#Penal Substitutionary Atonement for Sins

[thinkingonscripture]

Penal Substitution for Sins

Penal substitution is the idea that Jesus bore the penalty for our sins on the cross. He was judged in our place and bore the wrath of God that rightfully belongs to us. The record of Scripture is that “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” (Isa 53:5), and “the LORD has…

View On WordPress

#atonement #atonement for sins #Did Jesus die as my substitute? #Jesus died as my substitute #Jesus died for me #Jesus died for sinners #Jesus died in my place #Penal Substitutionary Atonement for Sins #substitutionary atonement #Substitutionary Atonement for Sins

[adventism-atheism-orthodoxy-me]

Penal Substitution is the demand of a lesser God.

#Penal Substitutionary Atonement #Western Christianity #Eastern Orthodox Christianity #Atonement #Sin #Death #Devil

[hobbitsetal]

Reading your post about parenting, and I'm finding myself with a few questions. From my quick searching, I've figured that penal substitutionary atonement theory is that Christ was punished in place for our sins. If you don't believe that anymore, what is it you believe? That's the only thing I have ever heard as the reasoning for Christs suffering and Crucifixion, and I'm extremely curious what you believe was the purpose behind the Crucifixion, if not a substitution for our sins. I've done a little searching on that as well, but haven't really been able to find what other beliefs would be.

OH HELL YES LET'S TALK ATONEMENT THEORIES!!

Penal substitionary atonement theory (or PSA, if you wanna be brief), is the idea that Jesus died in our place to placate the wrath of God specifically. This is important; this is the penal part of that theory. The Reformers developed it (1500s), building off Anselm's satisfaction theory of atonement.

Google provides this quick summary of Anselm's theory: "Anselm's “satisfaction” theory of atonement posits that Christ's death on the cross functioned as a gift to God on behalf of humanity to restore the order of justice subverted by sin. Especially in recent years, the theory has been criticized for obscuring God's mercy."

So what are our alternatives? Good news, anon! You and I are blessed by my husband, a man well educated in church history and possessed of an insatiable need to research things!

The early church held largely to the ransom theory of atonement: that Christ's death paid a ransom to Satan to rescue us from him.

Christus Victor was another theory held by much of the early church, and forms a part of my own (somewhat nebulous) current beliefs regarding atonement. It is "...the model of atonement which, according to Kristian, speaks of “Jesus redeeming us from oppressive powers—sin, death, the Devil—to whom we'd bound ourselves by our own treachery. Christ 'disarmed' those powers and triumphed over them on the cross (Col. 2:13–15)."

(Side note: Christus Victor and ransom theory are very similar, but Alex insists there are nuances and differences. Apparently ransom theory in various forms was the dominant theory for the first thousand years of post-Christ church belief.)

Google pulled that quote from this blog: https://www.samstorms.org/enjoying-god-blog/post/the-christus-victor-theory-of-the-atonement-whence-the-victory

Sam Storms argues against Christus Victor as incomplete, asking how humanity came to be in bondage to the devil and asserting that personal sin is the answer. I'd argue that Romans says we fell through Adam as well as our own failings, but I honestly don't think that's the larger issue.

The larger issue is how you understand God's base disposition toward humanity. In my opinion, PSA frames God as, at His core, angry with humanity due to our sin and standing in punitive judgment, but for Himself standing in the gap.

Christus Victor, the scapegoat theory of atonement, and the moral influence theory of atonement (a term I just discovered in googling to respond to you!) all frame God's base disposition as that of love, reaching out to redeem humanity.

Now, what theory you personally hold is up to you. We have over two thousand years of church history and we have multiple forms of orthodoxy when it comes to atonement theories. Let me share with you the article from which I pulled the "moral influence theory" by way of wrapping this up.

There are fewer doctrines in Christianity of which one can truly say "This is the only way the church believes" than one might think. Not all Christians believe in original sin. Not all believe in a fiery hell. And not all believe Christ died to absorb the wrath of God.

They do believe in Christ their Savior. However, church history demonstrates there's room to debate what exactly we're saved from. Orthodoxy is believing in atonement. It doesn't dictate the reason for the atonement.)

(For further reading, I highly recommend Brian Zahnd's "Sinners in the Hands of a Loving God." I recommend this so highly that if you'd like to DM me your mailing address, I will buy a copy for you.)

#i'm so delighted by this question #thank you!! #and it makes sense you couldn't find alternatives #I didn't know of others till Alex told me #and I found these definitions and articles because I already knew what to google #made life way easier #anyway #church history #atonement theories

[gayleviticus]

There’s a lot of negative feeling about the penal substitutionary atonement model of the crucifixion (that Jesus chose to take the punishment humanity were due), especially among progressive circles, and I think there are a lot of valid criticisms of it: it’s often framed very barbarically, it can pit Jesus against the Father, it can over-emphasise the sinfulness of human beings and over-literalises ‘the wrath of God’ in a way that makes God seem like deep down he hates us but begrudgingly chooses forgiveness instead.

But there are at least 3 redeeming features I think this motif can have, provided it’s not understood as the rigid be-all-and-end-all it often is.

1) Whatever way you slice it, whatever alternative lens you want to use, even if Jesus’ death wasn’t ‘penal substitutionary atonement’, it was still probably penal (he died horribly as ‘punishment’ by the Romans), it was still substitutionary (in the sense it was to save human beings from death), and it was still atonement (it had some kind of salvific effect). I find it hard to get too precious about PSA when the broad elements are all there in the other classic theories of atonement. At its core the cross is a scandal because it’s about God wrenching resurrection and hope out of a violent and horrific death; I feel like some criticisms of PSA in favour of Christus Victor etc are just trying to de-scandalise an inherently scandalous concept.

2) In a twisted sense I think the horrifying nature of PSA supplements the horrifying nature of being crucified to death very well – and mistake PSA advocates often make is that they not only miss this but try to frame it as the only truly just solution. PSA advocates will say that Jesus’ death was necessary for God to maintain his mercy alongside his justice; he has to punish someone for humanity’s sins, so Jesus steps up to take his place. And rather than this becoming another fucked up thing about the situation, about the depths of horror happening in the crucifixion, PSA advocates frame this as a mark of divine justice. God is so merciful he gave Hitler a stay of mercy and then because he’s so just let Mother Teresa get executed in his place. The very concept of Justice becomes extremely muddled.

When PSA becomes a commentary on the nature of what justice is and what mercy is and how to satisfy both, I think it becomes extremely muddled. But what I think is valuable about PSA is this idea of God taking upon himself a punishment he didn’t deserve for the sake of human beings and hence destroying the very notion of ‘deserved’ punishment. Ideas that woe is a punishment for sin and happiness a reward for virtue are destroyed by the crucifixion of God.

3) I think it allows us to reinterpret a lot of the judgment and violence God promises or enacts throughout the Bible (including the OT, yes, but let’s not forget Revelation as well). All those punishments God threatens or dishes out? All that wrath he pours out in plagues and famines and destroying angels? He took it upon himself. God doesn’t dish out what he can’t take; and indeed, he’s not just willing to take it, but to take it so we don’t have to. He is the Judge judged in our place.

There’s an article by the Catholic priest and theologian James Allison (https://jamesalison.com/creation-fulfilled-and-the-book-of-revelation/) where he makes the interesting suggestion that the point of the extreme divine violence in the Book of Revelation is to convey this idea that the wrath of God is ‘exhausted’. Rather than just saying ‘oh well God doesn’t punish people after all,’ the author has God throw absolutely everything at the wall to show God ‘getting it out of his system’. All the promised curses of Deuteronomy are finally fulfilled, and thus exhausted, and beyond this cataclysmic judgment lies mercy and restoration.

Now, Allison writes about Revelation, not the crucifixion, and ironically does so from a Girardian perspective that is much closer to ‘moral influence theory of atonement’ where Jesus’ death exposes the unethical systems that undergird our societies. Allison is not endorsing PSA.

But I think PSA can convey a similar kind of idea to what he’s talking about here. The judgment of the world has taken place, and it took place on the cross; the much-feared wrath of God has been exhausted.

Now, I don’t know that this necessarily means all talk of wrath is defused – as I’ve said before, there can be much value to notions of divine judgment (which =/= eternal conscious torment in hell) as a cleansing of injustice and oppression. But at the very least we cannot read biblical threats of future judgment and wrath without a serious detour by the foot of the cross.

#christianity #christian #religion #theology #crucifixion

[wisdomfish]

Jesus died a violent, substitutionary death to be a sacrifice of atonement for the sins of Jews and Gentiles. By this death, Jesus took upon himself God’s righteous judgment and wrath against the sins of those for whom he died. By dying as their penal substitute, Jesus paid the penalty for their sins, and he therefore both propitiated God’s wrath against their sins and expiated their sins so that the sins of Jews and Gentiles would be forgiven and so that they would be justified by faith, forgiven of their sins, reconciled to God, reconciled to each other, participate in the future resurrection, and saved from God’s wrath.

Jarvis J. Williams

#jesus #violenza #jews #paid advertising #forgiven

[faithnfrivolity]

I used to believe in this doctrine.

No longer.

Why? Because apart from Pauline theology, focusing on Jesus, I simply could not maintain this way of viewing TheDivine.

…so, there you go! 🤷🏼‍♂️

[epistolizer]

Parental Leftwingers Even More Bent On Shielding Children From Narratives They Deem Offensive

An episode of the podcast Homebrewed Christianity examined religious children's literature written from a progressive perspective.

One of the authors interviewed lamented that even children's Bibles contained a description of the Crucifixion and how the account gripped her son's imagination.

But frankly, isn't that the point of the Bible in the first place?

It is amazing how tastefully describing the death of Jesus will irrevocably harm a young mind but death throughout the Harry Potter series is celebrated as a literary tool through which the young can come to grips with the most terrifying of the universal truths.

On an episode of the podcast Homebrewed Christianity, Brian McLaren was interviewed about his children's book “Cory and the Seventh Story”.

In the course of the interview, one of the hosts, who confessed that she did not want her child exposed to many aspects of the faith with which she had been raised, remarked that her child refused to read anything that contained exclusively male imagery, did not contain homosexual characters, or wreaked of the penal substitutionary atonement.

In other words, it is acceptable for a religious leftist to indoctrinate her children in her particular theological perspective.

However, Hell will be raised (ironic given the extent to which these progressive sorts tend to rail against the existence of a realm of eternal torment) if traditionalist parents intend to do the same with their own progeny.

Does this deluded mother think that censoring the truth from her child that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God and that payment for that sin is found only in the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ is going to forever prevent that child from having to confront one of these realities that is best realized in this life rather than spending forever in eternity never having done so?

By Frederick Meekins

[llevronbelac]

Theological Reasons for Christians to Reject Penal Substitutionary Atonement

It posits that the primary purpose of Christ's coming is to facilitate a change in God not man

God is made propitious. It is His wrath that is appeased. He acquires the ability of forgiveness. God's perspective towards those who have faith is changed. Little room is left for an ontological change in mankind.

It creates a division between the Father and the Son

Christ came to save us from God. He became the literal embodiment of our sin so that the Father could pour the full force of His wrath upon the Son. The Father turns His face from the Son, He forsakes Him, and He damns Him. Little room is left for humanity to be saved from our actual enemies: sin, death, and Satan.

It minimizes the other aspects of the work of Christ to maximize the Cross

The incarnation is reduced to merely making the sacrifice valuable enough to pay the sin debt of the faithful. The sinless life of Christ is reduced to merely making the sacrifice acceptable to God. The ministry to the oppressed and afflicted is completely nonexistent. The descent into Hades is completely nonexistent. The resurrection is reduced to merely be a declaration by God that the sacrifice was accepted. The ascent is completely nonexistent.

#christianity #christian #Jesus #theology #atonement #penal substitutionary atonement

[andillformthehead]

From deconstructing to deconversion.

I learned more, Jesus most definitely wiffed that prophecy about his generation seeing the coming of Yahweh's kingdom that he believed he would be king over. He absolutely did not intend to be sacrificed on the cross, that got written in after the fact by those who wanted him to have known. He was turned into one with god centuries after the fact and turned into a substitutionary atonement for our sins as an excuse for crusaders to go do hideous things in his name and yet not fear being punished for it when they died. The whole concept of penal substitutionary atonement favors abusers and evildoers once you take a step back and look at how it forces reconciliation based on a single moment of verbal "repentance" without adequate apology to the victim or evidence of changed behavior beforehand. It has since been used to great effect to persecute so many people groups.

I dug deeper into archeological podcasts by people with legitimate research papers like Dan McClellan and Bart Ehrman and the scholars they recommended and trust, and learned that Yahweh was originally a lesser deity in the Mesopotamian pantheon associated with war and revenge and possibly the forge. He had a wife, the mentioned Asherah who Israel was later told to reject in an effort to centralize the cult worship and keep the people unified during exile. It's ancient religious propaganda to excuse bloodlust and pursue religious "purity." I am thoroughly disgusted.

So I left. I dug into the Bible and discovered an abusive and openly manipulative god at its center, one that delights in killing and punishment then pretends it's for everyone's own good. One that allows certain approved people to argue back without him getting murdery about it, provided they grovel every other sentence, only to outright ignore them.

I don't believe a lesser god with large ambitions had the authority to send everyone else in the world to burning torment, even if I still believed hell was an original doctrine and not made up by later Christian churches to use as a threat to force conversion, I don't believe Yahweh could send me there for pointing out abusiveness.

It left me a bit at loose ends, because my left ovary was restored years after I lost it to ectopic pregnancy complications. Confirmed by ultrasound techs, fully functional. So I still believe in deity, I just don't know which one seems to have adopted me after I was forced out of Yahweh's cult eight years ago. I decided to start with Celtic spiritually since ethnically that's my heritage. There's not much there of past worship records, but the more I've learned about ancient gods and goddesses of all ancient religious practices the more I don't think any of them got it right anyway. So new isn't bad, it's just uncertain and that makes it uncomfortable. But my groundwork is no abuse, anti abuse, always. It's curiosity and questioning, it's learning history to look for the abusive patterns in it and make sure not to repeat them in my own life.

Nothing is certain except the past, I now know we can make this world better. Leaving that ancient apocalypse cult freed me up to believe we can do better.

#deconstructing christianity #christianity #deconstructed #deconvert #deconversion #sad thoughts #faith #tw abuse #abusiveness

[aphilosophyusa]

False Doctrines Within Christianity That Must be Refuted

To restore true Christianity, I have thought of a few major doctrines or teachings that are prevalent in either all major Christian denominations, or most of them, that must be rejected and replaced with true doctrines if we are to return to the original, pure form of Christianity that would have been taught by Christ and believed by converts and followers during the time of Christ’s earthly ministry and the Apostles. Because there are so many false teachings out there, this list cannot be seen as exhaustive, but rather as a starting point for the major ones that have wide influence.

1. The Doctrines and Epistles (or pseudo-epistles) of Paul of Tarsus

This is the number one biggest problem I see in modern Christianity; too many Christians do not recognize Paul of Tarsus for the deceiver and false apostle that he is (or was, rather). I say that again: PAUL OF TARSUS IS A FALSE APOSTLE. His writings must be rejected and people must once again only look to the words of Christ Himself to learn the true revelation of God.

This first one may come as quite a shock to your average Christian who has never thought to question Paul, but once you start seeing the problems created by Paul’s epistles, it becomes very obvious that this is something which needs to be addressed. Because of how Christianity is taught, with every book in the Canon being considered inspired of God and the pastors and preachers constantly focusing on the message of Paul, it’s easy to see how most people would react very strongly to someone claiming that Paul was a false apostle.

But when you throw away your preconceptions and presuppositions derived from how Christianity is presented in modern times and investigate the history of the early church, there is a lot of evidence that Paul and his doctrines were not part of the original apostolic message, but were rather something that was incorporated at a later time by influential “Christians” who operated centuries after the time of Christ.

While this might APPEAR to be an extreme position to take when it comes to restoring Christianity, my belief is that it is absolutely essential to get the modern Christian body to reject Paul and his false, anti-Christ message. The reasons for that will be elucidated in future posts, but at this time I don’t see any other more pressing issue when it comes to the problems we see in Christianity today. And what can also be seen is that many of the other false doctrines have roots in the writings of Paul as well, so it all ties together.

2. The Atonement

In what may come as another shocking claim to the average Christian, the Atonement of Christ (and specifically the penal substitutionary conceptualization) is a false doctrine. Almost all Christians are taught in some form or another that the death of Christ on the cross is a sort of debt payment for the sins of mankind that is applied to the believer upon the sincere placement of one’s faith in the person of Christ and His redemptive work. Sorry, that’s just not what Jesus taught, and it’s not what the true prophets of God taught either. Christ taught that salvation comes by obedience to the commands and will of God. This notion is logically incompatible with the way salvation by atonement and faith is taught in modern churches. As such, this doctrine will also be a focus of my writings.

3. The Trinity

This point may not be seen as outrageous to modern Christians as those already listed, if only because it is already such a topic of intense debate and people are more aware of the controversy than with the other disputed doctrines I have already mentioned. But in any case, this is a big one that must be corrected: the Trinity is a false doctrine that is in conflict with what Christ taught, is entirely irrational, and which creates a division within the Godhead, thus destroying the unity and oneness of God. Trinitarians will claim that they maintain the unity of God by how they conceive of the Trinity, but in addition to showing the many ways the Trinity is false, I will also attempt to explain why their assertions aren’t supported by either the facts or logic.

4. The Bible Being Inerrant and the Final Authority of the Believer (Sola Scriptura)

Another one that will appear very controversial to most modern Christians, this point necessarily follows from the objections I have already raised, specifically with the rejection of Paul as an authority. One cannot challenge the authority of Paul without at the same time challenging the inerrancy and authority of Scripture and the Bible itself. As such, this is a logically necessary objection. But it’s one that should always have been potential to consider regardless of the truthfulness of Paul. There is no reason, historically or logically, to presuppose that a book written and assembled by men is tantamount to a perfect text essentially authored by the very perfect and Holy God of the universe. So to restore true Christianity, it is unfortunately necessary to analyze and critique the very book so many Christians cherish as their rule of faith.

5. Salvation by Faith Alone (Sola Fide)

This doctrine much be replaced by the true teaching of Christ, which is that all humans are saved by obedience to God’s commands, not through forgiveness of God which is bestowed on those who are merely “faithful”, but have not repented of their disobedience.

6. Imputation of Righteousness

Another essential doctrine of the false modern version of Christianity, mostly of the Protestant variety, which is that when a person places his or her faith in Christ, at that point a forensic exchange takes place where the perfect righteousness of Christ is accredited, or IMPUTED, to the account of the new believer. Unfortunately for people who have fallen for this doctrine, no such imputation takes place, and every person will be judged according to his or her own inherent righteousness. Otherwise God is a false judge, and as such no one who truly wishes to honor and worship God can accept a doctrine which makes God to be both a liar and unfair.

7. Divine Determinism and Election

Mainly a problem within Calvinistic denominations, it is still a fairly prevalent view that God elects certain people for salvation and predetermines that they will come to saving faith, while simultaneously predetermining that the rest of mankind (the vast majority of people, as well) will not be saved and therefore will be condemned to eternal hellfire... BY GOD’S VERY DECREE. Obviously a problematic notion, and one that needs to be disputed as strongly as possible.

8. We Are in the End Times and Christ’s Literal Return is Imminent

People have been claiming for 2000 years now, or the entire history of Christianity, that Christ’s return is imminent and any moment this earth’s purpose will be fulfilled and God will intervene and establish a new kingdom while doing away with this fallen world. What this leads to is a situation where people spend their lives in constant anticipation of something that does not happen, and thus they don’t fulfil their purpose on this earth effectively.

Even if Christ is to literally return, people need to recognize that until that time, this earth has a purpose and we are to live on earth as productive members of society and engaged with the affairs of this world. God has commanded Christians to do good works, and if people believe that this world is useless and thus don’t do them, that will affect not only this world negatively, but their very salvation, so it is necessary for people to operate as though this earth will continue on as it always apparently has.

Conclusion

So these are just a few topics which I will examine and discuss. While these are the main ones, I’m sure there will be other topics that are addressed and also many that have nothing to do with Christianity but rather other subjects and ideas related to philosophy, politics, or other important areas of investigation. Ultimately, my goal is to address whatever I believe will lead to people to the ultimate truth and a life lived in accordance with the will of God.

[donveinot]

[unhewn]

When PSA Isn't PSA

Take the following demonstration that the Bible teaches Penal Substitutionary Atonement (PSA):

Throughout the Bible, death is a penalty for sin

Jesus died but was sinless, therefore…

Jesus’ death was a punishment for someone else’s sin (ours)

The words are certainly all there: a Penalty, a Substitutionary death, all to Atone. We're looking at PSA, right? Wrong.

Let's clarify. Every Christian should affirm our culpability for Christ's death. Our sin brings death into the world, our sin desires Christ's crucifixion, and our captivity to sin and death are the reason for Christ's death. Yet you can affirm every point above (and I do) and still deny PSA.

This is because PSA is a view of how Christ satisfies the justice of God. What about Christ's death was effective? It is not working at the level of whether or not I deserved to die instead of Christ. PSA says: "What is not suffered is not paid." Sin has incurred a punishment we must endure. For us to be saved, Christ must suffer all that we are due for us. If Christ does not suffer it for us, it still awaits us. In fact, for the Calvinist, this is the reprobate's situation: Christ has not suffered their punishment, therefore it still awaits them. And since we are due not just death but hell, physical death is not enough for Christ's death to be effective. His spiritual death is also required.

What is spiritual death? Spiritual death is the soul’s loss of personal communion with God. It is the dying in which we die (lit. Gen 2:17). The question is then: can we affirm that Christ suffered spiritual death while also affirming the Hypostatic Union? Can his soul remain united to Himself, as the Word of God, while being deprived of union with God? That is also to say, with Himself, since he is one with the Father? Things don't look promising. Perhaps the communication of attributes will give us a path out of these woods? If we can ascribe things to the person of the Son that are fitting of only one of his natures (like hunger, sleep, or omnipresence) why not spiritual death too? Humans can die spiritually, why can’t the incarnate Son?

The issue is that while Christ is truly man, he is not merely a man. In fact, that is the crux (pun intended) of the incarnation. He enters into our condition, but enters whole, not broken as we are, by uniting humanity to Himself, and in doing so saves us.

So the communicatio idiomata is constrained in what can be affirmed about the Word of God, because the affirmations cannot contradict who He is as God. He is without sin, and it does no good to say Christ sinned or committed an evil act as long as it was according to his human nature. The reason for this becomes clear: it is a contradiction of the character, of the Who we are referring to. A sinful Christ would not be a true revelation of the Father, and therefore not his Word. Christ only expresses the character of the Father, since he is the express image of the Father.

So if the Word of God suffers spiritual death, that is only to say he has lost unity with His own soul—the union has fallen into disunion. We have just pierced the heart of the Hypostatic Union, and thus the very grounds of our salvation and our faith. The communication of attributes does not allow us to say Christ can sin according to his Human Nature, because sin is properly personal and not natural—it is an ontological, relational rupture.

This is why Christ's soul can never be estranged from His person, and why we cannot affirm Christ's spiritual death. If the union between the Son and his own soul is lessened or dissolved, we are talking about a lessening or dissolution of the hypostatic union. His soul and body can be separated from each other. But not from Him.

And since spiritual death is relational, it entails a loss of personal union or communion with God. If that loss occurs within Christ, the Hypostatic Union is compromised; if between the persons of the Trinity, the Trinity is compromised.

—

Something that feels obvious to me, but needs to be fleshed out, is that while one can be innocent in physical death, spiritual death requires personal sin. This is Augustine's view, but I want to establish that spiritual death could not be substitutionary (and doesn't need to be for the atonement to be effective.)

[troybeecham]

Today, the Church remembers St. Irenaeus (died about AD 202) who was a Greek Christian priest noted for his role in guiding and expanding Christian communities in what is now the south of France and, more widely, for the development of Christian theology by combatting what the Early Church was beginning to define as heresy and defining orthodoxy.

Ora pro nobis.

Originating from Smyrna, now Izmir in Turkey, he had heard the preaching of Polycarp, who in turn was said to have heard John the Evangelist, an apostle of Jesus.

Chosen as bishop of Lugdunum, now Lyon, his best-known work is "On the Detection and Overthrow of the So-Called Gnosis", often cited as "Adversus Haereses", an attack on gnosticism, in particular that of Valentinus. To counter the doctrines of the gnostic sects claiming secret wisdom, he offered three pillars of orthodoxy: the scriptures, the tradition handed down from the apostles, and the teaching of the apostles' successors. Intrinsic to his writing is that the surest source of Christian guidance is the church of Rome, and he is the earliest surviving witness to recognise all four gospels as essential. Irenaeus is also known as one of the first theologians to use the principle of apostolic succession to refute his opponents. Irenaeus' point when refuting the Gnostics was that all of the Apostolic churches had preserved the same traditions and teachings in many independent streams. It was the unanimous agreement between these many independent streams of transmission that proved the orthodox Faith, current in those churches, to be true.

The central point of Irenaeus' theology is the unity and the goodness of God. Irenaeus conceives of our salvation as essentially coming about through the incarnation of God as a man, Yeshua/Jesus. He characterizes the penalty for sin as death and corruption rather than “eternal damnation” (a much later concept). God, however, is immortal and incorruptible, and simply by becoming united to human nature in Jesus He conveys those qualities to us: they spread, as it were, like a benign infection (his words - saying in another way the same thing as our being continuously sanctified and growing in grace by the indwelling of God’s Holy Spirit). Irenaeus emphasizes that salvation occurs through Jesus’ Incarnation, which bestows incorruptibility on redeemed humanity (“…For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive…), rather than emphasizing what would also later develop in Western Christianity as the “penal substitutionary atonement” theory of His Redemptive death in the crucifixion.

Almighty God, you upheld your servant Irenaeus with strength to maintain the truth against every blast of vain doctrine: Keep us, we pray, steadfast in your true religion, that in constancy and peace we may walk in the way that leads to eternal life; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, now and forever.

Amen.

#father troy beecham #christianity #jesus #saints #god #salvation #peace #faith #early church

[hobbitsetal]

I read an article* recently that examined Voddie Baucham’s theology of and general attitude toward parenting--the catchy “viper in a diaper” philosophy. It made me acutely aware that the longer we parent gently and the further we get from Reformed theology, the more grateful I am for my relationships with my son and my God, and the more strongly convicted I feel about never spanking.

I have concerns about parenting in general, certainly. Arthur is two, and is overall a sweet and amenable child. Overall, he listens pretty well: stops on walks when we call to him to wait, usually comes when we call his name, has learned to say “thank you” freely and is learning “please” and “help” as prompted. He’s empathetic, running to try to comfort any crying child he sees. We have only to express frustration to see him get upset in turn.

But will Cassian respond the same way? Probably not. While he kicks almost as much as his brother in the womb, and while he apparently has my knees and elbows, we know Cas is his own little person and will react differently to stimuli and challenges. And we, two and a half years into this adventure of parenting, have become different people and will meet certain of his behaviors differently than we met Arthur’s.

And, of course, we have the questions that only time can answer, of what will our boys be like as they grow older? How will they respond to our guidance when they are ten, teens, young adults?

Those are questions that God knows and we will learn in due time.

In the meantime, my son is not a viper in a diaper. He is an image-bearer of God, a tiny joy who loves snuggles and telling apples “bye-bye” as he throws them on the ground and who displays boundless and exhausting energy.

The doctrine of total depravity undermines, to me, our status as image-bearers of God. That image may be marred by sin, but it is not gone. Baucham and those who subscribe to similar theology treat children and the idea of original sin as if children are utter fools bent solely on their own sins, uninterested in doing the right thing unless their parents compel them to. And they discipline in accordance with that belief: they spank for nearly every infraction, they view children’s attitudes and responses as acts of wilful rebellion, they offer no quarter for the simple weaknesses of humanity.

They offer no grace. Ironic, for those who claim to hold to the tenets of grace.

I do not say this from an outside perspective. I was Reformed for a decade, and read theology extensively from within that worldview. As we continue evolving our beliefs, Alex and I have been rereading many books we once regarded highly, reading them now with a more critical eye and finding the flaws within them.

At the core, our entire worldview has shifted irreconcilably from the Reformed doctrines and the many foundational theologies assumed within it. We don’t hold to penal substitutionary atonement theory. We don’t hold a punitive view of justice. I’m not even sure we fully believe in original sin (a doctrine traceable to St. Augustine).

We believe more strongly in unconditional love. My behavior and my reactions shouldn’t be governed by my child’s behavior. When Arthur throws a tantrum because we told him no, when he melts down because he’s hangry or tired, my calling as his mother is to respond with the same patient love and care I give to him when he’s running to me to bestow hugs or kisses.

I believe that God displays unconditional love. No human is perfect. No human can ever hold perfect theology. So if I’m wrong in some of my beliefs, I believe ultimately it doesn’t matter. God sees my earnest desire to love well, to show love to others, my desire to hold to what is true and lovely and worthwhile. If I err in my behaviors and actions, God forgives and embraces, as I forgive and embrace my son.

I believe that God is love. The thread seen through the Bible is that He loves His people.

And if all of humanity is created in the image of God, are we not all His people?

That’s the point Jesus made with the parable of the Samaritan. That’s the point the apostle John makes in 1st John. And that is the point I hold before me in my dealings with my children.

As Christians, we are called to love, gentleness, kindness, compassion. We are told that love does not insist on its own way. How is hitting my child to enforce compliance in line with those teachings?

We are our children’s guides, shepherds, stewards. Shepherds don’t beat their sheep. And we do not beat our sons.

We seek to understand them. We know Arthur pretty well, and we can usually identify when his moods go south because he’s tired and needs to rest, or he needs food, or even when he’s being wild because he has no good outlet for his energy and needs to be allowed outside.

The parenting I grew up with, and was taught to parent with, would have me respond by teaching him that his needs are no excuse for poor behavior. I find that insensitive to a two year old’s situation. He’s still learning how to ask for help when he’s frustrated. How can I expect him to convey properly that he has ants in his little pants and desperately needs stimuli to entertain him? And why would I punish him for conveying, in his limited way, what he does want and need? He’s getting better at asking to go for walks. He will, with time, get better at regulating his emotions and not crying when he’s frustrated.

And he will get better as he sees us model these behaviors.

He learned “thank you” because we his parents say that frequently to each other. He’s learned to kiss and give hugs because we’re freely affectionate with him and each other. He’s learned empathy and compassion for others’ pain because we respond immediately to his crying.

Much of the parenting philosophy I grew up with decries “child-centered parenting,” from arranging social schedules around children’s nap times to adjusting our behaviors for their moods. But as I center my parenting around my son’s needs, I question that mindset deeply.

Arthur cannot help getting tired and hangry unless we help him manage his bodily needs. He cannot express to me, or even properly identify, when he becomes overwhelmed by big crowds and too much excitement. He just grows wild or starts freaking out over little things. It is our responsibility as his parents to recognize his weaknesses and his needs and to meet them.

It is our responsibility to consider his needs more important than our own. To love him as we love our own bodies. To do for him, the least of us, as we would care for God Himself. As Mary cared for God Himself.

As he grows older, his needs will shift and how we meet them will shift. As he develops, he’ll learn better to control his own responses, and we will begin to hold him responsible for his reactions to stimuli and how well he communicates to us and others what he needs. This is part of preparing him for life.

My mother told me, when I was a teenager, that hormonal shifts over the course of a month would affect my mood. I found that very helpful in checking my own reactions. Did I have a reason to be annoyed or was I PMSing? Should I be irritable or did I need rest? Checking my emotions and responses is a learned skill.

I cannot hold my son to standards I myself don’t adhere to. I’m not always cheerful or reasonable. Sometimes I respond to him in anger. Therefore, it is more incumbent on me to respond to my son’s anger with grace, and to teach him how to restore relationships in the aftermath of a relational injury.

We all must live with our humanity. And we must teach the littlest humans how to live with themselves and others with grace and love. If we respond to their needs by hitting them for expressing emotions or desires, what do we teach them but that they are inconvenient and should not express themselves?

And what do we teach them of the image of God, and of the God in Whose image we are made?

*tw for discussions of child abuse. The article itself is very good: https://www.csbvbristol.org.uk/2020/06/01/the-child-as-viper/

#parenting #christian living #I know i'm rambling i just #I think about Baucham every time my son wraps his little arms around me #Arthur is half sleep and hugging me tightly #and I love him so much #I cannot fathom overlooking his humanity and vulnerability the way Baucham would

[focr]

THE CENTRAL PROBLEM OF THE PENAL THEORY

The central problem of the Penal Theory is, as you point out, understanding how punishing a person other than the perpetrator of the wrong can meet the demands of justice. Indeed, we might even say that it would be wrong to punish some innocent person for the crimes I commit!

It seems to me, however, that in other aspects of human life we do recognize this practice. I remember once sharing the Gospel with a businessman. When I explained that Christ had died to pay the penalty for our sins, he responded, “Oh, yes, that’s imputation.” I was stunned, as I never expected this theological concept to be familiar to this non-Christian businessman. When I asked him how he came to be familiar with this idea, he replied, “Oh, we use imputation all the time in the insurance business.” He explained to me that certain sorts of insurance policies are written so that, for example, if someone else drives my car and gets in an accident, the responsibility is imputed to me rather than to the driver. Even though the driver behaved recklessly, I am the one held liable; it is just as if I had done it.

Now, this is parallel to substitutionary atonement. Normally I would be liable for the misdeeds I have done. But through my faith in Christ, I am, as it were, covered by his divine insurance policy, whereby he assumes the liability for my actions. My sin is imputed to him, and he pays its penalty. The demands of justice are fulfilled, just as they are in mundane affairs in which someone pays the penalty for something imputed to him. This is as literal a transaction as those that transpire regularly in the insurance industry.

- William Lane Craig

#focr #focr 39 #subbed #william lane craig #bible commentary

[wisdomfish]

What Happened at Golgotha - Penal Substitutionary Atonement

Jesus absorbed God’s wrath for us.

Among the many other happenings during the most important hours in the history of the world — as the Son of God was crucified outside Jerusalem at a place called Golgotha (Mark 15:22) — this accomplishment is the center and foundation and heart.

Jesus had no sin of his own. It was not his own penalty that he bore, but he was a substitute for others, for those who would be joined to him by faith. This we call penal substitutionary atonement — Jesus reconciled sinners to God by being their substitute punishment. He absorbed in his person God’s righteous wrath against us, because of our sin, that we might be free from sin and its penalty and liberated to enjoy such a person forever.

Sadly, but not surprisingly, this most precious of Christian doctrines is under great assault in many quarters. It’s no new assault, and it doesn’t appear to be going away anytime soon. The wrath of God, and its manifestations in hell and penal substitution, are the revealed truths the natural man seems to find most repulsive (for good reason). Penal substitution is a doctrine conscientious pastors and Christian leaders must stay fresh on and be ready to winsomely answer when the attacks come.

~ Refresh Podcast

#jesus #golgotha #heart #indian penal code #fresh