Socinianism

[JonC]

@DaveXR650 has often equated Christus Victor arguments as being Socinianism. I thought it may be good to take a look at the hetesy.

Socinianism is a non-Trinitarian Christian movement that was started during the Protestant Reformation (the mid 16th century). The theology was developed by Italian theologians Lelio and Fausto Sozzini.

Like John Calvin, Lelio and Fausto Sozzini were Renaissance humanists. They shated a lot in terms of worldviews, which impacted their respective theologies.

Socinianism begain within the Polish Reformed Church (it is a Reformed movement that took root with the Polish Brethern).

So, what is Socinianism (why is it a heresy)?

Socinianism can be summed up in three beliefs that are heresies:

1. Socinianism is a rejection of the pre-existance of Christ.

2. Socinianism is a rejection that death entered the world through Adam's sin.

3. Socinianism rejects divine omniscience in favor of Open Theology.

4. Socinianism is a rejection of Trinitarian doctrine.


Obviously Socinianism was a departure from the Reformed Theology from which it arose.

 

[JonC]

The issue is that members, like @DaveXR650 , equate arguments against Reformed theory to Socinianism (to a denial of the Trinity, rejecting that death enteting the world through Adam's sin, a denial of Jesus' pre-existance, and a denial of divine omnicience).

The rejection of PSA by Socinianism is not a heresy (it is not what defines the heresy). Many orthodox theologies reject PSA. And yes, the arguments about where PSA goes wrong are the same.

 

[DaveXR650]

@DaveXR650 has often equated Christus Victor arguments as being Socinianism. I thought it may be good to take a look at the hetesy.

This emphasis on Christ's achieving victory over sin, death and the devil has come to be known as the Christus Victor theory of the atonement.
(From William Lane Craig's excellent book on the Atonement "Atonement and the Death of Christ".

Here's John Owen from his "Greater Catechism" question 10:
Q. 10. How did the oblation of Christ redeem from death and hell?
A. First, by paying a ransom to God, the judge and lawgiver, who had condemned us; secondly, by overcoming Satan, death, and the powers of hell, that detained us captives.

Anyone on here who reads my posting knows what I think of John Owen. In fact most are sick of me quoting John Owen. Does anyone really believe I would say anything about Christus Victor which is what Owen is obviously describing above. @JonC is either once again mistaken or outright lying.

So, what is Socinianism (why is it a heresy)?

The problem with Socinianism is that it is the most articulate attack on penal substitutionary atonement ever made, even though it came quite early. The following is from his work "On Jesus Christ our Savior (1578) via William Lane Craig's book mentioned above. Rather than go into detail I will simply state first what I believe is the main significance of him in this day. Quoting Craig as confirming what I noticed with @JonC ," Even critics who evince no firsthand acquaintance with Socinus' work bear the unmistakable imprint of his influence, and their criticisms pale by comparison."

So while Jon puts up 4 unrelated things which Socinus may have taught they are unrelated to the subject at hand and to my concerns. Here are my concerns.
1. He argues that is was neither necessary nor even possible for Christ to make satisfaction for our sins to divine justice.
2. He assails the contention that satisfaction of divine justice is a necessary condition of the remission of sins.
3. He asserts that we must not think of God as a Judge "who acts according to an external legal authority and who may not deviate from the letter of the law".
4. He believed that punitive justice is not an essential property of God any more than is his mercy.
5. He believed that if punitive justice were an attribute of God, then God could under no circumstances forgive sins, likewise, if mercy were a divine attribute, then God could under no circumstances forgive sins.
6. He believed that whether God punishes sin is up to his free will.
And there are many more but this one in particular, if you have read any of these debates, I ask, does it sound familiar?
"God is our creditor and we are His debtors by virtue of our sins. But every creditor has the absolute right to forgive the debtor his debt - either in whole or in part - without receiving satisfaction". He goes on and on using the exact same arguments Jon has used in arguing against penal substitution. The above is just scratching the surface. It's almost like Jon is a student of Socinus - when it comes to debating penal substitution.

 

[DaveXR650]

The issue is that members, like @DaveXR650 , equate arguments against Reformed theory to Socinianism (to a denial of the Trinity, death enteting the world through Adam's sin, a denial of Jesus' pre-existance, and a denial of divine omnicience).

So this then is a perfect example of setting up a supposed outrageous offense, rather that bothering to actually read what I wrote. I don't know why Jon would be offended anyway since as Craig said in his book, Socinus has the most robust arguments against penal substitution ever written. They are indeed in many cases exactly what @JonC uses, almost word for word. It is simply a fact that many of the arguments used on here are word for word Socinian arguments against penal substitution. Nowhere and at no time has denial of the Trinity, death entering the world through Adam's sin, Jesus pre-existance or divine omniscience been part of my arguments or attributed to @JonC.

 

[DaveXR650]

So to come on and give a mini lecture on Socinianism without mentioning that Socinus himself is the absolute champion of debating penal substitution - well, people can decide for themselves why that was attempted.

 

[JonC]

This emphasis on Christ's achieving victory over sin, death and the devil has come to be known as the Christus Victor theory of the atonement.

Nope. Christus Victor does emphasize Christ's victory over Satan. But Christus Victor is more than this emphasis. It views the "problem" the Atonement accomplishes is our bondage under Satan and the judgment to come. It views the Cross as Christ sharing our sins (our humanity, sinful flesh) and suffering the wage of sin (the power of Satan) in order to defeat Satan.

Likewise, the emphasis on Christ bearing our sin is not what has become known as Penal Substitution.

Here's John Owen from his "Greater Catechism" question 10:
Q. 10. How did the oblation of Christ redeem from death and hell?
A. First, by paying a ransom to God, the judge and lawgiver, who had condemned us; secondly, by overcoming Satan, death, and the powers of hell, that detained us captives.

EXACTLY - and that is why it is not honest to say Owen affirmed Christus Victor.

Christus Victor IS Ransom Theory (Gustaf Aulén coined "Christus Victor" to focus on the result of the ransom, but it is the same view).

There is no Ransom Theory, no Christus Victor view, that views Christ paying a ransom to God.

The problem with Socinianism is that it is the most articulate attack on penal substitutionary atonement ever made, even though it came quite early.

I disagree. Prior to Socinianism PSA was challenged and rejected. Socinianism did not come up with new "attacks".

Quoting Craig as confirming what I noticed with @JonC ," Even critics who evince no firsthand acquaintance with Socinus' work bear the unmistakable imprint of his influence, and their criticisms pale by comparison."

This is incorrect. Simons made the arguments I have made against PSA before Socinianism came into being.

If anything, Socinianism's arguments against PSA were influenced by preexisting Christian arguments.

It is not logical to say using an argument that existed before Socinianism is taken from Socinianism. Time simply does not work that way.

If you look at directly arguing agsinst PSA, I think Simons has the best arguments as they go directly to God's nature as revealed in Scripture.

So while Jon puts up 4 unrelated things which Socinus may have taught they are unrelated to the subject at hand and to my concerns. Here are my concerns.
1. He argues that is was neither necessary nor even possible for Christ to make satisfaction for our sins to divine justice.
2. He assails the contention that satisfaction of divine justice is a necessary condition of the remission of sins.
3. He asserts that we must not think of God as a Judge "who acts according to an external legal authority and who may not deviate from the letter of the law".
4. He believed that punitive justice is not an essential property of God any more than is his mercy.
5. He believed that if punitive justice were an attribute of God, then God could under no circumstances forgive sins, likewise, if mercy were a divine attribute, then God could under no circumstances forgive sins.
6. He believed that whether God punishes sin is up to his free will.

Ummm.... no. Those are related foundational aspects of Socinianism.

And:

1. No. I argued that punishment does not satisfy divine justice (God's righteousness is greater). It is what the punishment does.

2. Here you outright make a false claim. My argument was that divine justice MUST BE MET. I just argued that punishment does not meet the demands of justice (God's righteousness is greater).

3. Again, you make a false claim. You would do better to stick with what YOU believe instead of declaring what others believe.

I stated that God is a Judge who judges righteously. I did say that the Law is a manifestation of God's righteousness and therefore not God's righteousness itself. God's righteousness can be manifested apart from the Law, BUT I said the Law would be fulfilled (it is the SAME justice/ righteousness).

4. Again you choose to lie about me. Why? I never said that punitive justice is not a property of God. It is. God's wrath is upon the wicked. The wicked will be punished.

I said this punishment is not an end unto itself. Punishment cannot satisfy rhe demands of justice (it is its result).

5. ??? Why the lies @DaveXR650 ???

What I said is that God cannot punish and forgive the same sins. Either they are punished or they are forgiven. This is per the definition of "forgiveness".

6. Again, another false claim. I believe it is God's nature and dependent on divine justice.


That is 6 times you oughtright lied about me. You should speak for YOUR beliefs rather than declare what other people believe. You have sinned against God.

And thank you. This answers whether you just want to insult or if you are willing to honestly discuss Scripture.

 

[JonC]

So to come on and give a mini lecture on Socinianism without mentioning that Socinus himself is the absolute champion of debating penal substitution - well, people can decide for themselves why that was attempted.

I understand that you may view the two theologians as the absolute champions combating penal substitution, but this is because of they influenced your camp.

What you miss is that prior to Socinianism the arguments these two made had already been made for over a decade.

I'd place Simons as the "absolute champion" of debating the penal substitution heresy. He based his arguments on Scripture and the revealed nature of God.

Socinus merely repeated existing claims and worked this through their own theology.

 

[DaveXR650]

Nope. Christus Victor does emphasize Christ's victory over Satan. But Christus Victor is more than this emphasis. It views the "problem" the Atonement accomplishes is our bondage under Satan and the judgment to come. It views the Cross as Christ sharing our sins (our humanity, sinful flesh) and suffering the wage of sin (the power of Satan) in order to defeat Satan.

Likewise, the emphasis on Christ bearing our sin is not what has become known as Penal Substitution.

I'm leaving my reply as it stands. It's from a Catechism of John Owen and it fully shows his and my view and respect for Christus Victor - except that we view PSA as the core. Owen and all the other Calvinists also believe Christ paid a ransom (not to Satan but to the justice of God) and that Jesus was a supreme example to us on how to be obedient to the Father. You made a false charge which you cannot back up so you will try the obscuring of definition game.

5. ??? Why the lies @DaveXR650 ???

Those were the first things that appeared in Socinus arguments, chronologically. They were to show that my concerns were not about the things you posted in your attempt to instruct everyone on Socinianism.

That is 6 times you oughtright lied about me. You should speak for YOUR beliefs rather than declare what other people believe. You have sinned against God.

You always go into these phases. You brought up Socinus and you don't like the fact that you are using his reasoning. I will go on and show you more specifically what I mean.

 

[JonC]

So this then is a perfect example of setting up a supposed outrageous offense, rather that bothering to actually read what I wrote. I don't know why Jon would be offended anyway since as Craig said in his book, Socinus has the most robust arguments against penal substitution ever written. They are indeed in many cases exactly what @JonC uses, almost word for word. It is simply a fact that many of the arguments used on here are word for word Socinian arguments against penal substitution. Nowhere and at no time has denial of the Trinity, death entering the world through Adam's sin, Jesus pre-existance or divine omniscience been part of my arguments or attributed to @JonC.

Ummm. No. That is silly.

Here is yoyr claim:

"Socinus has the most robust arguments against penal substitution ever written."

But that is OPINION.

I believe the only robust part of Socinus' argument are the arguments that preexisted the heresy.

My opinion is that Simons made the most robust argument as he went directly to Scripture and what God said about His nature and justice.

It was the most robust, in my opinion, because it put PSA theorists in a position of having to reason away passages they once held as absolute. In this way it made the theory stronger, I suppose.

But it was more robust because those arguments actually effected a change as PSA theorists had to address what at least appeared to be contradictory.

Socinus' argument was too easily dismissed (except what he borrowed) because the base was flawed.

That said, Socinianism had other influences as an underlying intellectual philosophy which influenced men like John Locke, Baruch, Thomas Jefferson , James Madison, and Jonathan Edwards.

The reason you are probably obsessed with Socinianism is the effect it had within Calvinism. Calvinism has been split between Renaissance humanism (Calvin's philosophy) and Enlightenment humanism (outgrowth of Socinianism) since the 18th century.

But that is a problem of your camp. You are influenced by Socinianism (either adopting or rejecting). I do not belong to your camp.

 

[JonC]

I'm leaving my reply as it stands. It's from a Catechism of John Owen and it fully shows his and my view and respect for Christus Victor

I am leaving as it stands as well.

Saying that Christ ransomed us from God (Owen) and Christ ransomed us from Satan is NOT the same.

By replacing the foundation of Christus Victor wirh Penal Substitution Theory you come up with something other than Christus Victor.


By your logic those who believe Christ shared our humanity, our sinful flesh, suffered under Satan and never under God, bore our dins on our behalf but not instead of us... etc... hold PSA.

That makes PSA meaningless, just like you try to make every other position meaningkess.

 

[DaveXR650]

1. No. I argued that punishment does not satisfy divine justice (God's righteousness is greater). It is what the punishment does.

1. He argues that is was neither necessary nor even possible for Christ to make satisfaction for our sins to divine justice.

???????????????????????????? I'm sorry, you are saying the same thing.

2. Here you outright make a false claim. My argument was that divine justice MUST BE MET. I just argued that punishment does not meet the demands of justice (God's righteousness is greater).

2. He assails the contention that satisfaction of divine justice is a necessary condition of the remission of sins.

Yes. And Socinus goes into the impossibility of punishment meeting the demands of divine justice later on.

3. Again, you make a false claim. You would do better to stick with what YOU believe instead of declaring what others believe.

So are you telling me that you do indeed believe that God has an essential property to where it is necessary that He punish sins?

4. He believed that punitive justice is not an essential property of God any more than is his mercy.

4. Again you choose to lie about me. Why? I never said that punitive justice is not a property of God. It is. God's wrath is upon the wicked. The wicked will be punished.

Related to #3 above but I'm thinking more of how Socinus related this to the concept you use that the wrath is upon the wicked and is abated outright by simple repentance with no need of satisfaction by Christ. So are you saying that God must punish those who have sinned or are you saying that that makes no difference for those who repent. That's what Socinus said. He goes into this in more detail but for space and time I did not include it, yet. But that is enough for now.

 

[JonC]

Those were the first things that appeared in Socinus arguments, chronologically.

But what are you leaving out?

Before Socinus made the arguments that used these things "chronologically" others that did not in any way agree with Socinus (nen who were not even Refofmed) made the sane argument.

So... what is logical -

1. Socinus observed and agreed with arguments others had already made in declaring Penal Substitution Theory heresy. Socinus used his theory in support of these arguments (they did not contradict any position except PSA... so any group could use them).

2. Those making these arguments before Socinus had a time machine and used this machine to travel forward in time. Once in the future they heard Socinus' arguments. They agreed with many of his observations. Then they used the machine to travel back to their own time and make those arguments (the ones I used) before Socinus jad the chance.


Personally, I believe the first option is more logical.

 

[DaveXR650]

But that is OPINION.

Sure it is. Did you think it was a quote from Hezekiah? It is my opinion and others too.

Saying that Christ ransomed us from God (Owen) and Christ ransomed us from Satan is NOT the same.

Of course it's not the same. Christus Victor does not have to include that the ransom was paid to Satan. In scripture, a ransom was paid is all that is said - but it is said. Owen believed, like I do that the ransom was paid to God in the sense that it was paid to the justice of God. The idea that ransom was paid to Satan in my opinion (again) is not completely stupid. Satan had something on us as humankind in that we at the Fall did choose to follow his advice instead of God. Also, the question comes up from Socinus, as well as Anselm and others, that if God wanted to, why can't he not simply defeat Satan outright without Christ having to undergo such a humiliating and devastating death? The answer is that Satan did have something on us so to speak and we have truly fallen under his dominion on Earth. But what was really owed, and what really kept God from exerting full force directly on Satan - was that there was a sin debt, stored up wrath, a damaged sense of justice, however you wish to put it and it was against God. Thus the "ransom" needed to be paid to God.

 

[JonC]

???????????????????????????? I'm sorry, you are saying the same thing.


Yes. And Socinus goes into the impossibility of punishment meeting the demands of divine justice later on.

Stop with the nonsense. Behave like an adult. YOU do not have the right to declare what other peoole believe.

Before Socinus who argued that punishment does not meet the demands of divine judgment?

Origen, Athanasius, Augustine (famously), Anselm, Aquinas, Simons.... all of these and more.

You are fascinated with Socinus because he influenced YOUR camp.



And NO. You do NOT get to define MY beliefs.

No - arguing that punishment does not satisfy divine justice (God's righteousness is greater). It is what the punishment does IS NOT THE SAME AS saying that is was neither necessary nor even possible for Christ to make satisfaction for our sins to divine justice.


You asked - So are you telling me that you do indeed believe that God has an essential property to where it is necessary that He punish sins?

Yes. That is exactly what I am saying. Punishment is not an end unto itself. God's righteousness under the law may be obtained by punishing the wicked, but there is also a manifestation of this same righteousness - that fulfills (rather than contradicts) the law.

 

[DaveXR650]

But what are you leaving out?

Before Socinus made the arguments that used these things "chronologically" others that did not in any way agree with Socinus (nen who were not even Refofmed) made the sane argument.

So... what is logical -

1. Socinus observed and agreed with arguments others had already made in declaring Penal Substitution Theory heresy. Socinus used his theory in support of these arguments (they did not contradict any position except PSA... so any group could use them).

2. Those making these arguments before Socinus had a time machine and used this machine to travel forward in time. Once in the future they heard Socinus' arguments. They agreed with many of his observations. Then they used the machine to travel back to their own time and make those arguments (the ones I used) before Socinus jad the chance.

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.

My opinion is that Simons made the most robust argument as he went directly to Scripture and what God said about His nature and justice.

Do you mean Menno Simons. If you have writings where actually refutes PSA I would like to see it as I respect him a lot.

 

[DaveXR650]

Stop with the nonsense. Behave like an adult. YOU do not have the right to declare what other peoole believe.

I'm not saying declaring what you believe but showing where it is similar to Socinus, and providing the quotes. Maybe you shouldn't have decided to start a thread, put up a partial sketch of Socinus making it look like I was tying him to you and then mentioning me by name, when in fact the linking I have done between you and Socinus is exactly correct and reflects accurately your views when you argue against PSA. If it matches is matches or if the shoe fits or whatever.

 

[JonC]

Christus Victor does not have to include that the ransom was paid to Satan.

It is the same. Ransom theory does not have to include a ransom paid to Satan.

In the Early Church writings "Satan" was used as a personification of sin and death. Some (rarely a theologian) viewed this as paid to Satan. Gregory used "Satan" as sin and deah personified... the enemy.

Athanasius wrote it is a ransom paid, not "to" anybody but instead the cost of our redemption.

 

[DaveXR650]

You asked - So are you telling me that you do indeed believe that God has an essential property to where it is necessary that He punish sins?

Yes. That is exactly what I am saying. Punishment is not an end unto itself. God's righteousness under the law may be obtained by punishing the wicked, but there is also a manifestation of this same righteousness - that fulfills (rather than contradicts) the law.

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?

 

[DaveXR650]

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.

 

[JonC]

I'm not saying declaring what you believe but showing where it is similar to Socinus,

OK.

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

"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)