PSA a doctrine under attack

[Foghorn]

I'm going to start this thread with J. I. Packer's words.

Penal Substitution in focus,
The built-in function of the human mind that we call conscience tells everyone, uncomfortably, that when we have misbehaved we ought to suffer for it, and to that extent, conscience is truly the voice of God.

Both testaments, then, confirm that judicial retribution from God awaits all whose sins are not covered by a substitutionary sacrifice: in the Old Testament, the sacrifice of an animal; in the New Testament, the sacrifice of Christ. He, the holy Son of God in sinless human flesh, has endured what Calvin called "the pains of a condemned and lost person" so that we, trusting him as our Savior and Lord, might receive pardon for the past and a new life in him and with him for the present and the future. Tellingly Paul, having announced "the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation [i.e., wrath quencher] by his blood, to be received by faith," goes on to say: "it was to show his righteousness at the present time so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus" (Rom, 3:24-26 ESV). Just justification - justified justification - through the doing of justice in penal substitution is integral to the message of the gospel.

I have come across many who disagree with PSA.
I’m all for and agree with PSA. I agree that Jesus suffered the Fathers wrath in our place. I also believe in imputation,

Thoughts?

 

[abcaines]

Thoughts?

Agreed.

 

[ALAYMAN]

I'm going to start this thread with J. I. Packer's words....

I have come across many who disagree with PSA.
I’m all for and agree with PSA. I agree that Jesus suffered the Fathers wrath in our place. I also believe in imputation,

Thoughts?

Nobody here will disagree with PSA. Where are you encountering these folk? And what is their opposition to it? Do they have a differing theory (Moral Influence, Christus Victor, etc)?

 

[Baptist Renegade]

Nobody here will disagree with PSA. Where are you encountering these folk? And what is their opposition to it? Do they have a differing theory (Moral Influence, Christus Victor, etc)?

He is thinking of the likes of Brian Zahnd and Steven Chalke who equate the Penal Substitutionary Atonement with "Cosmic Child Abuse." Others who attack the PSA are the SJWs and "Social Gospel" types who embrace "Liberation Theology."

There really is not much to refute IMO. They simply reject the clear teaching of the scriptures and usually go off into historical positions which are also easily refutable.

 

[Ransom]

Nobody here will disagree with PSA.

We've had Wesleyans on board who believed in Moral Government theory, and also some who believed the Christus Victor theory.

And then, there's (of course)...

Plant the seeds of penal substitutionary atonement, water heavily with biblical inerrancy, fertilize with literal hellfire, tend to with manipulation and not only can you grow a bumper crop of misogynists, homophobes, authoritarians and manipulators, but the environment of toxic masculinity is ripe for the development of abusers of women and children.

 

[Baptist Renegade]

We've had Wesleyans on board who believed in Moral Government theory, and also some who believed the Christus Victor theory.

And then, there's (of course)...

My understanding is that John Wesley held to PSA and if the Wesleyans hold to the Governmental theory, it was after Wesley was long gone. Classic Arminianism from what I can tell is largely PSA. I know Leonard Ravenhill was a governmental theorist.

As for Smellin' Coffee, his rantings are about as coherent as that of Steven Chalke or Brian Zahnd.

 

[Ekklesian]

I'm going to start this thread with J. I. Packer's words.

Penal Substitution in focus,
The built-in function of the human mind that we call conscience tells everyone, uncomfortably, that when we have misbehaved we ought to suffer for it, and to that extent, conscience is truly the voice of God.

Both testaments, then, confirm that judicial retribution from God awaits all whose sins are not covered by a substitutionary sacrifice: in the Old Testament, the sacrifice of an animal; in the New Testament, the sacrifice of Christ. He, the holy Son of God in sinless human flesh, has endured what Calvin called "the pains of a condemned and lost person" so that we, trusting him as our Savior and Lord, might receive pardon for the past and a new life in him and with him for the present and the future. Tellingly Paul, having announced "the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation [i.e., wrath quencher] by his blood, to be received by faith," goes on to say: "it was to show his righteousness at the present time so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus" (Rom, 3:24-26 ESV). Just justification - justified justification - through the doing of justice in penal substitution is integral to the message of the gospel.

I have come across many who disagree with PSA.
I’m all for and agree with PSA. I agree that Jesus suffered the Fathers wrath in our place. I also believe in imputation,

Thoughts?

Have you been hanging around the Baptist Board? The so-called Christus Victor theory is the defacto dogma there.

 

[abcaines]

Great summary of Christus Victor from Got Questions.

Admittedly, I've never heard the term Christus Victor until now but I've heard the ideas behind it. My BC beliefs probably leaned towards this theory, eschewing the "violence" of atonement. However, I was taught early on the necessity of Christ paying the price for my sin. In fact, the epiphany that I point to in my testimony as my moment of conversion was brought about because the Holy Spirit opened my eyes to Christ's atoning work on the cross. Except from my testimony:

I was listening in on where the counselor was explaining to another camper how Christ's death on the cross at one point in time paid for all sin ever committed and all sin ever to be committed. Suddenly, it was as if light came on. As though the Holy Spirit flipped a switch and the gospel I had been hearing over and over since I sat in that Sunday school ten years earlier, wondering what they were talking about, suddenly made sense. "So that's what they meant by Jesus dying for my sin and me letting Him into my heart!" "That's how I deal with my sin!" I already understood I was not saved by my own merits. Receiving God's free gift of salvation was a no-brainer for me. I knew I had to accept His gift, which I did eagerly. I had finally passed from death unto life; I was a new creation in Christ.

 

[ALAYMAN]

Great summary of Christus Victor from Got Questions.

Admittedly, I've never heard the term Christus Victor until now but I've heard the ideas behind it. My BC beliefs probably leaned towards this theory, eschewing the "violence" of atonement. However, I was taught early on the necessity of Christ paying the price for my sin. In fact, the epiphany that I point to in my testimony as my moment of conversion was brought about because the Holy Spirit opened my eyes to Christ's atoning work on the cross. Except from my testimony:

The fellow that used to post here under the name “squirrel” seem to be a proponent of Christus Victor. Of course, he was somewhat of obtuse, haha, contrarian that almost always took the devils advocate position against basic Baptist doctrine.

 

[Bob Jones V]

I'm going to start this thread with J. I. Packer's words.

Penal Substitution in focus,
The built-in function of the human mind that we call conscience tells everyone, uncomfortably, that when we have misbehaved we ought to suffer for it, and to that extent, conscience is truly the voice of God.

Both testaments, then, confirm that judicial retribution from God awaits all whose sins are not covered by a substitutionary sacrifice: in the Old Testament, the sacrifice of an animal; in the New Testament, the sacrifice of Christ. He, the holy Son of God in sinless human flesh, has endured what Calvin called "the pains of a condemned and lost person" so that we, trusting him as our Savior and Lord, might receive pardon for the past and a new life in him and with him for the present and the future. Tellingly Paul, having announced "the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation [i.e., wrath quencher] by his blood, to be received by faith," goes on to say: "it was to show his righteousness at the present time so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus" (Rom, 3:24-26 ESV). Just justification - justified justification - through the doing of justice in penal substitution is integral to the message of the gospel.

I have come across many who disagree with PSA.
I’m all for and agree with PSA. I agree that Jesus suffered the Fathers wrath in our place. I also believe in imputation,

Thoughts?

Over at the other place, baptist board, there is a guy who fights against Penal substitutionary Atonement ad nauseum.

 

[Ransom]

The fellow that used to post here under the name “squirrel” seem to be a proponent of Christus Victor. Of course, he was somewhat of obtuse, haha, contrarian that almost always took the devils advocate position against basic Baptist doctrine.

Was that the Lutheran guy who used to always quote the Book of Concord, or am I thinking of someone else?

 

[Ransom]

Great summary of Christus Victor from Got Questions.

I've never digitized my course notes from my Theological Foundations courses, and I can't find the paper ones right now. But we discussed Christus Victor briefly in class along with all the other theories of the Atonement. The prof's conclusion was something along the lines of Christus Victor not offering any insight that you couldn't get elsewhere. So I've really never paid it much mind.

 

[Ekklesian]

Great summary of Christus Victor from Got Questions.

Admittedly, I've never heard the term Christus Victor until now but I've heard the ideas behind it. My BC beliefs probably leaned towards this theory, eschewing the "violence" of atonement. However, I was taught early on the necessity of Christ paying the price for my sin. In fact, the epiphany that I point to in my testimony as my moment of conversion was brought about because the Holy Spirit opened my eyes to Christ's atoning work on the cross. Except from my testimony:

The trouble is, Christ IS the victor. But they take that to exclusion of how the victory was won.

Their error is Peter's, who in a moment of zeal and self-righteousness, rebuked Christ for describing the things He must suffer.

His answer, Get thee behind me, Satan. That's what got me banned from the Griffin/Cassidy former haunt.

 

[aleshanee]

Was that the Lutheran guy who used to always quote the Book of Concord, or am I thinking of someone else?

are you thinking of vicar borg?... he was lutheran... i;m not sure what squirrel was... ..his theology seemed to vary in attempts to stay in opposition to what everyone else was saying.......

 

[voicecrying]

are you thinking of vicar borg?... he was lutheran... i;m not sure what squirrel was... ..his theology seemed to vary in attempts to stay in opposition to what everyone else was saying.......

I think squirrel claimed to be presbyterian. He did like to stir the pot.

I often wonder how he's doing. Didn't he have a special needs baby.

 

[abcaines]

The trouble is, Christ IS the victor. But they take that to exclusion of how the victory was won.

Their error is Peter's, who in a moment of zeal and self-righteousness, rebuked Christ for describing the things He must suffer.

His answer, Get thee behind me, Satan. That's what got me banned from the Griffin/Cassidy former haunt.

Ya.

My point is that wherever I have been, PSA (which still means Public Service Announcement to me) has always been the prevailing belief. I've never given it a second thought. These CV/et al theories don't seem to get much press by name, but their ideas predate the 1931 coining of the name. It's just the same old tired attempt to expunge the blood from the Gospel.

 

[ALAYMAN]

I think squirrel claimed to be presbyterian. He did like to stir the pot.

I often wonder how he's doing. Didn't he have a special needs baby.

My memory says you are correct on both accounts.

 

[Baptist Renegade]

I think squirrel claimed to be presbyterian. He did like to stir the pot.

I often wonder how he's doing. Didn't he have a special needs baby.

Is he still hanging out somewhere around Pascagoula, MS?

 

[Ransom]

I think squirrel claimed to be presbyterian. He did like to stir the pot.

I often wonder how he's doing. Didn't he have a special needs baby.

I don't specifically remember squirrel. We don't have a member registered under that name. Was he on the last incarnation of the board?

The Lutheran guy I was thinking of actually called himself "cadillac," if I remember right. (And no, it wasn't Mike Borg, that I'm aware of.)

 

[abcaines]

Is he still hanging out somewhere around Pascagoula, MS?

Wasn't that the squirrel that started a revival second only to the Jesus Movement?