Christus Victor or Penal Substitutionary Atonement?

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

Yes, but he speaks to them in terms of particular experiences.

Not sure what you even mean by this. Paul’s argument is a general argument about both groups, not particular individuals.

No; I mean that Pauls is asserting precisely the opposite of what you’re claiming!

There are those who “who sin outside the law [who] will also perish without reference to it”; they’re the Gentiles. And then, there are those “who sin under the law will be judged in accordance with it”; they’re Jews. That’s not what you’re asserting – namely, that this is “a general argument about both groups, not particular individuals.” That’s clearly a mistaken notion. You might want to re-read Romans 2.

Hodos:

Yeah, those who sin outside the law will perish nonetheless.

The problem is… you were attempting to say that this isn’t a reference to the ceremonial law, but to a general moral law applicable to all. Now you’re backtracking. Which is it, then? Outside the law, or inside it? Applicable to some, or all? Judged by the law or not? You should really stop waffling. It doesn’t help your case.

Hodos:

Except that… you just completely demonstrated that this is precisely the distinction here!

Nope. I demonstrated that you are drawing a false distinction by saying that the Old Testament law is not a law of love.

I said no such thing, although I get that you need to make this assertion in an attempt to save your case.

Hodos:

No, its quite novel.

Actually, what was ‘novel’ was Luther’s attempt conflate the two in the 1500’s.

Hodos:

No, I’m not.

Well that response was to a different user.

If you say so. You addressed it to me in post 50.

Hodos:

Are you saying that you are operating under multiple user names?

Nope. But perhaps you’re exhibiting that you are having a hard time keeping your statements straight?

Hodos:

Justification is by grace alone.

Glad you have finally come around.

Justification, not sanctification or salvation. I’m hoping you’ll come around.

Hodos:

All that being said, I wish you a Happy Easter. He is Risen!

 

[Hodos]

The problem is… you were attempting to say that this isn’t a reference to the ceremonial law, but to a general moral law applicable to all. Now you’re backtracking. Which is it, then? Outside the law, or inside it? Applicable to some, or all? Judged by the law or not? You should really stop waffling. It doesn’t help your case.

This isn’t backtracking at all. This is what I said from the beginning on here and other threads. Paul’s statement addresses two groups, one that has received specific revelation of the requirements of the law, which includes both moral law and ceremonial distinctions that separated them from the Gentiles; and the Gentiles who Paul is demonstrating have knowledge of the moral law through general revelation. Both of whom are condemned before God for violation of his law, and cannot therefore be justified by it, as Romans 3 explicitly states. No backtracking unless you don’t understand Paul’s argument…

Justification , not sanctification or salvation .

A few things. Paul frequently speaks of justification as salvation. This doesn’t exclude sanctification from salvation, but it does say that justification results in salvation. Again, sanctification is a result of justification, not the cause. Also, salvation is frequently expressed as both a singular event with our justification by faith, and as a process that will come to full fruition at Christ’s return. In other words, you are saved by faith through grace, and yet, being saved will yield certain fruit (again the cause and effect relationship between justification by faith, and sanctification, which is also by grace). Next, Sola Gratia is addressing the doctrine of justification. Unfortunately, Catholic apologists frequently work very hard to take the Sola statements out of context so that they can erect a strawman argument that apparently you would actually agree with. So again, thanks for agreeing on this important doctrine.

Otherwise, not really seeing an actual rebuttal here, particularly from the scriptural evidence, other than to say you disagree. Fair enough. You disagree.

 

[Gorgias]

Both of whom are condemned before God for violation of his law, and cannot therefore be justified by it, as Romans 3 explicitly states.

Except that, in Romans 2, Paul talks about “outside the law”. If it’s a general moral law that applies to all, then it wouldn’t be “outside the law”, unless what Paul means is “outside the Mosaic law”… which is the point you’ve been denying all along.

So, which horn of the dilemma do you choose to be skewered upon? “It’s not the Mosaic law he’s talking about” or “it is the Mosaic law”? Both are damaging to your line of argumentation…

it does say that justification results in salvation

Which is a nice thought… but it contradicts Jesus’ words in the Gospels. Jesus points to folks who cry “Lord, Lord” – that is, who believe are justified – but who do not achieve salvation since they have not done the will of the Father. There are also many references in the epistles to those who “backslide” or who are worse off for having received grace and then left it behind.

So… justification == salvation is either (1) Paul expressing an errant thought in Scripture or (2) a misunderstanding of Paul’s thought. We’d both agree that (1) is impossible, so…

 

[Hodos]

Except that, in Romans 2, Paul talks about “outside the law”. If it’s a general moral law that applies to all, then it wouldn’t be “outside the law”, unless what Paul means is “outside the Mosaic law”… which is the point you’ve been denying all along.

You really need to start reading in complete sentences and paragraphs my friend.

Romans 1 addressing the Gentiles:

“And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; 32 and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.”

Note that God is holding them accountable to the ordinances of God even though he has not given them the special revelation of the Mosaic law.

Paul then turns to the Jews and condemns them in Romans 2.

“Therefore you have no excuse, everyone of you who passes judgment, for in that which you judge another, you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things.”

 

[Hodos]

Now Paul demonstrates that though the Gentiles who don’t have the special revelation of the law (moral law) their actions testify to the fact that they do have the general revelation of the law, and Paul uses this as a comparative condemnation to the Jews.

“For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law; 13 for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified. 14 For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, 15 in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, 16 on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus.”

Now Paul demonstrates that by the law both Gentiles and Jews are condemned. He does this by showing that Gentiles are circumcised in a spiritual sense by obeying the moral law, and the Jews are uncircumcised in a spiritual sense by breaking the moral law.

" For indeed circumcision is of value if you practice the Law; but if you are a transgressor of the Law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision. 26 So if the uncircumcised man keeps the requirements of the Law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision? 27 And he who is physically uncircumcised, if he keeps the Law, will he not judge you who though having the letter of the Law and circumcision are a transgressor of the Law? 28 For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh. 29 But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God."

Paul’s final condemnation on all in Romans 3:

“Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God; 20 because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin.”

 

[Hodos]

Which is a nice thought… but it contradicts Jesus’ words in the Gospels. Jesus points to folks who cry “Lord, Lord” – that is, who believe are justified – but who do not achieve salvation since they have not done the will of the Father. There are also many references in the epistles to those who “backslide” or who are worse off for having received grace and then left it behind.

You are assuming faith in those who complain about their judgment. Jesus doesn’t say they even have faith. They are certainly condemned by their works, however, you are making a leap in logic to say that they have faith to begin with. Additionally, this passage (assuming you are referring to Matthew 25) is again taken out of context. You need to start in Matthew 24 and work your way forward where Jesus is laying out for the apostles their responsibility to spread the gospel because judgment is coming. His message here is not regarding justification. His message is demonstrating the necessity of the apostles to fulfill their commission to spread the gospel. He builds to this using the parables of the Talents and the Bridesmaids.

 

[fhansen]

Which Paul specifically rules out in numerous places.

Ok, name some if you don’t mind. He certainly recognized love as supreme above any other virtue. In 1 Cor 13 Paul says, "… if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing." Augustine accurately echoes this with, "Without love faith my indeed exist, but avails nothing."

Which is precisely why the Savior came. He is the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.

Yes, and takes it away means takes it away. He replaces it, in us, with love. The two, sin and love, are mutually exclusive. Love is God’s way.

No one said that it is. Paul specifically stated that you are unrighteous, that your mouth should be closed with no defense and are accountable to God because by works of the Law no flesh will be justified in his sight. Your love tainted by sin is insufficient to merit justification under the law before God. That is Paul’s point. You are justified by faith apart from works. Again, no one is saying that works are not a part of the Christian life. They are. We are saying that your works do not result in your justification. You are justified from faith unto faith as Paul says.

The works of the law are condemned, not because they’re works done out of grace/love such as those mentioned in Eph 2:10 but precisely because they’re not, because they’re done strictly out of legalism as per the Pharisees, clean on the outside while white-washed tombs, still dirty, on the inside-like Luther’s snow-covered dung-heaps for all practical purposes. Jesus wants that situation changed, not legitimized; He’s concerned with our insides, with our hearts-that’s the real difference between the old and new covenants. Paul is opposing the old covenant mentality; the new is better because it can accomplish what the old could not possibly do, and not by simply relieving us of the obligation to fulfill the law. Again, forgiveness is only part of this equation. Paul means to convict us of sin first of all, but so that something can then be done about it. Again, God’s purpose in all this has never been to ignore justice in his creation, but to restore it. We’re sinners but He never created man to sin. And He’s been working that dilemma out ever since Eden.

The real bottom line question remains-is man simply guaranteed to at least increase in righteousness as a result of faith, or is there still the obligation for him to be righteous, even if that simply means to remain faithfully in Christ so that righteousness may be accomplished in him.

 

[Hodos]

Ok, name some if you don’t mind. He certainly recognized love as supreme above any other virtue. In 1 Cor 13 Paul says, " … if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing." Augustine accurately echoes this with, " Without love faith my indeed exist, but avails nothing."

Several have already been discussed in this thread already, notably in Romans 3, Ephesians 2, and Galatians 3 where Paul makes numerous references to justification by faith apart from works. We agree with Paul when he emphasizes the importance of love. However, Paul is not saying this for the purpose of justification, but for the purpose of living with other Christians. If you examine Romans 13 where you are taking your quote, the Law is the means by which we demonstrate love for our neighbor for the benefit of our neighbor. In other words, this is the proper arena for the role of the law. Not for justification, but for the purpose of benefitting my neighbor.

Yes, and takes it away means takes it away . He replaces it, in us, with love. The two, sin and love, are mutually exclusive. Love is God’s way.

This is quite an innovation in itself. The term take away in the Greek means just that, to take away. It doesn’t mean replace. Not saying this isn’t an effect of the Holy Spirit’s work in teaching us to love our neighbor through the instruction of the law; however, if you are trying to appeal to John 1 to make your point you are engaging in eisegesis. My recommendation is to use a verse that actually demonstrates what you are talking about so that we are on the same page.

The works of the law are condemned, not because they’re works done out of grace/love such as those mentioned in Eph 2:10 but precisely because they’re not, because they’re done strictly out of legalism

I don’t see a lot of evidence for this interpretation. Jesus doesn’t condemn the Pharisees for their zeal in living according to the law. In fact in places, such as where he references their tithing of mint and other things, he says you should have observed the former without neglecting the latter. His issue is that their interpretation of the law is actually breaking it. His response is to demonstrate what the Pharisees say (you have heard that it was said) vs. what the law states where he paraphrases different parts of the law as provided in Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy. Jesus brings this out in detail in his sermon on the mount where the teachings of the Pharisees are violations of the law as written. Note in Romans 2 and 3 that there is nowhere where Paul says anything approaching your interpretation. That the Jews and Gentiles are condemned because they don’t follow the law in love. They are condemned as law breakers period, completely corrupt, and that it is through faith that they are justified.

 

[fhansen]

Several have already been discussed in this thread already, notably in Romans 3, Ephesians 2, and Galatians 3 where Paul makes numerous references to justification by faith apart from works. We agree with Paul when he emphasizes the importance of love. However, Paul is not saying this for the purpose of justification, but for the purpose of living with other Christians. If you examine Romans 13 where you are taking your quote, the Law is the means by which we demonstrate love for our neighbor for the benefit of our neighbor. In other words, this is the proper arena for the role of the law. Not for justification, but for the purpose of benefitting my neighbor.

That’s actually from 1 Cor 13, where Paul is making a very broad and profound statement regarding the nature of love, not involving living with other Christians.

This is quite an innovation in itself. The term take away in the Greek means just that, to take away. It doesn’t mean replace. Not saying this isn’t an effect of the Holy Spirit’s work in teaching us to love our neighbor through the instruction of the law; however, if you are trying to appeal to John 1 to make your point you are engaging in eisegesis. My recommendation is to use a verse that actually demonstrates what you are talking about so that we are on the same page.

Nope, your interpretation is eisigesis, influenced as it is by Reformation thinking. To take it away is to take it away. The New Covenant prophecy of Jer 31 is not only about God forgetting our sins, but also of placing His law inside of us. And with John as our witness he also says, in 1 John 3:
"No one who lives in Him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to sin has either seen Him or known Him."

I don’t see a lot of evidence for this interpretation. Jesus doesn’t condemn the Pharisees for their zeal in living according to the law.

Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples:
“The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach."

“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. Blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and dish, and then the outside also will be clean."

“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of the bones of the dead and everything unclean. In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness."

Matt 23

 

[Gorgias]

ou really need to start reading in complete sentences and paragraphs my friend.

Romans 1 addressing the Gentiles:

“And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; 32 and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.”

Note that God is holding them accountable to the ordinances of God even though he has not given them the special revelation of the Mosaic law.

Friend, I might suggest the same. Look at the end of your citation: “although they know the ordinance of God…”. That’s not “Gentile only”, but “Jew” as well!

Paul then turns to the Jews and condemns them in Romans 2.

“Therefore you have no excuse, everyone of you who passes judgment"

Uh…huh. Because we don’t see Jews passing judgment on fellow Jews at all in Scripture, right?

 

[Hodos]

That’s actually from 1 Cor 13, where Paul is making a very broad and profound statement regarding the nature of love, not involving living with other Christians.

You sure about that? Have you read through Chapter 12 where it is speaking of the use of spiritual gifts within the Church, emphasizing that the Church is made up of many members, but not all are the same? But God has placed each of them into the body for the mutual edification of one another? This is the context of Paul’s exposition on love.

Nope, your interpretation is eisigesis, influenced as it is by Reformation thinking.

Well so far my “eisegesis” has consisted of posting the relevant portions of the text we are debating and highlighting the relationship of how one statement flows to the other, leading to Paul’s conclusion in Chapter 3 whereas yours is somehow editing in a statement about being justified by works of love which appear nowhere in the texts being debated and reaches the exact opposite conclusion of what Paul actually says. So, you may need to examine your definition of what eisegesis is.

 

[Hodos]

Friend, I might suggest the same. Look at the end of your citation: “ although they know the ordinance of God …”. That’s not “Gentile only”, but “Jew” as well!

No it isn’t. This is why Paul draws the distinction in Chapter 1, vs 16, that the gospel is the power of God for salvation to the Jew first and also to the Greek. And then again draws the distinction in Romans 2 for all who have sinned without the law will perish without the law (Gentile) and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law (Jew). Again, you need to read the entire text. This seems to be a pattern here.

Uh…huh. Because we don’t see Jews passing judgment on fellow Jews at all in Scripture, right?

Is that what Paul is saying here? Wink. No. Again, refer to my comment above as Paul is drawing a distinction between Jew and Greek (Gentile) demonstrating the universal means of justification is through faith. This is also why in Chapter 4 Paul uses the example of Abraham being justified by faith before receiving the covenant of circumcision. You are having serious trouble contextualizing the scriptures being discussed my friend.

 

[Hodos]

Matt 23

Note that as I stated before Jesus said they do not practice what they preach. The issue here is that they are not following the law, not that they aren’t following it in love. They are law-breakers. The law presupposes love for God and one’s neighbor and explicitly commands it in places (Deuteronomy 6:4, Leviticus 19:18 as examples).

 

[JakubMaximilian]

The Catholic Church would agree with “substitutionary atonement”, but not with “penal substitution”.

good distinction

 

[fhansen]

You sure about that?

Yes. And I apologize for leaving you hanging awhile-I know you’re seeking truth here, for obvious reasons.

Have you read through Chapter 12 where it is speaking of the use of spiritual gifts within the Church, emphasizing that the Church is made up of many members, but not all are the same? But God has placed each of them into the body for the mutual edification of one another? This is the context of Paul’s exposition on love.

Chap 12 simply talks about spiritual gifts. Chap 13 continues on in the same vein, and then contrasts everything, including the gift of faith, with the supremacy of the gift of love. Again, love is the heart of Christianity; it’s what motivates the Trinity, and what God wants motivating us. Love is what Adam lacked-and presumably possesses by now. Love frees us from sin as it fulfills the Law, and so gains us admittance into heaven since Scripture is adamant about sinners not entering. It’s unfathomably huge, and is the one thing that can make life truly worth living. Love is the offspring of fellowship or communion with God it’s Source.

Well so far my “eisegesis” has consisted of posting the relevant portions of the text we are debating and highlighting the relationship of how one statement flows to the other, leading to Paul’s conclusion in Chapter 3 whereas yours is somehow editing in a statement about being justified by works of love which appear nowhere in the texts being debated and reaches the exact opposite conclusion of what Paul actually says. So, you may need to examine your definition of what eisegesis is.

I honestly can’t find where any other word would apply so well to your interpretation, since there is no consistent flow in it. Romans 1 speaks of God’s just anger towards humanity’s sin. Romans 2 warns believers that they better not sin -break the law- either, because “There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil”. All of Rom 2 is consistent with that sentiment.

 

[fhansen]

Note that as I stated before Jesus said they do not practice what they preach. The issue here is that they are not following the law, not that they aren’t following it in love.

They aren’t following the law because they don’t love-that’s the problem with humanity-all of us. The Pharisees simply exemplify that problem. Because they, being supposed exemplars of righteousness, aren’t righteous on the inside to begin with. And this is why Jesus can tell us in Matt 5 that our righteousness must exceed that of the Pharisees. We’re to become clean on the inside first of all.