Socinianism

[JonC]

To be clear then. You are saying that it is necessary that God punish sin? Does that mean that the sin that those of us who do repent and ask God for forgiveness does indeed still need to be punished by necessity?

No. I am saying that God is just and will accomplish His righteousness.

Why do you believe it is necessary for God to punish sin?

What if God was able to accomplish the same righteousness apart from the law (fulfilling the law without contradicting the law)?

 

[JonC]

Now before you fire back an answer, I do believe if I'm not mistaken that Socinus argued that God could forgive outright without the necessity to punish sin and if he did punish the sin then there was no need to repent anyway. And then he went into the familiar arguments of how can an innocent one be punished for the deeds of one guilty anyway and all that's involved with that line of argumentation, with the idea that such a substitution would be monstrous and so on.

1. Many before Socinus argued thst God could forgive sins (without the necessity of punishing sins). This was how "forgiveness" had been viewed long before Socinus.

2. Socinus was wrong that punishment negates repentance. This is not what was expressed before Socinus.

3. Socinus was repeating old arguments (quoting Scripture concerning justice) with the argument it is oppression rather than justice to punish the innocent. It would, by God's own words, make God an abomination.

But that argument did not originated with Socinus.



This sounds like your belief:

"The moral or spiritual penalty that stands as a barrier between the condemned soul and the righteous judge could not be waived; justice demanded its satisfaction." (James E. Talmage, Jesus the Christ, Chapter 4)

"He died! The Great Redeemer died! / Our willing sacrifice He made; / The debt of justice He has paid." (Hymns of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, No. 199)

Do you believe that Mormon doctrine is correct?

 

[JonC]

Who are you referring to that declared penal substitution heresy before Socinus? He wrote the book at around 1600. It was a direct response to the earliest writings on penal substitution that were consciously identifying it by name.

Your dates are wrong.

The Penal Substitution Theory was developed closer to 1550. Calvin died in 1564.

Socinianism was only a few decades later (before 1600).

 

[DaveXR650]

It seems that you have been influenced by Mormonism (your attack against Christus Victor is the Mormon position).

If you are having issues we can discuss this later. I started out if I remember, by pointing out that I believe Christus Victor as did Owen, just not as THE only atonement model one can use after you accused me of denigrating it. You countered by trying to say that Christus Victor had to be tied to a ransom paid to Satan, which in post 17 you seemed to reverse. The only way I could have been influenced by Mormonism is if the Glen Beck radio show is sending out subliminal messages.

"The moral or spiritual penalty that stands as a barrier between the condemned soul and the righteous judge could not be waived; justice demanded its satisfaction." (James E. Talmage, Jesus the Christ, Chapter 4)

"He died! The Great Redeemer died! / Our willing sacrifice He made; / The debt of justice He has paid." (Hymns of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, No. 199)

Although I am not familiar with those songs I see nothing wrong with the lines you put up. The problem with Mormonism is that they have an erroneous view of who exactly Jesus is. They do however, have an unstable and apparently developing active theology in practice - so much so that there have been articles on the Gospel Coalition site I think debating as to whether they can be considered fellow believers. I don't see how they could be though unless many of them don't really believe their own teachings, which is possible.

So, getting back to Socinus, your thread, he said this: " It is ridiculous and wicked to claim that the sins of others could be imputed to an innocent person." Does that have anything to do with your constant claim regarding God never punishes the innocent or acquits the wicked? You say something like that every thread. If that is not what you mean, in other words, the same as what Socinus said, then just clear this up now.

 

[JonC]

If you are having issues we can discuss this later. I started out if I remember, by pointing out that I believe Christus Victor as did Owen, just not as THE only atonement model one can use after you accused me of denigrating it.

They go together (you made it that way).

1. What you are talking about are aspects of Christis Victor, not the position itself.

I believe Christ bore our sins, the Just for the unjust. Per your logic I hold PSA even though I reject that Christ was a penal substitute.

But I agree all theories have aspects that are true. This is because we have the same Scriptures.


2. You seem to be using Mormon doctrine (almost word for word).

Mormon doctrine considers Jesus as having paid the debt justice demands. You use the same words.

Mormon doctrine views man as facing a penalty which has to be satisfied in order that justice be met. Again, you use the same words.


I am just trying to figure out why your belief here seems to match Mormonism so closely. You use their terms, verbatim.

 

[DaveXR650]

Your claim above is not that nasty (it is "another gospel", but I believe those who center their faith on the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement are probably lost and will hear "I never knew you". So I do not mind you expressing your opinion as well.).

The above is from your in post 148 in the thread now closed on propitiation. I never got to respond because you closed the thread before I could. I just wanted to say I think it says a lot when the only active moderator on a Baptist site has this as his position on PSA. One reason I bring this up is to remind others who read it to keep this kind of stuff in mind when you go on these wild posts of accusations. You have a distinct and very real animosity toward PSA which is the main position of Free Will Baptists, Wesleyans, Calvinists, Traditional Baptists and though debatable, when you talk to most Roman Catholic laymen, they agree with it also. So you just about think everyone on this board is lost, according to that post. If you would care to address that when you address post 24 about Socinus, I would appreciate the clarification.

Prior to becoming a Baptist were you Mormon? If so, perhaps that explains their doctrine in your words.

No, but I don't mind at all if you point out similarities with Mormons, if there are indeed any. Why would that be a problem? I watched their Christmas special with the Mormon Tabernacle Choir last year too so I guess you must be right. I share a lot of doctrines with Roman Catholicism, and like I said earlier I do like Menno Simons and although I would disagree with him on many of his views consider Mennonites and Anabaptists as full Christian brothers. Was there supposed to be a point?

 

[JonC]

No, but I don't mind at all if you point out similarities with Mormons, if there are indeed any. Why would that be a problem? I watched their Christmas special with the Mormon Tabernacle Choir last year too so I guess you must be right. I share a lot of doctrines with Roman Catholicism, and like I said earlier I do like Menno Simons and although I would disagree with him on many of his views consider Mennonites and Anabaptists as full Christian brothers. Was there supposed to be a point?

I am not pointing out similarities. I am asking why you use Mormon doctrine - non-Christian doctrine - verbatim in defense of your faith.

I know you accept some Anabaptists as Christians, but you reject most as being saved (you said to reject PSA, which most Anabaptists do, is to reject Christianity).

The point was me trying to see your influences. You already said it was not Calvin. The obvious conclusion is it is Mormonism.

For me that is problematic as I do not believe Mormonism is a Christian faith.

 

[JonC]

@DaveXR650

If you are done with the insults and aggression (you seem to have calmed down a lot) why not just have an honest discussion?

I really do not care about Mormonism or Socinianism.


You asked a very good question a few posts ago. That should be explored.

1. Why do you believe punishment satisfies the demands of justice (God's righteousness)?

2. What is the goal of this punishment (how does it achieve a righteous or just state)?

 

[DaveXR650]

If you are done with the insults and aggression (you seem to have calmed down a lot) why not just have an honest discussion?

I really do not care about Mormonism or Socinianism.

Sure, but first I am going to answer your previous post on the thread you started with a falsehood about me, mentioned by name. For someone not interested in Socinianism it seems strange you would start a thread on the subject, doesn't it.

I am not pointing out similarities. I am asking why you use Mormon doctrine - non-Christian doctrine - verbatim in defense of your faith.

My guess would be that either these Mormon doctrines predated some of the more radical beliefs they have - before they diverged into what I believe is close to a cult and certainly completely off the rails. Or, it could be that they, as I said earlier, are coming around in some areas, to closer approximate mainstream Christian beliefs. Either way, it doesn't bother me a bit that you point out some similarities. In fact, if the Mormon fellows ever come around again (I think I have been removed from the neighborhood list), I will use those concepts as a point of common ground.

Let's be honest for once. What you really want to know is why I don't react as you did when I connected your beliefs (correctly I might add) to Socinianism. I really don't know how your mind functions. My reasons were that at first, I just picked up on your arguments, which were new to me, and gradually just realized the similarities. I said earlier that my initial opposition to your views was only based on modernist arguments and as Craig points out in his book, it was Socinus who more than anyone else, argued in such a way that it set the stage for the later, modern theology that refutes almost all the traditional Christian doctrines. In fact, I want to challenge your whole premise that all the arguments against penal substitution had been made very effectively by others before Socinus. I so far, have not seen you post anything that would indicate that to be the case. I'm not saying that others didn't have explanations of the atonement that were not penal substitution - just that so far, I don't see anyone from an earlier time who actively refutes penal substitution after being fully aware of it's claims. It is a lot different for Anselm or some early church father, or even Menno Simons to give their views and have it turn out after you get done putting their arguments forth as a refutation of penal substitution, to claim they were refuting it. I have not seen such arguments put forth by them - only guys like you. Which of course is fair and fine as long as you don't then claim that these arguments were what those early men had in mind. We simply do not know what they would have had in mind.

 

[DaveXR650]

I know you accept some Anabaptists as Christians, but you reject most as being saved (you said to reject PSA, which most Anabaptists do, is to reject Christianity).

So yes, I see a big difference in an anabaptist or orthodox Christian who in deciding to write on the atonement with what they know and the scripture they have available came up with something that I think is different than penal substitution; and someone who after believing it for years and teaching it, turns and refutes it while claiming to have a full and complete knowledge of it as well as a knowledge of what it means to those who still hold to it. In the same way I have no problem with someone who is too young or just hasn't thought through the virgin birth to really believe it - while at the same time, if someone who was supposedly a mature Christian, even a teacher of doctrine, who believed at one time in the virgin birth and then decided they didn't - I would view that person as probably apostate, at least in the process of deconstructing their faith, and one who others under their influence should be warned about. I hope that makes it clear what my views are on this situation.

 

[JonC]

So yes, I see a big difference in an anabaptist or orthodox Christian who in deciding to write on the atonement with what they know and the scripture they have available came up with something that I think is different than penal substitution; and someone who after believing it for years and teaching it, turns and refutes it while claiming to have a full and complete knowledge of it as well as a knowledge of what it means to those who still hold to it. In the same way I have no problem with someone who is too young or just hasn't thought through the virgin birth to really believe it - while at the same time, if someone who was supposedly a mature Christian, even a teacher of doctrine, who believed at one time in the virgin birth and then decided they didn't - I would view that person as probably apostate, at least in the process of deconstructing their faith, and one who others under their influence should be warned about. I hope that makes it clear what my views are on this situation.

It helps to clarify. And depending on what you mean by those doctrines, I agree.

You are somewhat of a reductionist. You have defined PSA as "He bore our sins; by His stripes we are healed; the Just for the unjust". To reject those truths is to reject God.

But then we have PSA itself, a view not articulated until the 16th century. To say this understanding cannot be rejected without rejecting Christ is another issue altogether.


I like to read CS Lewis. Lewis was mature in the faith. Lewis was also vocal about rejecting PSA. But Lewis affirmed Christ bore our sins. He simply rejected the philosophy upon which PSA was constructed.


We cannot elevate our philosophies and understandings as if they are God's words. The passages that PSA uses are true. But the philosophy may or may not be true.


This is why I asked a couple of very important questions:

Why do you believe punishment satisfies divine justice?

How does punishment satisfy divine punishment?

What is the purpose of divine punishment?

PSA is dependent on Renaissance humanism (specifically its judicial philosophy). I understand why Calvin used it, even though it ultimately has been dismissed.

But it seems you are assuming the philosophy because it is the basis of PSA. You need to explain your understanding of punishment and justice because you were never a 16th century French law student involved in a Renaissance movement.

I doubt you would view punishment as satisfying divine judgment the same way as when PSA was articulated.

 

[JonC]

Sure, but first I am going to answer your previous post on the thread you started with a falsehood about me, mentioned by name. For someone not interested in Socinianism it seems strange you would start a thread on the subject, doesn't it.

My guess would be that either these Mormon doctrines predated some of the more radical beliefs they have - before they diverged into what I believe is close to a cult and certainly completely off the rails. Or, it could be that they, as I said earlier, are coming around in some areas, to closer approximate mainstream Christian beliefs. Either way, it doesn't bother me a bit that you point out some similarities. In fact, if the Mormon fellows ever come around again (I think I have been removed from the neighborhood list), I will use those concepts as a point of common ground.

Let's be honest for once. What you really want to know is why I don't react as you did when I connected your beliefs (correctly I might add) to Socinianism. I really don't know how your mind functions. My reasons were that at first, I just picked up on your arguments, which were new to me, and gradually just realized the similarities. I said earlier that my initial opposition to your views was only based on modernist arguments and as Craig points out in his book, it was Socinus who more than anyone else, argued in such a way that it set the stage for the later, modern theology that refutes almost all the traditional Christian doctrines. In fact, I want to challenge your whole premise that all the arguments against penal substitution had been made very effectively by others before Socinus. I so far, have not seen you post anything that would indicate that to be the case. I'm not saying that others didn't have explanations of the atonement that were not penal substitution - just that so far, I don't see anyone from an earlier time who actively refutes penal substitution after being fully aware of it's claims. It is a lot different for Anselm or some early church father, or even Menno Simons to give their views and have it turn out after you get done putting their arguments forth as a refutation of penal substitution, to claim they were refuting it. I have not seen such arguments put forth by them - only guys like you. Which of course is fair and fine as long as you don't then claim that these arguments were what those early men had in mind. We simply do not know what they would have had in mind.

Lol... I was using your method to show you the absurdity it.

My arguments are not connected to Socinianism any more than yours are connected to Mormonism. My arguments were made before Socinianism existed. Yours before Mormonism existed.

Therefore I cannot but conclude you are merely trying to insult or dismiss an argument by association. Both are wrong.

BUT it would not matter. If Mormons first made your argument and you got it from them.... and the argument was true...then it does not mean you are influenced by Mormonism. You just saw a true argument.

I was just engaging in the same silliness as an illustration.

 

[DaveXR650]

My arguments are not connected to Socinianism any more than yours are connected to Mormonism. My arguments were made before Socinianism existed. Yours before Mormonism existed.

You put up two snippets from songs that Mormons sing and I put up arguments by Socinus himself, fully and consciously writing in rebuttal to penal substitution and you consider that equivalent? Well, think what you like but don't expect me to put up a new thread trying to explain Mormonism. One, I don't know any more about Mormonism than you know about Socinianism and two, I couldn't care less and in fact am encouraged with any similarity that might exist between Mormonism and real Christianity.

 

[DaveXR650]

What we need to explore is what you mean by your words. If you mean a rejection of God's words is a rejection of God then I agree. If you mean that an acceptance of God's words but a rejection of your understanding of what is really taught by the Bible then no, you would be a false teacher.

No, really we don't. I have repeatedly explained the difference between actively refuting PSA, and independently coming up with something that looks different or arrives at a different emphasis based on the time you lived, the development of theology regarding the divinity of Jesus at the time the stuff is written and the main issues in the lives of those doing the writing.

See post 30 above, which, at this point I take it you are not going to address. It should concern you.

I'm not saying that others didn't have explanations of the atonement that were not penal substitution - just that so far, I don't see anyone from an earlier time who actively refutes penal substitution after being fully aware of it's claims. It is a lot different for Anselm or some early church father, or even Menno Simons to give their views and have it turn out after you get done putting their arguments forth as a refutation of penal substitution, to claim they were refuting it. I have not seen such arguments put forth by them - only guys like you. Which of course is fair and fine as long as you don't then claim that these arguments were what those early men had in mind. We simply do not know what they would have had in mind.

Regarding this from above also, you need to show where the ECF's or even Menno Simons were knowingly refuting PSA or not. I have proven that Socinus was indeed doing so, as you are doing so. I don't accept it as being valid then that you pretend these guys were actually refuting PSA unless you can show it. We can go from there if you do, or else we can be done.

 

[JonC]

You put up two snippets from songs that Mormons sing and I put up arguments by Socinus himself, fully and consciously writing in rebuttal to penal substitution and you consider that equivalent? Well, think what you like but don't expect me to put up a new thread trying to explain Mormonism. One, I don't know any more about Mormonism than you know about Socinianism and two, I couldn't care less and in fact am encouraged with any similarity that might exist between Mormonism and real Christianity.

The thing is we both reject Socinianism and Mormonism. Both are just smoke screens to obscure the issue.

 

[DaveXR650]

To reject the belief that God laid our iniquities on Him, Christ bore our sins bodily, the Just for the unjust, by His stripes we are healed is to reject God.

To reject the belief that God will not punish the Just, will not clear the guilty, will not abandon the Righteous, and will not punish the innocent is to reject God.

In either case the one who professes to be a Christian yet rejects those passages are rejecting the God of the Bible. They have chosen to worship men rather than God and are false teachers. We should hate even their garments. They being a false gospel.

I agree. That is sufficient to be an orthodox Christian and I have never said differently. I have the right though to insist that "God laying our iniquities on Him" and "Christ bore our sins bodily" and the idea it was "the just for the unjust" as being penal substitution. So I guess we're done.
When it comes to salvation itself I'm not sure any knowledge of the atonement is needed at all. I don't think the thief on the cross had any knowledge of what was Jesus purpose in what was happening. "Christ died for your sins according to the scriptures" is sufficient even as a basic knowledge of the faith. That is reductionism and I am in agreement. The things you put up that I have in the quote, the things that you in the quote say are essential, are things Socinus openly opposed.

Since this is a thread where you are going to show us all that Socinus was about you should include that.

So, getting back to Socinus, your thread, he said this: " It is ridiculous and wicked to claim that the sins of others could be imputed to an innocent person." Does that have anything to do with your constant claim regarding God never punishes the innocent or acquits the wicked? You say something like that every thread. If that is not what you mean, in other words, the same as what Socinus said, then just clear this up now.

I take it then that you don't agree with what Socinus said above? If not then good and we are done here.

 

[JonC]

No, really we don't. I have repeatedly explained the difference between actively refuting PSA, and independently coming up with something that looks different or arrives at a different emphasis based on the time you lived, the development of theology regarding the divinity of Jesus at the time the stuff is written and the main issues in the lives of those doing the writing.

See post 30 above, which, at this point I take it you are not going to address. It should concern you.

Regarding this from above also, you need to show where the ECF's or even Menno Simons were knowingly refuting PSA or not. I have proven that Socinus was indeed doing so, as you are doing so. I don't accept it as being valid then that you pretend these guys were actually refuting PSA unless you can show it. We can go from there if you do, or else we can be done.

Obviously those prior to the 16th century did not refute PSA as it was not articulated until that time. The ECF's also did not refute Mormonism or JW doctrine in the way you are seeking. What they did believe by their own statements stood in contrast to PSA (Christ sharing our sin, our infirmity, etc).

Simons used the language of PSA, but rejected the premise. Here are some references -

Menno Simons and the Mennonites | Christian History Institute

Menno Simons.net - Life, complete writings, doctrine, images and links

It goes back to the philosophy of PSA. This is why I asked those questions. You say punishment satisfies divine judgment (God's righteousness) BUT you say we must just accept it because to reject the philosophy calls one's salvation into question.


Why do you believe punishment satisfies divine justice?

How does punishment satisfy divine punishment?

What is the purpose of divine punishment?

 

[JonC]

I take it then that you don't agree with what Socinus said above? If not then good and we are done here.

Yes. Socinus was wrong. I do not find it ridiculous that sins be imputed to another person. Christ bore our sins, shared our humanity, shared our infirmity, came in the likeness of sinful flesh. But He never sinned. That was our sin He shared. And likewise His righteousness is imputed to us.

 

[JonC]

@DaveXR650

To evaluate the idea that punishment satisfies divine judgment we have to look at the concept. I do not understand your reasoning, so I am asking you to clarify your philosophy.


Why do you believe punishment satisfies divine justice?

How does punishment satisfy divine punishment?

What is the purpose of divine punishment?

 

[DaveXR650]

Yes. Socinus was wrong. I do not find it ridiculous that sins be imputed to another person. Christ bore our sins, shared our humanity, shared our infirmity, came in the likeness of sinful flesh. But He never sinned. That was our sin He shared. And likewise His righteousness is imputed to us.

I am relieved to hear that. So when you were saying all those times how objectionable it was to have penal substitution because God does not punish the innocent or acquit the guilty and you were using that argument in a debate about penal substitution which involved an innocent Jesus as the subject of the debate (which we all agree about) well, what were you trying to say if it was not that it was ridiculous that our sins were imputed to another person - namely Jesus?