You agree means essentially reconciliation but disagree that atonement means reconciliation?
JonC's view of Substitution in the Atonement
Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by JonC, Jun 24, 2022.
Page 5 of 9
-
Martin Marprelate Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
-
Martin Marprelate Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
Reconciliation is a biblical word. Atonement is not. Atonement literally means reconciliation.
You add to this by saying reconciliation (atonement) was achieved by Christ satisfying the outraged justice of God but that is not in the Bible (you understand that, right?).
You have a theory about how our reconciliation was accomplished (how atonement was accomplished) and you allow your theory to dictate every aspect of your faith.
Why on earth do you believe our reconciliation is based in God satisfying God's justice? Why do you believe God's justice demands sins be punished in order to be forgiven?
See? You redefine words. You redefine reconciliation to be something brought on by our being made "at one" or in unity with God. You redefine forgiveness to mean punishment.
In fact, your theory is so far from the Christian faith handed to us, so far from Scripture, it is a miracle you are saved rather than damned because of it. But I am glad miracles occur (I was also saved believing your theory as well). People like us were saved not because of these theories but despite them. It just goes to show salvation is a work of God and not man.
But there comes a point when we really should lay aside these fables fit for old women, these myths and mythologies, and simply trust in God's Word. That's what I'd love for you, to see you grow in the Spirit and not be carried away by vain philosophies. -
-
-
Perhaps you would do well to learn about Baptist (beyond your tradition) and Christianity as a whole. You may never change your views, but I think you may find Christian History an interesting topic. -
-
Martin Marprelate Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
In the NT, the Greek word katallage is wrongly translated 'atonement' in the KJV of Romans 5:11. The modern translations, including the NKJV, correct the error. The NIV translates hilasmos and hilasterion as 'atoning sacrifice' though I think that 'propitiation'. (NKJV, ESV) is better, though the meaning is very similar. I do not see therefore how you can say that 'atonement' is not a Biblical word, or how you can say that the theological meaning of 'atonement' is 'reconciliation.' It isn't.
John Piper wrote the foreword to Pierced for our Transgressions; Don Carson, Dale Ralph Davis, R. Kent Hughes, Mark Dever and many others wrote commendations for it. You need to stop being silly and emotional. -
Martin Marprelate Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
-
-
-
-
A more fair comparison of my view would be Irenaeus or traditional Anabaptist Theology. The reason is the NPP, as expressed by NT Wright, is a Reformed doctrine. And the Greek Orthodox takes a more mystical approach. I hold closer to Ontological Substitution. -
Martin Marprelate Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
The problem with the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement is that it cannot be verified with the text of Scripture. The best you can do is text what you believe Scripture teaches against what you believe is taught by Scripture. In other words, you have absolutely no test for your doctrine. -
Martin Marprelate Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
The Theological and Biblical Basis of Penal Substitution
I am aware that not too many people read long posts, so I can divide it up into crunchy, bite-sized morsels if people prefer. -
You keep on posting passages that we agree on, claiming those passages as proof. The problem is you never prove the basis for interpreting those passages (which you interpret to be more than they actually say).
You do this with the ECF's as well. You can't find Penal Substitution Theory so you say it is there "in embryo" (to quote you). BUT the fact is, it is NOT there. You see "his flesh for our flesh, his life for our life" and say "There! That's Penal Substitution!" When we all believe it is his flesh for our flesh and his life for our life.
Page 5 of 9