What I believe about the Atonement

[reformed1689]

I am not going to give you a history lesson, David. While I enjoy dialogue on these forums they are not my primary responsibility.

You are an alumni so you have access to the Universities online library. I encourage you to take the time to research the Classic View (to include ransom views that are not expressed as God literally paying a ransom to Satan). You will find all that you need at that resource.

Ignorance of other views is not a crime, but at the same time it is not a support of your own. It is something that can be remedied through study.

Years ago I debated Amyraldianism. To enter the debate I had to study the history of the theology and the basis/ context of the arguments. It was work but I enjoyed it because I enjoy studying theologies.

Take the time to understand the Classic View, the Moral Influence Theory, etc. and then come to the discussion with a knowledge of exactly how these theories address the work of Christ. This will eliminate foolish and ignorant statements that the Classic View, or Penal Substitution Theory, or Moral Influence Theory, (and such) fail to adequately address the work of Christ because you will be able to interact with these positions within their own context rather than placing them into your own.

And, of course, you didn't actually answer the question and, instead, went off on a diatribe about how you think I am uneducated on the matter. Do you really think I haven't studied the other views? Do you really think I don't understand them? I've got news for you, I do. You can call my statements ignorant, but that is just your opinion. But again, I don't think you even understand what you actually believe because you are all over the place. You pick and choose words at different times to satisfy your needs at the moment but end up contradicting yourself overall.

 

[reformed1689]

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

Then you ignore parts of Scripture as we have said. In order to say that you don't, you change the definitions of words to the way you would have them defined.

 

[CharismaticLady]

Having studied the topic myself, I know Ransom Theory does come from the early church, particularly the Father Origen, and is absolutely tied to paying a ransom to Satan.

So what? John just said he doesn't believe the part of "Ransom Theory" that it is to SATAN, only that it is like a ransom paid that freed us from sin. (I don't agree, but you can't force the whole Origen theory on to John, just because he uses "Ransom."

I'm not a fan of Origen at all, and am only thinking about what you guys are talking about on this point, but there is one thing that does have to do with Satan. But it isn't likened to kidnapping us and paying a ransom to Satan, as if Satan was correct that the death of Jesus was payment to him; in fact, it doesn't have to do with us at all in the mind of Satan, except as subjects, only Jesus. Satan owned us, and wasn't about to give us up, so there was no negotiating of ransom. (bad theology of Origen) As far as Satan knew, it only had to do with the murder of Jesus, so Satan could continue ruling and exact death on his subjects. Satan was clueless. He signed his own death warrant. He wasn't privy to the mystery in the mind of God.

@John Caldwell. If you believe in some kind of ransom, but that it is not paid to Satan, then who? God? That is not true either. Any thought of "ransom" is not accurate, except maybe in the sense that the death of Jesus killed the kidnapper, which would free us I guess. Is that what you mean? Still the kidnapper didn't receiving any ransom. Just thinking off the cuff.

 

[John Caldwell]

Then you ignore parts of Scripture as we have said. In order to say that you don't, you change the definitions of words to the way you would have them defined.

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

Thanks

 

[reformed1689]

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

Thanks

You aren't reading closely. You ignore passages by changing definitions of words to suit your liking.

 

[reformed1689]

(I don't agree, but you can't force the whole Origen theory on to John, just because he uses "Ransom."

I can if he states he holds to the Classic Ransom Theory. It was pointed out to me earlier by another board member this about John which I agree:

1. He holds to Calvinism but isn't Calvinist.
2. He holds to ransom theory except he doesn't.
3. He disagrees with non-calvinists, but actually agrees with them.

John doesn't know what he believes. He is all over the place.

 

[John Caldwell]

You aren't reading closely. You ignore passages by changing definitions of words to suit your liking.

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 of God's Word and yourself to the level of God. I don't know that you even realize you are doing this.

The only one that I recall changing definitions was you changing "chastening" to "punishment" and "for" to "instead of".

 

[reformed1689]

Show me which passages (not your interpretation but actual passages) that I have ignored by changing definitions.

The only one that I recall changing definitions was you changing "chastening" to "punishment" and "for" to "instead of".

Is. 53:5 for one.

 

[John Caldwell]

Is. 53:5 for one.

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 well-being fell upon Him, And by His scourging we are healed.
6 All of us like sheep have gone astray, Each of us has turned to his own way; But the LORD has caused the iniquity of us all To fall on Him.

I believe that Christ was pierced through for our transgressions.
I believe that Christ was crushed for our iniquities.
I believe that the chastening for our well-being fell upon Him
I believe that by His scourging we are healed.

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 restrained : SUBDUE He was chastened by his team's defeat.

I do not believe we should change the word to "punishment" or the Hebrew word מוּסָר‎ (chastening) to עונש (punishment/ penalty).

 

[reformed1689]

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 well-being fell upon Him, And by His scourging we are healed.
6 All of us like sheep have gone astray, Each of us has turned to his own way; But the LORD has caused the iniquity of us all To fall on Him.

I believe that Christ was pierced through for our transgressions.
I believe that Christ was crushed for our iniquities.
I believe that the chastening for our well-being fell upon Him
I believe that by His scourging we are healed.

Yeah but you believe chastisement was learning obedience rather than punishment which does not fit the grammatical context.

 

[John Caldwell]

Yeah but you believe chastisement was learning obedience rather than punishment which does not fit the grammatical context.

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 restrained : SUBDUE He was chastened by his team's defeat.

I do not share your view that chasten must mean "punishment".

 

[reformed1689]

By your answers yes, I do think that you have not studied the Classic view of the Atonement otherwise you would not have limited your description to paying a price to Satan (you would have expressed more knowledge than you did).

And yes, I think that you do not understand the view because of your own comments that you cannot grasp how it necessitates Christ's death.

If you studied the classic view then you would not have provided an unlearned response. If you understood the classic view you would have understood how it necessitates Christ's death and resurrection even if you disagreed with its conclusions. You also would have been able to "track" my comments rather than returning to a context of your own making.

I have always heard that if it acts like a fool it is a fool. You may simply be blowing smoke to cloud the issue but I do not understand why you would. So I take you at your word when you express an ignorance regarding symbolism in the classic view and how it views the death of Christ.

You sure you don't subscribe to Christus Victor? Because that is what you describe, not Ransom Theory.

 

[bbyrd009]

I have no idea what you are trying to argue here.

if I forgive your debt on a loan, does that not make the dip go away Mr. Taylor?
so then, no offense but what is to misunderstand?

 

[reformed1689]

I believe that Chastening means : chasten 1: to correct by punishment or suffering

You don't believe it is punishment, yet you put punishment in your definition? Goodness, and you wonder why people get confused about what you believe...

 

[reformed1689]

if I forgive your debt on a loan, does that not make the dip go away Mr. Taylor?
so then, no offense but what is to misunderstand?

The owing of the debt goes away, but the debt itself did not go away in the sense that it just disappeared. It was satisfied somehow. In that instance, you, the lender, paid the debt and considered it paid in full by me.

 

[John Caldwell]

You don't believe it is punishment, yet you put punishment in your definition? Goodness, and you wonder why people get confused about what you believe...

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 Version)also : PURIFY 2a: to prune of excess, pretense, or falsity : REFINE b: to cause to be more humble or restrained : SUBDUE He was chastened by his team's defeat.

This does not mean that the word means the entire range of possible meanings. Chasten does not mean, for example, to correct by punishment AND suffering while pruning of excess, pretense, and falsity in order to cause to be more humble or restrained.

I believe the last definition applies (the humility) because as I stated I believe that Christ "learned obedience" by the things He suffered (not "was punished by the things He suffered").

 

[John Caldwell]

The owing of the debt goes away, but the debt itself did not go away in the sense that it just disappeared. It was satisfied somehow. In that instance, you, the lender, paid the debt and considered it paid in full by me.

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.

 

[bbyrd009]

The owing of the debt goes away, but the debt itself did not go away in the sense that it just disappeared. It was satisfied somehow. In that instance, you, the lender, paid the debt and considered it paid in full by me.

seems a pretty fine distinction to me bro

 

[reformed1689]

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.

No, your comment, which is nothing like what I actually said, is stupid.

 

[lforrest]

@David Taylor ,

This is how I knew that you preached at [removed by moderator]:

I saw your signature and clicked on the link

Preacher, Author, Husband
Check out my website [removed by moderator]

[removed by moderator]

So stop with the claims that I'm somehow gathering secret information on you and published private information I had no business knowing. I clicked the link you provided inviting us to check out your website.

Posting personally identifiable information is not permitted under the rules, even if it was given by @David Taylor himself via his profile. So I removed the personal information and links thereto.