick and choose usage of the Bible, plus your assimilation of beliefs from non-Christian sources, cause me to wonder, and while you claim to not be a poser, your eclecticism in choice of beliefs, and source material cause me to question the validity of your claim.

 

[StormyOne]

Stormy,

Your usage of the Bible reminds me of an old Chinese menu. You take some from column A, and some other from column B.

There is no consistency in your approach; it is pure whimsy. You have absolute no hermeneutical principle through you develop a point of view. You reject this ancient, but not that one.

You "like" this Scripture, but not that. For no valid reason you dismiss Pauline authorship and authority and capriciously believe whatever else you want, even non-Christian sources, as well-attested in your sig lines. BTW what on earth is that clay quote about or from?

Therefore it is impossible to rationally discuss Christian theology with you. You CLAIM to be a Christian, but from your pick and choose usage of the Bible, plus your assimilation of beliefs from non-Christian sources, cause me to wonder, and while you claim to not be a poser, your eclecticism in choice of beliefs, and source material cause me to question the validity of your claim.

I think you said this the last time I told you that I did not believe that the bible was infallible... of course you too pick and choose what you wish to endorse from the bible, but its cool.... I don't think I've been irrational, I just have refused to accept your sources as authoritative, which can be disconcerting I am sure.... My eclecticism means I am human, and I do not believe that "truth" is located in just one place, but can be found almost anywhere if we really look.... I am more than just an -ism or -ity, and refuse to be limited by such.... but as I said, the dialog has been rewarding....

2 dimensional thinking in a multidimensional reality.... isn't that apparent? If you believe in God and believe he is everywhere, then there has to be more than the dimensions we see... throw in the concept of angels, demons and the like who you don't see, yet they exist somewhere, clearly we exist in a multidimensional reality.... but some can only think in 2 dimensions unfortunately...

 

[JohnT]

I think you said this the last time I told you that I did not believe that the bible was infallible... of course you too pick and choose what you wish to endorse from the bible, but its cool.... I don't think I've been irrational, I just have refused to accept your sources as authoritative, which can be disconcerting I am sure.... My eclecticism means I am human, and I do not believe that "truth" is located in just one place, but can be found almost anywhere if we really look.... I am more than just an -ism or -ity, and refuse to be limited by such.... but as I said, the dialog has been rewarding.......

THIS IS THE FOURTH TIME I AM ASKING

What EXACTLY are your sources of authority, if not the Bible?
On what basis do you place your trust in these sources?

So far, all we have heard is your negative theology, "I do not believe..." and "I do not accept...." but you have not made a positive theology. What DO you believe?

As to your stating that you are a Christian, your failure to embrace the historically accepted creeds, the doctrine of the trinity, and others gives me reason to doubt that.

Your insistence on the wrong date of Anselm, and knocking his other, major contributions and dissing the 95 thesis because they "are not relevant now" does prove that you are writing from a historical vacuum, and you prefer your eclecticism over rational, systemic theology.

Several questions:

1) What do you believe about the Trinity?

2) What do you believe about Jesus?

3) Is Jesus the true Son of God, come in the flesh?

4) Did Jesus rise from the dead?

Please state them in a positive form, citing wherever sources of your own authority you desire.

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

Several questions:

1) What do you believe about the Trinity?

2) What do you believe about Jesus?


Please state them in a positive form, citing wherever sources of your own authority you desire.

Well at least the first two would be easy, since the only authority to the question what do you believe is the "you" being asked the question. But then why the change in subject why don't you explain to us how sin is transferred, I would really like to hear your explaination. Was guilt for sin transferred. well if that was the case and the one who did not commit sin feels guilt for the sin isn't that a legal fiction? Was the attitude of the sinner transferred? how could that be as the people living still have that attitude. If they still have the sin attitude how could it have been transferred. I am dying to hear your answer.

 

[StormyOne]

THIS IS THE FOURTH TIME I AM ASKING

What EXACTLY are your sources of authority, if not the Bible?
On what basis do you place your trust in these sources?

The Creator that the bible speaks of.... I trust him because of my experience with him.... Once again, I do NOT believe that God wrote the bible, nor do I believe the bible is infallible...

So far, all we have heard is your negative theology, "I do not believe..." and "I do not accept...." but you have not made a positive theology. What DO you believe?

I have already told you what I believe.... once again, In the beginning God created, everything else is commentary....

As to your stating that you are a Christian, your failure to embrace the historically accepted creeds, the doctrine of the trinity, and others gives me reason to doubt that.

Funny I thought to be a christian one need only to embrace Christ... now are you also doing that Jesus + something = christian? Sounds like you are....

Your insistence on the wrong date of Anselm, and knocking his other, major contributions and dissing the 95 thesis because they "are not relevant now" does prove that you are writing from a historical vacuum, and you prefer your eclecticism over rational, systemic theology.

My insistence? I stated once that Anselm put forth his theory in the 16th century, you indicated it was earlier and I have no problem with that, so your issue is what? I prefer eclecticism over what you think I should adhere to yes... When it boils down to it, theology is not a science, thus it remains open to interpretation. Last time I checked there was alot of disagreement in many areas of theology from the most basic to some very complex issues, so please don't pretend like theology is rational or systematic... that is a smoke screen.... while you may choose to believe it, I do not...

Several questions:

1) What do you believe about the Trinity? One God, multiple manifestations... I have said this more than once... burning bush, pillar of fire, cloud by day, spirit moving over the water, Angel visiting Abraham, etc...

2) What do you believe about Jesus? Jesus God, life and death rescued humankind.

3) Is Jesus the true Son of God, come in the flesh? Answered this already

4) Did Jesus rise from the dead? Jesus being God cannot die nor be killed.

Please state them in a positive form, citing wherever sources of your own authority you desire.

Since you asked me the questions you cannot tell me how I should answer them.... likewise since it is what I believe I don't need a source to tell me or confirm for me what I believe, but if you insist, God gave me a brain to contemplate him, I have, and at present the above is what I believe..... could change next week depending on what it is I am thinking about....

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

Your insistence on the wrong date of Anselm

By the way Anselm is the Satisfaction theory, not the Penal theory, it was a precursor to the Penal Theory.

 

[StormyOne]

By the way Anselm is the Satisfaction theory, not the Penal theory, it was a precursor to the Penal Theory.

be careful RC you might be called a poser and a non-christian also....

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

Yes but I think if I recall correctly both AT and Johnt have already called me the non-Christian part.

 

[Adventtruth]

Yes but I think if I recall correctly both AT and Johnt have already called me the non-Christian part.

Well if I did, I apologise. At lease you seem to have a biblical world view, tho we disagree on many issues.

AT

 

[JohnT]

Stormy,

Thank you for your evasions.

1) What do you believe about the Trinity? One God, multiple manifestations... I have said this more than once... burning bush, pillar of fire, cloud by day, spirit moving over the water, Angel visiting Abraham, etc...

2) What do you believe about Jesus? Jesus God, life and death rescued humankind.

The Creator that the bible speaks of.... I trust him because of my experience with him.... Once again, I do NOT believe that God wrote the bible, nor do I believe the bible is infallible...
=========================================================================================

Since the bible (notice the lower case) speaks of "the Creator" –as you call it, but you do not believe that "the Creator" wrote the bible, neither fallibly nor infallibly, you are ultimately left with no authority other than your own coco, and it is a hodge podge of eclecticism, having no inherent authority other than "your EXPERIENCE with him". Also it is neither consistent nor systematic.

That sort of "theology" is about as sane as me pulling a head of cabbage from my garden, and calling it "the Creator" who wrote "the bible, neither errantly nor inerrantly"

Wow! Then what are you doing on this SDA board? I believe that one set of rules here is to believe something about SDAs. I was invited here, by another. Since you fail to believe either anything common with neither the SDAs nor mainstream Christianity, I submit, that using the evidences that you provided, that you may be a poser.

Therefore, I ask again, what are you doing on the SDA board?

 

[StormyOne]

Stormy,

Thank you for your evasions.

1) What do you believe about the Trinity? One God, multiple manifestations... I have said this more than once... burning bush, pillar of fire, cloud by day, spirit moving over the water, Angel visiting Abraham, etc...

2) What do you believe about Jesus? Jesus God, life and death rescued humankind.

The Creator that the bible speaks of.... I trust him because of my experience with him.... Once again, I do NOT believe that God wrote the bible, nor do I believe the bible is infallible...
=========================================================================================

Since the bible (notice the lower case) speaks of "the Creator" –as you call it, but you do not believe that "the Creator" wrote the bible, neither fallibly nor infallibly, you are ultimately left with no authority other than your own coco, and it is a hodge podge of eclecticism, having no inherent authority other than "your EXPERIENCE with him". Also it is neither consistent nor systematic.

That sort of "theology" is about as sane as me pulling a head of cabbage from my garden, and calling it "the Creator" who wrote "the bible, neither errantly nor inerrantly"

Wow! Then what are you doing on this SDA board? I believe that one set of rules here is to believe something about SDAs. I was invited here, by another. Since you fail to believe either anything common with neither the SDAs nor mainstream Christianity, I submit, that using the evidences that you provided, that you may be a poser.

Therefore, I ask again, what are you doing on the SDA board?

Thank you for calling me insane, I have been called worse... Just because you are unable to wrap your brain around the answers I've provided is not completely my fault though I will admit it is apparent that I do not have the words to help you understand at this moment.... It is funny though because from your responses you would think that the bible was given to Adam and Eve, though it was not.... generations of bible lived and died without ever reading anything from a bible yet were able to have relationship with The Creator, I wonder how that was possible...

Just because you my friend are comfortable in the box you are in does not mean we all must get in the same box with you.... as for your questioning whether or not I am sda or a christian, thanks again for the chuckle....I am both, maybe not the type you are accustomed to, so perhaps its been a learning experience for you....One last time, if it makes you feel better about yourself to think that I am a poser, then by all means, however I think I've been around CF a little longer than you (last count over 4k posts) and posers generally don't stick around after they create chaos..... again thanks for the dialog, have a good day.....

 

[StormyOne]

Yes but I think if I recall correctly both AT and Johnt have already called me the non-Christian part.

then I consider myself in good company.... have you been called a "poser" too? that one cracks me up....

 

[sentipente]

Since the bible (notice the lower case) speaks of "the Creator" –as you call it, but you do not believe that "the Creator" wrote the bible, neither fallibly nor infallibly, you are ultimately left with no authority other than your own coco, and it is a hodge podge of eclecticism, having no inherent authority other than "your EXPERIENCE with him". Also it is neither consistent nor systematic.

I am having difficulty finding the logic in your comments. Are you suggesting that the Creator must have written the Bible for the Bible to exist? What does the existence of the Bible have to do with authority? Are you suggesting that no personal authority existed before the Bible was written?

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

Wow! Then what are you doing on this SDA board? I believe that one set of rules here is to believe something about SDAs. I was invited here, by another. Since you fail to believe either anything common with neither the SDAs nor mainstream Christianity, I submit, that using the evidences that you provided, that you may be a poser.

Therefore, I ask again, what are you doing on the SDA board?

That is funny. Stormy a member of the SDA church is called a poser (couched in the words "you may be a poser" ) by someone who is not an SDA and who appears on this forum because someone invited him, that someone probably also not an SDA. And all this passes for a logical argument to JohnT? No wonder he has difficulty with the more complex theological ideas.

 

[StormyOne]

That is funny. Stormy a member of the SDA church is called a poser (couched in the words "you may be a poser" ) by someone who is not an SDA and who appears on this forum because someone invited him, that someone probably also not an SDA. And all this passes for a logical argument to JohnT? No wonder he has difficulty with the more complex theological ideas.

summed up nicely......