Search results

I fully agree. We can have disagreements about doctrines (like TULIP and the interpretations of Scripture) but we have no business denying Scripture itself. Scripture does not serve our interpretations/ understandings. Our interpretations may be subjective and prone to the failings of human...

@David Taylor , I am not suggesting that you are wrong, just asking for clarification. Others (like Aulén and N.T. Wright) have observed the same thing as you point out and offer Christus Victor as the the primary view of the early church as it does not have the distinction of a payment being...

Yes, labels can often cause these issues. How do you classify Gregory Nazianzen and Cyril of Jerusalem Theory of atonement? What are the reasons you reject the conclusions of contemporary scholarship (like Waldow and TeSelle) that the Ransom Theory often used "Satan" to symbolize sin and death...

So there is no distinction between Gregory Nazianzen's view of Ransom Theory and Aulén's Christus Victor Theory since Gregory Nazianzen believed the ransom was paid but not in the context of a payment to Satan or God?

The reason I ask for the distinction is that Gregory Nazianzen (329 AD -390 AD) and Cyril of Jerusalem (313 AD – 386 AD) held to Ransom Theory. But Gregory Nazianzen also held that there was not an actual payment received or made to an entity (not to the “Evil One” and not to “the Father”)...

@David Taylor , I understand why you believe that Christ had to suffer the punishment for sin instead of us. But in practice I am not sure how you explain this. Did Christ suffer in His physical body instead of us suffering in our physical bodies? Did Christ suffer a physical death instead of...

Yes, I said it was Aulén's interpretation of Ransom Theory. As neither Aulén or Gregory Nazianzen held that a price was paid to Satan or God, what to you see as the distinction between Aulén's Christus Victor position and Gregory Nazianzen's Ransom Theory?

Most contemporary scholars point out that Origen (and the early church) typically used "satan" to refer to the principles of sin and death. Gregory Nazianzen (4th century) pointed out that this was a ransom but not a payment made to an entity (not to Satan and not to God). @David Taylor is...

LOL...."Christus Victor" is Gustaf Aulén's interpretation of Ransom Theory (the "classic view"). What do you think of scholars (Daniel Waldow and Eugene TeSelle are probably the two you are familiar with from your time in seminary) who points out that Origen uses ransom imagery to explain the...

How does this compare to Ontological Substitution (and what are your objections)? I ask as this seems to be the landing pad for several Calvinists trying to reform the Reformed and bring their atonement theory closer to Scripture. What about T. F. Torrance's "Total Substitution"? What do you...

Sorry for your loss

OK. Thanks for removing it for me. I did not think about it since it was made available via his profile.

So if you punch Steve then Steve has a debt he has to satisfy either by punching you, someone else or himself in order to forgive you???? That's just stupid.

LOL....let me explain In a dictionary we are given the meaning(s) of words. Some words (like chasten) have multiple meanings. In this case it means 1: to correct by punishment or suffering : DISCIPLINEIf he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men— 2 Samuel 7: 14 (King James...

I believe that Chastening means : chasten 1: to correct by punishment or suffering : DISCIPLINEIf he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men— 2 Samuel 7: 14 (King James Version)also : PURIFY 2a: to prune of excess, pretense, or falsity : REFINE b: to cause to be more humble or...

That is a false accusation. Isaiah 53:4-6 4 Surely our griefs He Himself bore, And our sorrows He carried; Yet we ourselves esteemed Him stricken, Smitten of God, and afflicted. 5 But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; The chastening for our...

Show me which passages (not your interpretation but actual passages) that I have ignored by changing definitions. The issue is that you claim anyone who does not accept your interpretation of Scripture are rejecting Scripture itself. In so doing you elevate your own understanding to the level...

Please provide the passage I ignore (not your interpretation which I probably do reject but the actual verses I reject). Thanks

I agree, but I obviously disagree as to which one.

I can claim that because all of the theories adequately answer the question of Christ's death (they just do not entertain the context provided by opposing theories). Until you are able to grasp how the classic view answers the questions of the Atonement in its own contest you have no basis for...