Penal Substitution

[RanRan]

The picture PS paints is that of a courtroom, where you have one innocent man and one guilty man, the innocent being punished and the guilty going free. This is the direct opposite of justice.

The Gospel says that Christ fulfilled the law - justice was met, not ignored. In Him was the fulfillment of the Law's punishment as well. The direct opposite of justice is punishing men for the same sins Christ bore. The Gospel says that God is not counting men's sins against them. How could He, when Christ bore those same sins away? Christ was the ransom for all.

From what you write, I don't think you believe that - your problem, then, isn't PS, it's not believing the Gospel. You have created an 'atonement' to fit that unbelief.

God is not counting men's sins against them. Before the cross and Christ's fulfillment of the Law, including its penalty, the situation was quite different. Men died and stayed dead in their sins - actually, held captive by death. Everyone was placed under disobedience. Everyone - so death and its captivity was universal. Nothing could get them out but a ransom, a redemption which Christ brought.

[wonders4oyarsa]

From what you write, I don't think you believe that - your problem, then, isn't PS, it's not believing the Gospel. You have created an 'atonement' to fit that unbelief.

RanRan - you are still not reading my posts - you are skimming them for a quote like that that you can jump on and condemn me for "not believing the gospel." Unless this changes, conversation is a fruitless exercise.

[RanRan]

RanRan - you are still not reading my posts - you are skimming them for a quote like that that you can jump on and condemn me for "not believing the gospel." Unless this changes, conversation is a fruitless exercise.

Hold on. Do you believe that God is not counting men's sins against them? Your answer will determine the sort of atonement you are forced to hold along with any asterisks, exclusions, etc.

It's a chicken and egg thingie.

You haven't responded to the double-jeopardy question I raised. Gee, it's like you're not reading my posts....

[wonders4oyarsa]

RanRan - yes, I believe that God is not counting man's sins against him in Christ. Why on earth would you think I believed otherwise?

[RanRan]

RanRan - yes, I believe that God is not counting man's sins against him in Christ. Why on earth would you think I believed otherwise?

'in Christ' is an asterisk you added.

What's forcing you to do that? Your theory of atonement?

PS says rather straightforwardly and in agreement with the Gospel that God is not counting men's sins against them, because Christ paid a ransom for those SAME sins.

And your theory of atonement says......?

[TheAnalogman]

1. Your posts have stated that there is no Gospel without PS.
2. It is a historical fact that PS was not fully developed until the Reformers, and only suggested by Anselm and then later Aquinas, so we're looking at least 1000 years after the NT books were written.
3. Therefore, there was no Gospel before Anselm, Aquinas, the Reformers, etc.
4. So actually the Gospel that includes PS is a different Gospel than the one taught by Paul.

Or, maybe you should stop equating your universalist understanding of particular verses/doctrines with the Gospel.

[RanRan]

1. Your posts have stated that there is no Gospel without PS.

.

What I stated was that one's gospel will invariably define one's theory of atonement. Not the other way around - no matter what the evidence. My tongue-in-cheek description of 20th century 'theology' as "God hates your guts until you believe He doesn't' is the 'gospel' driving an equally bizarre theory of atonement for many. A rational man would not take either seriously.

'Christ was the ransom for all.' Read that and weep for your atonement. Does that cause you to weep and become angry at God's mercy? It does for many. Measure that mercy and it will define your measure of judgment.

Hypocrite.

[TheAnalogman]

1. Your posts have stated that there is no Gospel without PS.
2. It is a historical fact that PS was not fully developed until the Reformers, and only suggested by Anselm and then later Aquinas, so we're looking at least 1000 years after the NT books were written.
3. Therefore, there was no Gospel before Anselm, Aquinas, the Reformers, etc.
4. So actually the Gospel that includes PS is a different Gospel than the one taught by Paul.

Or, maybe you should stop equating your universalist understanding of particular verses/doctrines with the Gospel. Yesterday 06:13 PM

What I stated was that one's gospel will invariably define one's theory of atonement. Not the other way around - no matter what the evidence. My tongue-in-cheek description of 20th century 'theology' as "God hates your guts until you believe He doesn't' is the 'gospel' driving an equally bizarre theory of atonement for many. A rational man would not take either seriously.
'Christ was the ransom for all.' Read that and weep for your atonement. Does that cause you to weep and become angry at God's mercy? It does for many. Measure that mercy and it will define your measure of judgment.
Hypocrite.

RanRan, In this thread alone we find your statements:

Post #14. "Propitiation is the heart of the Gospel, i.e. penal substitution. If PE is removed, there is no Gospel, all that's left is men inserting themselves into the atonement of God, which is 'religion' at its worst."

Post #78. "Is it essentially a penal substitution? I think any other explanation is either magic or the insertion of egos into the actual unilateral atonement. i.e. The redemption of oneself. But faith does not propitiate God."

Hypocrite?

[RanRan]

RanRan, In this thread alone we find your statements:

Post #14. "Propitiation is the heart of the Gospel, i.e. penal substitution. If PE is removed, there is no Gospel, all that's left is men inserting themselves into the atonement of God, which is 'religion' at its worst."

Post #78. "Is it essentially a penal substitution? I think any other explanation is either magic or the insertion of egos into the actual unilateral atonement. i.e. The redemption of oneself. But faith does not propitiate God."

Hypocrite?

No. I stand by the statements I have made. You must prove that you are involved in the atonement of God. Only then will you have my attention. Proven that, I will build a shrine to you. Prove that you had a hand in your redemption.

[Whipartist]

No. I stand by the statements I have made. You must prove that you are involved in the atonement of God. Only then will you have my attention. Proven that, I will build a shrine to you. Prove that you had a hand in your redemption.

How about Galations 2:20. "I have been crucified with Christ...."

[Anoetos]

That passage refers to the identity of believers in Christ and their imperviousness to the Law because they are dead to the Law (see v. 19) not to any share in the atonement.

[Tercel]

Prove that you had a hand in your redemption.

Actually, good point. That's one of many reasons I think PS is unbiblical. The NT clearly sees Christ's death as something that can be imitated and shared in by us.

I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ's afflictions (Col 1:24)

Apparently the effectiveness of Christ's death can be furthered by other human suffering, and Christ's sufferings are not complete having not fully accomplished their aim: This seems to contradict the idea of the finished work of Christ - Paul could add to Christ's work..

Jesus certainly seems to have thought humans could share in his sufferings and death, experiencing the same things he did.

Jesus said "Can you drink the cup I drink or be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with?" "We can," they answered. Jesus said to them, "You will drink the cup I drink and be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with (Mk 10:38-39)

That seems rather problematic to the idea that he experienced unique sufferings that no other man could.

In fact the idea of us sharing Christ's sufferings appears a few times in Paul's writings:

co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we co-suffer with him in order that we may be co-glorified with him. (Rom 8:17)
I have been co-crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me (Gal 2:20)
the sufferings of Christ flow over into our lives (2 Cor 1:5-7)
We are hard pressed on every side, but not crushed; perplexed, but not in despair; persecuted, but not abandoned; struck down, but not destroyed. We always carry around in our body the death of Jesus, (2 Cor 4:8-10)

[wonders4oyarsa]

Now, let's be careful not to overstate the point. Jesus did in fact accomplish something one-of-a-kind and unrepeatable. However, what we CAN do is participate in that unique accomplishment, and work out its implications and effects in our world.

[Turgonian]

I have a question for Whipartist and like-minded posters.

You place emphasis on what is usually referred to as 'sanctification', which you see as an essential part of salvation. We are not saved merely because we are legally justified, but because Jesus by virtue of His cross changes us into people who obey God's law -- into righteous persons.

But what happens to assurance? It's a criticism levelled against Catholics, and I think it applies here as well. How do you know when you are moral 'enough'? How do you know when you are on the way to salvation and when you aren't? After all, nobody is perfect, and we often feel a lot less perfect than most (at least I do).

[Nang]

The NT clearly sees Christ's death as something that can be imitated and shared in by us.

This is not true.

This is the very opposite of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

He vicariously did for His people, what they never willed to do, nor could have done, for themselves.

Nang