Theories of Atonement

[cmbl]

And as far as PSA and Dean Taylor are concerned, if people are coming for him, well they'll have to come for Dirk Phillips as well:

When I compare this Dirk Philips quote to the quotes by the Reformed authors that Ernie's friend quotes on page 2, I see some differences. These are parallel to the difference between satisfaction/substitution views in general, on the one hand, and penal substitutionary atonement on the other.

The reformed authors say that God poured out His wrath on Jesus, God killed Jesus, etc. Dirk does not.

Dean's video discusses atonement using two categories: penal substitutionary atonement and Christus Victor. There are more categories than those.

[cmbl]

And as far as PSA and Dean Taylor are concerned, if people are coming for him, well they'll have to come for Dirk Phillips as well:

When I compare this Dirk Philips quote to the quotes by the Reformed authors that Ernie's friend quotes on page 2, I see some differences. These are parallel to the difference between satisfaction/substitution views in general, on the one hand, and penal substitutionary atonement on the other.

The reformed authors say that God poured out His wrath on Jesus, God killed Jesus, etc. Dirk does not.

It's been a little bit since I watched the video with Dean, but the thumbnail shows "PSA: checkbox" and "Christus Victor:checkbox" and I think Dean's discussion in the video (and his paper on Kingdom reductionism) mostly takes those as the two categories. There are more categories than just PSA and Christus Victor. (Dean may mention that.)

[MattY]

And as far as PSA and Dean Taylor are concerned, if people are coming for him, well they'll have to come for Dirk Phillips as well:

When I compare this Dirk Philips quote to the quotes by the Reformed authors that Ernie's friend quotes on page 2, I see some differences. These are parallel to the difference between satisfaction/substitution views in general, on the one hand, and penal substitutionary atonement on the other.

The reformed authors say that God poured out His wrath on Jesus, God killed Jesus, etc. Dirk does not.

Dean's video discusses atonement using two categories: penal substitutionary atonement and Christus Victor. There are more categories than those.

Part of the problem is a misunderstanding or miscommunication problem it seems. PSA's opponents want to use the most stark or offensive language, which was often ill-advised or easy to be misconstrued, and demand that that exact language show up in historical examples of PSA or else it's not present.

CS Lewis wrote "Mere Christianity", identifying the basics of the faith and defending it. "Mere PSA", in that spirit, requires three things:

1) Substitution
2) The act of penalty-bearing
3) God's sanction (approval) upon this arrangement

It doesn't require all the specific wording that anyone wants to attack. John Stott, for example, who defended penal substitution, said that we shouldn't say that God punished Christ. And I wouldn't say that God killed Christ, either.

There is more I could say - there are possible defenses or mitigations of those statements Ernie's friend quoted - but for time I can't go there now. But there are more quotes from Dirk Phillips that convinced me that my reading of him is correct. Such as the following:

Now, when we sincerely meditate upon this unfathomable grace and mercy of God the Father which was manifested to us through Jesus Christ, love to God is kindled in our hearts, for how could we but love such a gracious and merciful God in return, who so dearly loved us. Therefore John says: “We love him, because he first loved us” (1 John 4:19). And hereby we confess that we love God, if we keep his commandments (1 John 5:2, 3), even as Christ himself says to his disciples: “If ye love me, keep my commandments.” “He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me.” That is, “If a man love me, he will keep my words,” “but he that loveth me not, keepeth not my sayings” (John 14:15, 21, ’23, 24). By this we know” that we love God, if we sincerely love his children, that is, all true Christians; for no one can love God without also loving all who are born of God, as John declares (1 John 4:11-21).

From all of the aforesaid it is now clear what constitutes the true knowledge of Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior, both according to his true divinity and his humanity, and how we must meditate upon both the justice and the love of God as manifested to us in Christ Jesus: The justice of God regarding sin, which had to be so bitterly atoned for and punished in such an exalted person, that is, in the only begotten Son of the living God (Isa. 53:2-10) ; but the love of God toward us, that the heavenly Father gave his only begotten Son for us, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life (John 3:16).

https://christianexhortation.com/enchir ... 3145136058

[barnhart]

... PSA's opponents want to use the most stark or offensive language, which was often ill-advised or easy to be misconstrued, and demand that that exact language show up in historical examples of PSA or else it's not present.

This is the part I find hard to understand. What is the motive behind it. Why erase the relational/merciful characteristics of God and only focus on his justice and anger at sin. What purpose is it serving?

[Ernie]

I do find it weird that "Protestant" around these parts of Mennoworld seems to be a more negatively perceived word than "Catholic." But oh well.

I'm not sure if you are including me in this or not but I don't see one as more negative than the other. I view Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox as similar in both the amount of positive and negative in the doctrines and practices that they exhibit.
And within each of these three are devout believers that I can learn lots from. I associate with all three in our college campus ministry and have appreciation for people in all three groups. Some of these devout believers exhibit more dedication or more trust in God than what I often exhibit and provoke me to love and good works. I have gotten some flak from some for indicating that there is much we can learn from these folks.

My reason for mentioning Protestants earlier in this thread is because that is who most Anabaptists have gone to in the past and continue to go to in the present when they want something more than what they are getting from their Anabaptist faith community. Conservative Anabaptist doctrine has been heavily reshaped the last 125 years by Protestants (in contrast to the doctrine of Old Orders and studious persons within the conservative Anabaptist constituencies who have sought to align themselves with more historical thought.)
If we start hearing that Anabaptists are talking about praying for deceased persons, taking an interest in religious relics, or baptizing infants on a large scale, I will assume that Anabaptists are listening to Catholics, Orthodox, or other high church faith traditions and I will gladly address that as well.

[Wesleyb]

... PSA's opponents want to use the most stark or offensive language, which was often ill-advised or easy to be misconstrued, and demand that that exact language show up in historical examples of PSA or else it's not present.

This is the part I find hard to understand. What is the motive behind it. Why erase the relational/merciful characteristics of God and only focus on his justice and anger at sin. What purpose is it serving?

You all are much better studied on the theology of all this than I am, but my guess is it’s an overreaction to a perceived overreaction that creates a cycle that drives both sides further apart.

[Nomad]

... PSA's opponents want to use the most stark or offensive language, which was often ill-advised or easy to be misconstrued, and demand that that exact language show up in historical examples of PSA or else it's not present.

This is the part I find hard to understand. What is the motive behind it. Why erase the relational/merciful characteristics of God and only focus on his justice and anger at sin. What purpose is it serving?

Ernie's friend cherrypicked small quote's from each of these Protestants from a much larger body of work they were giving. I can't speak for all of what these men said but I can say that most of them, while viewing that Jesus takes the wrath of God in our place, also see the Father and the Son as complimentary to one another in the sacrifice of Jesus on our behalf, not antagonistic. This means Jesus willingly went to the cross for our punishment and the Father willingly sent Him. Giving them the benefit of the doubt, I'm pretty sure none of them are denying a loving and merciful God...they just aren't denying His wrath along with it. They way one Protestant explained it is that God is 100% Merciful and 100% Just at all times. He is 100% Righteous in both categories of Mercy and Justice. This is different from fallible humanity, we tend to either show justice without mercy/love or mercy/love without justice.

I personally wouldn't feel comfortable saying some of the quotes these Reformers make. But I also think its important to represent their whole body of work fairly. Some of these men wouldn't deny Christus Victor, Moral Influence, etc...along with PSA. I think its more of a language representation difference than an actual major theological difference when it comes to us and Protestants at times. There are some major theological differences of course...but maybe not on as many things as we try to make.

[joshuabgood]

... PSA's opponents want to use the most stark or offensive language, which was often ill-advised or easy to be misconstrued, and demand that that exact language show up in historical examples of PSA or else it's not present.

This is the part I find hard to understand. What is the motive behind it. Why erase the relational/merciful characteristics of God and only focus on his justice and anger at sin. What purpose is it serving?

I think PSA is absolutely essential in holding up thr P in TULIP...and I think it, taken exclusively by itself as atonement theory, nearly inexorably concludes in it. If God only sees the blood of Jesus in PSA then P not only makes sense but is the logical result.

It also leads, some feel .to an ethic less gospel that effectively ignores the life and teachings of Jesus and a theology that permits burning witches, torturing Quakers, and enslaving Africans, not too mention Baptists killing eachothet in the most grotesque manners.

As for why the emphasis on wrath and retribution...there is some mystery. Maybe folks feel like they need an angry God to do right. The whole J Edwards bit.

John Stott was mentioned upstream and his views nd articulations I find a lot more palatable...fwiw he also embraced CI.

[cmbl]

I grew up with the opposite experience of you. My dad loved everything "Kingdom Christian"...we had all the books and I heard all the David Bercot/ John D/ Dean Taylor/ Gary Miller/ Finny/etc messages. For Christmas my parents would buy me 4 CDs by Bercot. I read the Ante-nicene writings and studied their beliefs...much more than I studied the Bible.

15 years ago, I would have argued rather loudly against PSA and more for something that looked like Phillip Hess's version of "Christus Victor" or Bercots "Ransom Theory". But, through a series of events I changed my mind on some things. However, just because I changed my mind isn't an argument that I am now correct...I'm still learning. Plenty of people change their mind to something wrong. I say this because I've heard some claim they used to be more "Protestant-minded" and changed...this being an argument in their eyes that they now MUST hold the correct view because they changed their mind. But changing your mind doesn't actually mean you changed correctly...it just means that: you changed your mind.

I appreciate the reminder that changing one's mind just means that one has changed one's mind.

Would you care to share more about the series of events and why you changed your mind?

[JayP]

Wow. Someone DEFENDED Tulip? And I was shaking my head at folks arguing for penal.

Do folks understand, not me speaking as a Catholic, but almost all historical anabaptists would clearly reject TULIP thinking?