D
Dr. Huk-N-Duck
Guest
I could only justify spending eight hours a day on a forum if I was paralyzed and couldn’t get out of bed. Wow!
We need a good topic to fight over.
- Thread starter Bob Jones V
- Start date
Jon the Apostate is the Wormtongue to the legacy admins' Theoden.
Penal Substitutionary Atonement... POW! Talk about a $50 (with membership discount) theological term!
It seems these reformation and later theologians are just hell bent on framing simple doctrine in sophisticated highly educated sounding verbage. I guess it makes them feel important to be able to use such big words.
I guess 1 Peter 3:18 needed enhancement because its simplicity just wasn't doing the job.
It seems these reformation and later theologians are just hell bent on framing simple doctrine in sophisticated highly educated sounding verbage. I guess it makes them feel important to be able to use such big words.
I guess 1 Peter 3:18 needed enhancement because its simplicity just wasn't doing the job.
There are those who deny that Christ died "in our place."
Then what was the point of Calvary?
Frankly, I wouldn't even bother to dialogue with these folks until they can reconcile their stand with verses like 1 Peter 3:18. I have more important things to do.
He says Christ died, but not as payment for our sins. He says that Christ did not take the wrath of God as our punishment. He twists everything. I finally ignored him. He tried to turn every thread into an anti-Penal Substitution thread.
He holds to the Ransom Theory, from Anselm in the early church and says we believe in a new system. Well, it's from Luther and Calvin, pretty reliable guys.
I fail to see how someone can deny Christ paid for our sins then turn around and say He paid our ransom. To me, it's to-may-to vs to-mah-to. The Scriptures are very clear (whether or not Luther or Calvin agree) that Christ paid our debt. I believe that in a couple instances the term ransom is used in scripture though I'm at a loss to remember where right now. Either way, both terms describe the same transaction.
If someone is going to split hairs this way, I highly doubt coining a high faulting term is going to convert the naysayers.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2012
- Messages
- 11,609
- Reaction score
- 2,548
- Points
- 113
- Location
- Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Because the simple language gets co-opted by deceptive people, so it's necessary to use language that is more precise and less susceptible to dishonest redefinition.
For example, it wasn't enough for Norman Geisler to refute Calvinism in Chosen but Free. He had to take garden-variety evangelical free-willyism and repackage it as "moderate Calvinism," even though it was no kind of Calvinism at all.
Anyway, "penal substitutionary atonement" isn't all that sophisticated:
penal - To pay the penalty for our sins,
substitutionary - Christ died instead of us,
atonement - reconciling us with the Father and appeasing his wrath.
Luther and Calvin held no such view.
….obtusity at its finest.
Calvin held to penal substitution. From his commentary on Galatians:
It is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree. Now, Christ hung upon the cross, therefore he fell under that curse. But it is certain that he did not suffer that punishment on his own account. It follows, therefore, either that he was crucified in vain, or that our curse was laid upon him, in order that we might be delivered from it. Now, he does not say that Christ was cursed, but, which is still more, that he was a curse, — intimating, that the curse “of all men 59 was laid upon him” (Isaiah 53:6.) If any man think this language harsh, let him be ashamed of the cross of Christ, in the confession of which we glory. It was not unknown to God what death his own Son would die, when he pronounced the law, “He that is hanged is accursed of God.” (Deuteronomy 21:23.)
But how does it happen, it will be asked, that a beloved Son is cursed by his Father? We reply, there are two things which must be considered, not only in the person of Christ, but even in his human nature. The one is, that he was the unspotted Lamb of God, full of blessing and of grace; the other is, that he placed himself in our room, and thus became a sinner, and subject to the curse, not in himself indeed, but in us, yet in such a manner, that it became necessary for him to occupy our place. He could not cease to be the object of his Father’s love, and yet he endured his wrath. For how could he reconcile the Father to us, if he had incurred his hatred and displeasure? We conclude, that he “did always those things that pleased” (John 8:29) his Father. Again, how would he have freed us from the wrath of God, if he had not transferred it from us to himself? Thus, “he was wounded for our transgressions,” (Isaiah 53:5,) and had to deal with God as an angry judge. This is the foolishness of the cross, (1 Corinthians 1:18,) and the admiration of angels, (1 Peter 1:12,) which not only exceeds, but swallows up, all the wisdom of the world.
As did Luther. From his commentary on Galatians:
Jerome and his present-day followers rack their miserable brains over this comforting passage in an effort to save Christ from the fancied insult of being called a curse. They say: "This quotation from Moses does not apply to Christ. Paul is taking liberties with Moses by generalizing the statements in Deuteronomy 21:23. Moses has 'he that is hanged.' Paul puts it 'every one that hangeth.' On the other hand, Paul omits the words 'of God' in his quotation from Moses: 'For he that is hanged is accursed of God.' Moses speaks of a criminal who is worthy of death." "How," our opponents ask, "can this passage be applied to the holy Christ as if He were accursed of God and worthy to be hanged?" This piece of exegesis may impress the naive as a zealous attempt to defend the honor and glory of Christ. Let us see what Paul has in mind.
Paul does not say that Christ was made a curse for Himself. The accent is on the two words "for us." Christ is personally innocent. Personally, He did not deserve to be hanged for any crime of His own doing. But because Christ took the place of others who were sinners, He was hanged like any other transgressor. The Law of Moses leaves no loopholes. It says that a transgressor should be hanged. Who are the other sinners? We are. The sentence of death and everlasting damnation had long been pronounced over us. But Christ took all our sins and died for them on the Cross. "He was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors." (Isaiah 53:12.)
All the prophets of old said that Christ should be the greatest transgressor, murderer, adulterer, thief, blasphemer that ever was or ever could be on earth. When He took the sins of the whole world upon Himself, Christ was no longer an innocent person. He was a sinner burdened with the sins of a Paul who was a blasphemer; burdened with the sins of a Peter who denied Christ; burdened with the sins of a David who committed adultery and murder, and gave the heathen occasion to laugh at the Lord. In short, Christ was charged with the sins of all men, that He should pay for them with His own blood. The curse struck Him. The Law found Him among sinners. He was not only in the company of sinners. He had gone so far as to invest Himself with the flesh and blood of sinners. So the Law judged and hanged Him for a sinner.
The cosmology of both Calvin and Luther was geocentric.
So much for things that might even be remotely interesting.
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2017
- Messages
- 4,678
- Reaction score
- 1,813
- Points
- 113
That place is heavy handed when it comes to being moderated. I visit there as little as possible now.
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2017
- Messages
- 4,678
- Reaction score
- 1,813
- Points
- 113
Sadly my friend, this is true. The worst part is that many them are the kawl-eeeedge-Eddd-jjjjjj ed-geeee-kaaaa-tedddd seminarians who think their theology don't stink!
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2012
- Messages
- 9,591
- Reaction score
- 3,188
- Points
- 113