Arian Catholic Theological Society (ACTS) Forums

Arian Catholic Theological Society (ACTS) Forums (http://forum.arian-catholic.org/index.php)
-   Glossary of Terms & Theological Wiki Encyclopaedia (http://forum.arian-catholic.org/forumdisplay.php?f=43)
-   -   Atonement of Christ (http://forum.arian-catholic.org/showthread.php?t=242)

Matt2817 6th November 2007 11:49 PM

Atonement of Christ
 
Owing to a recently resurrected thread regarding the Arian implications of atonement, I thought it beneficial to pass along this link to the Theopedia Wiki. HERE

In blessing, bless
Wayne Matthew Mari

Stephen_Webb 7th November 2007 12:12 AM

Forbidden Link
 
Unfortunately the link provided is forbidden. Nothing loads when I click on it except an error exception.

Stephen_Webb 7th November 2007 12:47 AM

The Perfect 'Word'
 
Now here is my logic concerning such things, and it is quite technical, and I welcome any criticism or comments, for I am a humble man and if one can prove my logic flawed, then I take not enmity, but instead see my error as an oportunity to learn something new and wonderful.

The 'Word' is an expression of G-d's love for mankind, and the Holy Spirit is the method in which the message is conveyed, or revealed. Since we know that the 'Word' is pre-existant in relation to the cosmos [and mans fall], one must realize that it is a direct creation of the All Mighty Perfect Divine Creator, and as such it must also be perfect and uncorrupt [as it is contrary to Divine Nature to create something imperfect]. Many trinitarians base their idea of Y'shua Ben Yoseph's divinity in the fact that he is the 'Word', and the 'Word' is perfect, and that only G-d is perfect - and they are right except that they forget that all words must be authored, and are therefore preceded by the author, and therefore the 'Word' can not be qualified as being equal to the author/speaker of the 'Word'. With that said, one can easily come to the conclusion that the Holy Spirit could not possibly be G-d either, because it is merely the means by which the 'Word' is revealed. So now we are left with none other than the 'Father', but upon analyzing trinitarian theology, one most definately sees that their system can not support the idea for the 'Father' being G-d either, because The whole is greater than the sum of its parts, and is therefore far greater than any one part of the whole. 3 persons as one G-d is impossible. I know my entry is a bit wordy, and I appologize for that, and will most definately clarify it for anyone who is confused by it, just shoot me a message!
Needless to say, Y'shua is perfect only because of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, but is still a man subject to hunger, old age, pain and death - And it is also possible for every man, woman, and child to become the child of G-d as Christ did. And if we follow in the footsteps of Y'shua, we most certainly will also be made a perfect child of G-d.

Stephen_Webb 7th November 2007 12:48 AM

The Perfect 'Word'
 
Now here is my logic concerning such things, and it is quite technical, and I welcome any criticism or comments, for I am a humble man and if one can prove my logic flawed, then I take not enmity, but instead see my error as an oportunity to learn something new and wonderful.

The 'Word' is an expression of G-d's love for mankind, and the Holy Spirit is the method in which the message is conveyed, or revealed. Since we know that the 'Word' is pre-existant in relation to the cosmos [and mans fall], one must realize that it is a direct creation of the All Mighty Perfect Divine Creator, and as such it must also be perfect and uncorrupt [as it is contrary to Divine Nature to create something imperfect]. Many trinitarians base their idea of Y'shua Ben Yoseph's divinity in the fact that he is the 'Word', and the 'Word' is perfect, and that only G-d is perfect - and they are right except that they forget that all words must be authored, and are therefore preceded by the author, and therefore the 'Word' can not be qualified as being equal to the author/speaker of the 'Word'. With that said, one can easily come to the conclusion that the Holy Spirit could not possibly be G-d either, because it is merely the means by which the 'Word' is revealed. So now we are left with none other than the 'Father', but upon analyzing trinitarian theology, one most definately sees that their system can not support the idea for the 'Father' being G-d either, because The whole is greater than the sum of its parts, and is therefore far greater than any one part of the whole. 3 persons as one G-d is impossible. I know my entry is a bit wordy, and I appologize for that, and will most definately clarify it for anyone who is confused by it, just shoot me a message!
Needless to say, Y'shua is perfect only because of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, but is still a man subject to hunger, old age, pain and death - And it is also possible for every man, woman, and child to become the child of G-d as Christ did. And if we follow in the footsteps of Y'shua, we most certainly will also be made a perfect child of G-d.

Stephen_Webb 7th November 2007 12:49 AM

Sorry about the repeat post
 
I appologize for the repeat post, I have been having some issues with my internet explorer.

Postulare42 7th November 2007 01:55 AM

Don't worry about "wordy", Stephen. . .And there's nothing wrong with your logic.

On a side note: Many years ago I read that according to (cited) Jewish sources contemporaneous with the BC/AD shift, "Holy Spirit" was an abbrviated form of "Holy Spirit of Truth", understood much as "U.S." is understood for "U.S.A." (it's true legal name, in fact). I found it very interesting in light of the thunderous anathemas issued by just about everyone inre lying.

The term "logos", as you recall, wasn't an indigenous Jewish concept, though there was considerable discussion surrounding "Holy Wisdom". That the two would collide and meld with other derived doctrines was pretty predictable, don't you think? It's especially so, when considering the directions such things were going after the first and second revolts?

Matt2817 7th November 2007 07:07 AM

Huh? What Metaphysics is this...
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen_Webb (Post 2028)
Now here is my logic concerning such things, and it is quite technical, and I welcome any criticism or comments, for I am a humble man and if one can prove my logic flawed, then I take not enmity, but instead see my error as an oportunity to learn something new and wonderful.

The 'Word' is an expression of G-d's love for mankind, and the Holy Spirit is the method in which the message is conveyed, or revealed. Since we know that the 'Word' is pre-existant in relation to the cosmos [and mans fall], one must realize that it is a direct creation of the All Mighty Perfect Divine Creator, and as such it must also be perfect and uncorrupt [as it is contrary to Divine Nature to create something imperfect]. Many trinitarians base their idea of Y'shua Ben Yoseph's divinity in the fact that he is the 'Word', and the 'Word' is perfect, and that only G-d is perfect - and they are right except that they forget that all words must be authored, and are therefore preceded by the author, and therefore the 'Word' can not be qualified as being equal to the author/speaker of the 'Word'. With that said, one can easily come to the conclusion that the Holy Spirit could not possibly be G-d either, because it is merely the means by which the 'Word' is revealed. So now we are left with none other than the 'Father', but upon analyzing trinitarian theology, one most definately sees that their system can not support the idea for the 'Father' being G-d either, because The whole is greater than the sum of its parts, and is therefore far greater than any one part of the whole. 3 persons as one G-d is impossible. I know my entry is a bit wordy, and I appologize for that, and will most definately clarify it for anyone who is confused by it, just shoot me a message!
Needless to say, Y'shua is perfect only because of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, but is still a man subject to hunger, old age, pain and death - And it is also possible for every man, woman, and child to become the child of G-d as Christ did. And if we follow in the footsteps of Y'shua, we most certainly will also be made a perfect child of G-d.

Dear Stephen grace and peace!

I appreciate your exegesis/metaphysical approach, but fail to comprehend its logic. It is not based upon Biblical precedent. Apologies to our esteemed friend Postulare42... Specifically notable is this sentence: [...] So now we are left with none other than the 'Father', but upon analyzing trinitarian theology, one most definately sees that their system can not support the idea for the 'Father' being G-d either, because The whole is greater than the sum of its parts, and is therefore far greater than any one part of the whole. [...]

What would you have us do with John 17:3; Romans 16:27; Jude v. 25, or the opening verses of Philippians chapter 2? What about 1 Timothy 1:17 and 3:16? Taking it back in time again to Matthew 6:9; Luke 11:2 or John's gospel 20:17, what would you have us do or believe regarding the Father? Is the Father the only true God according to the Scriptures or not?

According to your previous post, if I am reading it correctly in this regard, you do not believe that the Father is God. Else, you copied and pasted a well-sounding post full of contra-Scriptural pablum.

My question is, "which is it?" Please know that I am not trying to be harsh with you! I only wish to discover what it is that you believe.

In blessing, bless
Wayne Matthew Mari

Matt2817 7th November 2007 07:26 AM

Word / Logos Primer
 
Grace and peace all,

It is imperative that the serious student of the Bible come to a basic understanding of logos, which is translated as “Word” in John 1:1. Most Trinitarians believe that the word logos refers directly to Jesus Christ, so in most versions of John logos is capitalized and translated “Word” (some versions even write “Jesus Christ” in John 1:1). However, a study of the Greek word logos shows that it occurs more than 300 times in the New Testament, and in both the NIV and the KJV it is capitalized only 7 times (and even those versions disagree on exactly when to capitalize it). When a word that occurs more than 300 times is capitalized fewer than 10 times, it is obvious that when to capitalize and when not to capitalize is a translators’ decision based on their particular understanding or bias of Scripture.

For more click HERE

In blessing, bless
Wayne Matthew Mari

Postulare42 7th November 2007 07:31 AM

Stephen's logic is sound, "Matt", but it's base of premises lacks breadth.

Many years ago, my logic prof's first words at the commencement of the first session were, " 'Logic' is a damn fine way to go wrong with confidence! " We all laughed . . . some nervously.

I considered including the above anecdote in my prior post, but I thought it better to let Stephen get into the water at least up to his knees before releasing the piranhas. :jlol:

Seriously, Stephen, are you game for a little patrology/patristics ? I like your energy. Wanna have some fun?

Matt2817 7th November 2007 07:45 AM

Forbidden link resolved...
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen_Webb (Post 2027)
Unfortunately the link provided is forbidden. Nothing loads when I click on it except an error exception.

Grace and peace Stephen! Try HERE

If this fails, please find below a reprint:

The Atonement of Christ is the sacrificial work of Jesus for sinners. In his death on the cross, Christ atoned for the sins of men such that God is satisfied and reconciliation is accomplished for all who will be redeemed. The obedience and death of Christ on behalf of sinners is the ground of redemption.

Necessity of the atonement

As stated above, Jesus' death satisfied and reconciled sinners to God. Yet, in order to fully appreciate the doctrine of the atonement it must be made clear why the atonement was necessary.

Historic theories
  • The Ransom Theory: The earliest of all, originating with the Early Church Fathers, this theory claims that Christ offered himself as a ransom (Mark 10:45). Where it was not clear was in its understanding of exactly to whom the ransom was paid. Many early church fathers viewed the ransom as paid to Satan.
  • The Satisfaction (or Commercial) Theory: The formulator of this theory was the medieval theologian Anselm of Canterbury (1034-1109), in his book, Cur Deus Homo (lit. Why the God Man). In his view, God's offended honor and dignity could only be satisfied by the sacrifice of the God-man, Jesus Christ. Anselm offered compelling biblical evidence that the atonement was not a ransom paid by God to the devil but rather a debt paid to God on behalf of sinners. Anselm's work established a foundation for the Protestant Reformation, specifically the understanding of justification by faith. See main page on Satisfaction theory
  • The Penal-Substitution Theory: This view was formulated by the 16th century Reformers as an extension of Anselm's Satisfaction theory. Anselm's theory was correct in introducing the satisfaction aspect of Christ's work and its necessity, however the Reformers saw it as insufficient because it was referenced to God's honor rather than his justice and holiness and was couched more in terms of a commercial transaction than a penal substitution. This Reformed view says simply that Christ died for man, in man's place, taking his sins and bearing them for him. The bearing of man's sins takes the punishment for them and sets the believer free from the penal demands of the law: The righteousness of the law and the holiness of God are satisfied by this substitution. See main page on Penal substitution theory
  • The Moral-Example Theory (or Moral-Influence Theory): Christ died to influence mankind toward moral improvement. This theory denies that Christ died to satisfy any principle of divine justice, but teaches instead that His death was designed to greatly impress mankind with a sense of God's love, resulting in softening their hearts and leading them to repentance. Thus, the Atonement is not directed towards God with the purpose of maintaining His justice, but towards man with the purpose of persuading him to right action. Formulated by Peter Abelard (1079-1142) partially in reaction against Anselm's Satisfaction theory, this view was held by the 16th century Socinians. Versions of it can be found later in F. D. E. Schleiermacher (1768-1834) and Horace Bushnell (1802-1876). See main page on Moral Influence theory
  • The Governmental Theory: God made Christ an example of suffering to exhibit to erring man that sin is displeasing to him. God's moral government of the world made it necessary for him to evince his wrath against sin in Christ. Christ died as a token of God's displeasure toward sin and it was accepted by God as sufficient; but actually God does not exact strict justice. This view was formulated by Hugo Grotius (1583-1645) and is subsequently found in Arminianism, Charles Finney, the New England Theology of Jonathan Edwards (the younger), and Methodism. See main page on Governmental theory of atonement
Modern theories
  • The Declaratory Theory: A version of the Moral Influence theory, wherein Christ died to show men how greatly God loves them. This view held by Albrecht Ritschl (1822-89).
  • The Guaranty Theory: Reconciliation is based not on Christ's expiation of sin, but on His guaranty to win followers and thus conquer human sinfulness. This view held by J. C. K. von Hofmann (1810-77).
  • The Vicarious Repentance Theory: by John McLeod Campbell (d. 1872). It assumes that a perfect repentance is sufficient to atone for sin. In his death, Christ entered into the Father's condemnation of sin, condemned sin, and by this, confessed it.
  • The 'Christus Victor' or Dramatic Theory: by G. E. H. Aulén (1879-1977). The atonement is viewed as divine conflict and victory over the hostile powers that hold humanity in subjection. This is a modified form of the classic Ransom theory with the emphasis on Christ's victory over evil. See main article Christus Victor.
  • The Accident Theory: Christ's death was an accident, as unforeseen and unexpected as that of any other victim of man's hatred. This view is usually found outside of mainstream Christianity.
  • The Martyr Theory: Christ gave up His life for a principle of truth that was opposed to the spirit of His day. This view is usually found outside of mainstream Christianity.
Sufficiency of Christ's person and his atoning death

The deity of Christ establishes the infinite intrinsic value of his person. Since Jesus Christ is the God-man, truly God and truly man, his death is also of infinite intrinsic value and all-sufficient as a sacrifice. The book of Hebrews clearly says that the sufficiency of Christ's death negated the need for additional sacrifices. The biblical word translated once for all (Greek ephapax in Rom. 6:10; Heb. 9:26, 28; 10:10) is clearly a contrast with the Old Testament yearly sacrifice on the Day of Atonement and declares the complete sufficiency of Christ's death.
The infinite intrinsic value and all-sufficiency of Christ's death is a doctrine maintained in the Reformed tradition. The Canons of Dort, which is the historical statement of the so-called "five points of Calvinism" formulated at the Synod of Dort (1618-1619), state:
This death of the Son of God is the only and most perfect sacrifice and satisfaction for sins, of infinite value and worth, abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world. This death is of such great value and worth because the person who submitted to it is not only a true and perfectly holy man, but also the only-begotten Son of God, of the same eternal and infinite essence with the Father and the Holy Spirit, for these qualifications were necessary for our Savior. Further, this death is of such great value and worth because it was accompanied by a sense of the wrath and curse of God, which we by our sins had deserved. (Second Head, Articles 3 & 4).
John Owen (1616-1683) echos the same position, It was then the purpose and intention of God that his Son should offer a sacrifice of infinite worth, value, and dignity, sufficient in itself for the redeeming of all and every man, if it had pleased the Lord to employ it to that purpose. . . Sufficient we say, then, was the sacrifice of Christ for the redemption of the whole world, and for the expiation of all the sins of all and every man in the world. (Works, vol. 10, pp. 295, 296)

Please note: the above section is not consistent with Arian or Christology prior to the mid to late mideval ages.

The Design (or intent) of the atonement

The issue with most non-Calvinists is the doctrine of a definite atonement (or limited atonement). This is not so much a question of the "sufficiency" of Christ's death as it is a question of the design (or intent) of Christ's death.

Did Christ intend to accomplish redemption, propitiation and reconciliation for every man? Did He intend to make salvation possible for all men? Reformed theology maintains that, though Christ's death is of infinite value and is sufficient to redeem every man (had this been God's intention), the true intention of Christ's death was to accomplish effectively the full salvation of the elect, and the elect only.
Calvinism: The design of the atonement was to redeem the elect.
Main page: definite atonement
Arminianism: The design of the atonement was to make all men savable.
Main page: universal atonement
_________________

In blessing, bless
Wayne Matthew Mari


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:02 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2006 Rev Dr M J Mackenzie-Hanson, BA (Hons), DD, acOSB