Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
As I said, it depends on how you use the word 'pre-requisite'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
Our salvation is entirely based on the finished work of Jesus Christ, and not at all on our 'works', not even the 'work' of repentance. However, in order to receive the gift we have to admit that we need it in the first place. Repentance is our response to the gospel.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
You shouldn't be so shocked by all this - it is classical reformed theology. After all what was Martin Luther's first thesis nailed to that famous door?

In case you've forgotten :

quote:

---

When our Lord and Master, Jesus Christ, said "Repent", He called for the entire life of believers to be one of repentance.

---

If you are claiming that classic PSA undermines repentance as a biblical priority then you are barking up the wrong tree.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
Is admitting that we need it something that we are able to do? Wouldn't that be cooperating, and therefore contributing to our own salvation? And if God can give us the power to do that, why can't He give us the power to keep the commandments?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
My point is that PSA does not take sin seriously, since you can be saved while remaining a sinner. Christus Victor, by contrast, equates salvation with overcoming evil in your life. The two are the same thing. You are only saved insofar as you refrain from sin.

---

I don't really know where to start with this!

Where on earth do you get 'you can be saved while remaining a sinner' from? If you mean 'carrying on in sin' then the PSA metaphor of dying with Christ to sin and rising with him to new life points to exactly the opposite. (PSAers take it objectively rather than subjectively - but they still adhere to it! ) However, if you mean 'stop sinning altogether' then I think you're on your own with that one.

'You are only saved insofar as you refrain from sin' - likewise, where do you get this from? What about past sin? (Like the Thief on the Cross?) What about future sin? George Whitfield once exclaimed, "I even sin when I'm praying!" Romans 4: 8 is a great comfort to me - Clearly Freddy you must reach a level of sanctification that is way beyond us mere mortals.

I think you are moving off topic from atonement models to a discussion of justification and sanctification. I would argue that they are different things but inextricably linked.

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by sharktacos:
Hi Everyone, I'm the bloke who wrote the article referenced at the beginning of this thread Penal Substitution vs Christus Victor

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
My point is that PSA does not take sin seriously, since you can be saved while remaining a sinner.

---

quote:

---

Christus Victor, by contrast, equates salvation with overcoming evil in your life. The two are the same thing. You are only saved insofar as you refrain from sin.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by MSHB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by sharktacos:
Hi Everyone, I'm the bloke who wrote the article referenced at the beginning of this thread Penal Substitution vs Christus Victor

---

Hmm. Looking at your article... I don't see the OT sacrifices as being about substitutionary anything,

---

Posted                       

Hi there - thanks for your replies to Freddy ... perhaps he will see now that his comments about repentance are not directed at PSA ... maybe.

quote:

---

Originally posted by sharktacos:
What CV says is that from a legal standpoint (justice) God could have forgiven sin, but that our problem is deeper and requires healing (recreation), so Christ needed to die in the sense of liberating us from bondage and healing us from spiritual cancer.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
Hi there - thanks for your replies to Freddy ... perhaps he will see now that his comments about repentance are not directed at PSA ... maybe.

quote:

---

Originally posted by sharktacos:
What CV says is that from a legal standpoint (justice) God could have forgiven sin, but that our problem is deeper and requires healing (recreation), so Christ needed to die in the sense of liberating us from bondage and healing us from spiritual cancer.

---

Maybe this is just semantics but the above is not a million miles away from saying 'God could have forgiven sin, but our problem is deeper and requires justice' (as well as healing / recreation ... etc.)

How is 'God could have forgiven, but ...' significantly different from PSA?

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
OK, for the sake of brevity.


[*]Most people believe that PSA is often not taught well in our churches, and PSAers are often keen to divide popular presentations of PSA from a truely biblical understanding of the doctrine. The degree to which PSA is a stumbling block in churches is hotly debated.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by sharktacos:
PSA specifically does not say "God could have forgiven but...". It insists that justice demands satisfaction in punishment and that God cannot justly acquit us without paying that satisfaction. CV in contrast says "Had it been a case of a trespass only, and not of a subsequent corruption, repentance would have been well enough" (Athanasius, On the Incarnation, ch 7). In other words, sin reflects not just what we do, but who we are, and so we need a change in identity, a new birth. So the difference is one of paradigm: PSA is a legal paradigm, while CV is more of a "physical" or medical paradigm. Does that make sense?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sharktacos:
This part has me confused. Is anyone really denying that some people have a very negative understanding of the cross that has damaged their trust in God's love based on a (possibly mistaken) understanding of PSA? This seems to me to be undeniable. The only question is whether this negative picture reflects a misunderstanding of PSA, or whether PSA itself is wrong.

Am I missing something here?

---

Nope, I think you've got it bang on. No one is denying that there are some warped views of God's love around, and some might be influenced by teaching about PSA. As you say, the debate is (or should be ) over whether that is down to PSA itself or a mistaken view of it.

IMHO a lot of the 'heat' comes from this issue. Undoubtedly some people have been hurt by conevo churches in the past. However, it is hard to remove the layers to see precisely what was at the cause. (Ogres are like onions .)

I have frequently got confused about what it is that we are actually arguing about (now that is a picture of the church! ). I have met quite a few people who are frustrated with the PSA Only position. However, I've not read or met anyone who in any way speaks for conevos who actually wants PSA Only - all I come across is a desire to include all biblical atonement models, and balance them with each other. OTOH I have met several who want CV to be supreme as an umbrella model which subsumes all the others and removes PSA altogether. Now, I may well be way off beam here and am quite willing to be corrected, but ISTM that this debate is really over CV Only rather than PSA Only.

Have I got this completely wrong?

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
It makes sense, I'm not sure what the significant difference is.

---

quote:

---

Why could I not say, 'God could have forgiven, but sin is so serious that he had to do something about it'? - that seems to be expressing both CV & PSA (according to your post).

---

quote:

---

I have met several who want CV to be supreme as an umbrella model which subsumes all the others and removes PSA altogether. Now, I may well be way off beam here and am quite willing to be corrected, but ISTM that this debate is really over CV Only rather than PSA Only.

Have I got this completely wrong?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by sharktacos:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
[qb] OK, for the sake of brevity.

<snip>

Am I missing something here?

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:

quote:

---

Originally posted by sharktacos:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
[qb] OK, for the sake of brevity.

<snip>

Am I missing something here?

---

Yes. A conversation that Jolly Jape and I (and others) had for the last 9 pages or so.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by sharktacos

I think you are on to something. I would agree that CV should be seen as an umbrella concept, and that PSA should be removed. But I would want in that to include ALL biblical atonement models. The reason I would want to make CV central is that rather than having a hodgepodge of metaphors (some mutually contradictory), it gives a comprehensive and broad view that allows us to see how all work together with a lot more depth than the scattered approach does. Part of that model would include an understanding of substitutionary atonement as central to the whole picture which retains all of the biblical elements of substitution, and loses the nasty bits of PSA that you would likely not miss.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by JohnnyS

ISTM both PSA and CV portray God as wanting to forgive, however they both have a 'but'.

Why could I not say, 'God could have forgiven, but sin is so serious that he had to do something about it'? - that seems to be expressing both CV & PSA (according to your post).

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
This is pretty much how I see it, too.

---

Well then, please tell Seeker that when she comes back from holiday!

Seriously, it is helpful to understand what it is that we are discussing. In debates like over Steve Chalke's book conevos are first of all attacked for believing monstrous things and then lambasted again for having a go at Steve. I don't mind taking at the heat, but it might as well be deserved.

Right then, the issue is - CV Only (as in remove PSA completely and subsume all other models under the umbrella of CV). Okay, that is something I can get my teeth into.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:

Actually I don't think that is what CV is saying. It is saying that God does, and has, forgiven our sin already, but that forgiveness is not enough to bring us to eternal life. Rather we need to be healed, re-created into a new order, no longer subject to the law of sin and death. Of course, it is a new spiritual state; until we die or the eschaton comes we are still in fallen, decaying bodies. But the essential us is re-created in union with Christ, to be clothed in a new body like that of Him at the end of time.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originaly posted by Johhny S

quote:

---

quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:

Actually I don't think that is what CV is saying. It is saying that God does, and has, forgiven our sin already, but that forgiveness is not enough to bring us to eternal life. Rather we need to be healed, re-created into a new order, no longer subject to the law of sin and death. Of course, it is a new spiritual state; until we die or the eschaton comes we are still in fallen, decaying bodies. But the essential us is re-created in union with Christ, to be clothed in a new body like that of Him at the end of time.

---

Yep, I still don't quite understand this bit. How is this not universalism? And what part does repentance and faith play?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
However, I think that the position is not of necessity universalist. As I see it, repentance is the fruit of accepting our prior forgiveness, and is a gift given to us by the Holy Spirit as He unites us with Christ (sorry, Freddy). Faith is the means by which we appropriate the benefits of the victory that Christ has won for us. I would argue that this faith is not just our faith, but Christ's faith as well, so I would reject a simple "sinners prayer" type mechanism as being normative, but that's just me - Others would probably disagree.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

In debates like over Steve Chalke's book conevos are first of all attacked for believing monstrous things and then lambasted again for having a go at Steve.

---

quote:

---

How is this not universalism? And what part does repentance and faith play?

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

However, he did say at one point that the 'son of man came to give himself a ransom for many.' Quite PSA in a sense don't you think?

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

given that God already forgives us and (as it were) nothing stands between us, why on earth wouldn't God grant that gift to everyone?

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Universalism does seem to be implied by CV as expounded here and with it comes the issue of why be a Christian?

---

quote:

---

Freddy in no way demonstrated that the word redemption means victory.

---

quote:

---

Interesting that you should state that CV demands the utter destruction of sin. The problem though is that sin is part of our very nature. For it to be destroyed, and us preserved, PSA is the only consistent way since it allows judgement of the sin but allows God's love of trhe sinner.

---

quote:

---

How on earth could it mean anything except that Christ was subject to God's righteous judgement because our sins and sinfulness were imputed to him?

---

quote:

---

"he did say at one point that the 'son of man came to give himself a ransom for many.' Quite PSA in a sense don't you think?

---

quote:

---

PSA as she is generally understood is the basis of both Catholic and Reformed thinking about Christ.

---

quote:

---

Show me one tradition that does not assume it as a given?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by David Castor:
Actually, I think that the logical conclusion of PSA is universalism - notwithstanding the fact that universalist PSAers are a small group indeed. If Christ's death pays the penalty for sin, why can't it pay the penalty for everyone's sin? How does repentance actually make this transaction efficacious? If someone paid your fine, it would still be paid whether you said thankyou or not.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

for Christ's death to be meaningfully substitutional one must understand that one was in Christ dying with him. In other words Christ's death was, and is, the means by which you understand yourself, in a very real sense, to have died.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by sharktacos:

quote:

---

for Christ's death to be meaningfully substitutional one must understand that one was in Christ dying with him. In other words Christ's death was, and is, the means by which you understand yourself, in a very real sense, to have died.

---

This is quite biblical, but does not make sense with the logic of PSA which says that Christ is punished instead of us. So while the above view fits with SA (and with the Bible) it does not fit with PSA.

---

How can you have a Substitutional model that is not about Christ dying in our place (instead of us)? I thought that was what substitution meant?

I think you are being a little naive about how atonement models work in your sweeping generalisations about the origins of relative models. We are discussing the relative merits of different models now, it is actually very hard to demonstrate and delineate the evolution of those models. For example there is clear evidence of PSA in the early church fathers. You are trying to make a grey issue (the dominance of certain models) very black and white. It just doesn't 'fit' with Church History.

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Just to try and clarify the universalist tangent, I accept that there are fewer problems with universalism under a CV rather than a PSA schema, but Numpty's excellent post above (with which I agree) is true both for PSA and for CV. What is true of the one is also true of the other. I am a weak universalist, and also a proponent of CV, but I hold these positions for quite different, and I believe thoroughly scriptural reasons. Belief in the one is not consequential of belief in the other. I very much suspect that most CVers are non-universalist, so I don't think it can be demonstrated that the one is the logical conclusion of the other.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Just to try and clarify the universalist tangent, I accept that there are fewer problems with universalism under a CV rather than a PSA schema, but Numpty's excellent post above (with which I agree) is true both for PSA and for CV. What is true of the one is also true of the other. I am a weak universalist, and also a proponent of CV, but I hold these positions for quite different, and I believe thoroughly scriptural reasons. Belief in the one is not consequential of belief in the other. I very much suspect that most CVers are non-universalist, so I don't think it can be demonstrated that the one is the logical conclusion of the other.

---

I believe you JJ, but is that because you are right or just because you are (like all of us are to some degree) being inconsistent? It could be that most CVers are non-universalist (at the moment) because they haven't yet reached the end of the trajectory of thought.

---

Well, of course, I believe I'm right !

Seriously though, what think you of the following argument, which I would guess would be used by non-u CVers.

Suppose that you are ill of a disease which, if untreated will prove fatal, but is curable with appropriate medication. The efficacy of the treatment is undoubted, but if you refuse to take the meds prescribed for you, then you will die.

Of course, this argument could equally be used by PSAers, which I why I would argue that there is no inherent link between universalism and any particular objective view of the atonement.

The debate re universalism is about how effective God is in persuading us to take the meds, rather than about the efficacy of the cure. Even (at least, weak) universalists agree that "taking the medication" (ie having our sinful nature transformed) is a prerequisite for eternal life.

--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by sharktacos:

quote:

---

for Christ's death to be meaningfully substitutional one must understand that one was in Christ dying with him. In other words Christ's death was, and is, the means by which you understand yourself, in a very real sense, to have died.

---

This is quite biblical, but does not make sense with the logic of PSA which says that Christ is punished instead of us. So while the above view fits with SA (and with the Bible) it does not fit with PSA.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Any model of substitutionary atonement (penal or otherwise) that does not specify mystical union with Christ as the means by which the benefits of the passion are appropriated is, IMO, sub-biblical. It is not enough to stand back an watch Christ suffer and say, 'That is being done for me'; we must understand that in some sense it is being done to us as well as for us.

Penal substitution only makes sense if one recognises one's mystical union - and one's very real presence - with Christ in the crucifixion event. It is not possible for Christ to die 'for our sins' unless we are in some sense present with and in Christ as he dies. Jesus did not take the blame for our sins in the sense that God punished him for something he didn't do. Jesus took the blame for our sins in the sense that he came with us - or, to look at it from another angle, took us with him - to the cross and experienced, as temporal reality, the wage for sinfulness that we brought with us.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

13And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, 14by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

I think it does. Paul quite clearly said that he had been crucified with Christ: this can only refer to some form of mystical union with Christ in his death. However, Paul is perfectly clear that Christ's death was also in some sense substutionary.[?QUOTE]

You have demonstrated that the idea of substitution being "with" is Biblical, and that also that Christ's death is substitutionary for Paul (meaning "for us"). But As I said before this does not fit with PSA which says that Christ's death is "instead of", which you seem to be denying since "with" and "instead of" are opposites.

It seems to me that you are arguing for substitutionary atonement rather than penal substitution.


[QUOTE]Any model of substitutionary atonement (penal or otherwise) that does not specify mystical union with Christ as the means by which the benefits of the passion are appropriated is, IMO, sub-biblical.

---

quote:

---

Jesus took the blame for our sins in the sense that he came with us - or, to look at it from another angle, took us with him - to the cross and experienced, as temporal reality, the wage for sinfulness that we brought with us

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

How can you have a Substitutional model that is not about Christ dying in our place (instead of us)? I thought that was what substitution meant?

---

quote:

---

I think you are being a little naive about how atonement models work in your sweeping generalisations about the origins of relative models. We are discussing the relative merits of different models now, it is actually very hard to demonstrate and delineate the evolution of those models. For example there is clear evidence of PSA in the early church fathers.

---

quote:

---

You are trying to make a grey issue (the dominance of certain models) very black and white. It just doesn't 'fit' with Church History.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

I don't recognize penal substitution in what you are describing.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
sharktacos wrote:

quote:

---

I don't recognize penal substitution in what you are describing.

---

Well, I'm looking at it from another angle and from where I'm standing I can see it quite clearly. What I'm saying is this: if I am to accept that Jesus's death is (at least in part)penal (and I do) then it must be because he is acting as the vehicle for an alien unrighteousness. I believe that alien unrighteousness to be me. If I am not in Christ then his death cannot be penal. If I am in Christ then his death must be penal. Why? Because, in Christ, I am receiving the due penalty for my sin. I am a sinner, I deserve to die.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

2) there is more do Christ death "in us" and "as us" then simply the penal. Christ takes on our guilt, but also takes on the damage of sin done to us, takes on our pain, suffering, and injustice.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by sharktacos:

quote:

---

2) there is more do Christ death "in us" and "as us" then simply the penal. Christ takes on our guilt, but also takes on the damage of sin done to us, takes on our pain, suffering, and injustice.

---

To say this more starkly: Christ on the cross became both the rapist and the raped.

---

quote:

---

Meaning he took on the worst of our guilt and evil, and he also carried the most severe abuse and injustice that can be done to us so that nothing, not the sin we do and not the sin done to us, could separate us from love.

---

quote:

---

To be fully biblical we need both of those elements in our understanding of substitution.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:

Suppose that you are ill of a disease which, if untreated will prove fatal, but is curable with appropriate medication. The efficacy of the treatment is undoubted, but if you refuse to take the meds prescribed for you, then you will die.

Of course, this argument could equally be used by PSAers, which I why I would argue that there is no inherent link between universalism and any particular objective view of the atonement.

The debate re universalism is about how effective God is in persuading us to take the meds, rather than about the efficacy of the cure. Even (at least, weak) universalists agree that "taking the medication" (ie having our sinful nature transformed) is a prerequisite for eternal life.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by sharktacos:
Johnny S,

quote:

---

How can you have a Substitutional model that is not about Christ dying in our place (instead of us)? I thought that was what substitution meant?

---

Well I think Numpty has explained how quite well already. But no, substitution does not necessarily imply "instead of", that is the specific interpretation of PSA. Substitution as a theological term can also mean "for us" or "with us" or "as us".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sharktacos:
What I said was in response to the assertion that there was no atonement tradition within Christianity at all that was not based on PSA.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sharktacos:
I said in response that the predominant model for the first 1000 years was CV. There were currents of other models, for instance in Tertullian or Cyprian, but note the "greyness" of saying "predominant" as opposed to claiming that "only" PSA exists.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sharktacos:
The fact is that CV was the dominant model and that part of the Church Father's understanding of CV involved elements of punishment for sin and substitution. However to find PSA in that as the authors of "Pierced" do, involves cherry picking rather than a reading of what the Father's actual point is.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

I think it is disingenuous to keep calling it 'substitution' since the term in English has always had some sense of 'instead of' - that is after all what a substitute is.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sharktacos:
What I said was in response to the assertion that there was no atonement tradition within Christianity at all that was not based on PSA.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sharktacos:
I said in response that the predominant model for the first 1000 years was CV. There were currents of other models, for instance in Tertullian or Cyprian, but note the "greyness" of saying "predominant" as opposed to claiming that "only" PSA exists.

---

quote:

---

Are you saying that the Church Father's taught Substitutionary atonement and they also contained elements of punishment for sin but they knew nothing of what we could call PSA?

---

quote:

---

I can quote Eusebius or Cyril if you want me to.

---

quote:

---

I could equally ask you what answer you think the Church Father's would give to the following question - "Does God punish sinners?"

---

quote:

---

I'm not claiming that the Church Father's taught a fully developed 21st century PSA, only that they taught nothing that is incompatible with it.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by sharktacos:
[

quote:

---

PSA as she is generally understood is the basis of both Catholic and Reformed thinking about Christ.

---

This is not actually true. PSA is the foundation of Calvinism. It is not the view of Luther, nor was it ever the view of the Catholic Church.

quote:

---

Show me one tradition that does not assume it as a given?

---

Christianity for the first 1000 years, the Eastern Orthodox Church, (both CV) and as I said above Lutheranism, Methodism, and Catholicism do not espouse PSA. [/QB]

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by David Castor:
Actually, I think that the logical conclusion of PSA is universalism - notwithstanding the fact that universalist PSAers are a small group indeed. If Christ's death pays the penalty for sin, why can't it pay the penalty for everyone's sin? How does repentance actually make this transaction efficacious? If someone paid your fine, it would still be paid whether you said thank you or not.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:

quote:

---

Originally posted by David Castor:
Actually, I think that the logical conclusion of PSA is universalism - notwithstanding the fact that universalist PSAers are a small group indeed. If Christ's death pays the penalty for sin, why can't it pay the penalty for everyone's sin? How does repentance actually make this transaction efficacious? If someone paid your fine, it would still be paid whether you said thankyou or not.

---

Not if you understand that a person must be in Christ and therefore be crucified with him. Some people think that the substitutionary death of Christ is something that happened 'over there' so to speak: the logic of this view is universalism. This isn't the case, because for Christ's death to be meaningfully substitutional one must understand that one was in Christ dying with him. In other words Christ's death was, and is, the means by which you understand yourself, in a very real sense, to have died.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by David Castor:

quote:

---

However, he did say at one point that the 'son of man came to give himself a ransom for many.' Quite PSA in a sense don't you think?

---

Actually, if anything, this quote seems to endorse CV. The idea that God could hold himself to ransom is rather silly, in my opinion.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by sharktacos:
CV ..... is about God overcoming evil and liberating us out of its bondage.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by sharktacos:
Numpty I am thrown off by how rude your post to me was. "Asinine...nonsense...illogical..."
If you would like to re-post with a bit of civility and respect then I will respond. Other wise I will put you on my ignore list. I simply have no room for that. Your choice.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:

quote:

---

Originally posted by sharktacos:

quote:

---

2) there is more do Christ death "in us" and "as us" then simply the penal. Christ takes on our guilt, but also takes on the damage of sin done to us, takes on our pain, suffering, and injustice.

---

To say this more starkly: Christ on the cross became both the rapist and the raped.

---

No. That's just nonsense, and if that's really what some so-called proponents of PSA believe then I feel very sorry for them. And I'd rather align myself with the likes Karl and Seeker than with someone who could posit such asinine pop-theology. Christ was never a sinner; never.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:

quote:

---

Originally posted by David Castor:

quote:

---

However, he did say at one point that the 'son of man came to give himself a ransom for many.' Quite PSA in a sense don't you think?

---

Actually, if anything, this quote seems to endorse CV. The idea that God could hold himself to ransom is rather silly, in my opinion.

---

In paying a ransom for many, Jesus was accepting a transference of sin onto himself which was undeserved. Through this mechanism as outlined in Is 53, he bore our sins and carried our issues. In Gethsemane his agony came about as a consequence of a turning away of the father from him as he gave himself up to be judged for the sin of the world. How is this model not perfectly consistent with everything we read in the scripture?

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

So John Wesley preached CV did he?

---

quote:

---

I was raised Catholic and pretty well knew the mass off by heart. We eat his body and drink his blood. Why I wonder is this necessary?

---

quote:

---

What was this sacrifice if not a penal substitution?

---

quote:

---

Can there be any substitution that is not penal?

---

quote:

---

Can there be holiness without a penalty being paid for sin?

---