Penal Substitution

Interesting, you've posted twice in this thread and neither time offered one passage. You have also not told us the correct view. You have only offered your criticism. So please share with use two things. One, the correct view with Scripture has your support and tell us how believing that Christ was our substitute on the cross has done "harm."

 

Two excellent points! :thumbsup:

I would caution against saying penal substitutionary atonement is the core doctrine for atonement. However the broader category of substitionary atonement (with nuanced governmental, scapegoating, and penal) is more foundational for a proper view of the atonement.

 

To say something is "abhorrent and has done much harm" is a strong, strong statement. Yet you offer little in support of this claim. Do you really believe the Church and theology is worse off because of the development of penal substitionary atonement?

I don't for a second buy this ridiculous notion of "divine child abuse" and find little error in the penal view. Instead I find it extremely biblical. The notion that God used the sacrificial system of the OT (you do accept that blood was required for provisional atonement in Israel?) to set of the ultimate sacrifice of His Son on the Cross. What animal blood could not accomplish the pure blood of Christ did. Also I would challenge you to re-read Hebrews and show us precisely where penal substitution isn't used by the author in describe Christ's atoning act.

No, this isn't true at all. Having done much work in the patristics I find that a number of examples of atonement are used by the earliest church theologians during this period. Particularly I find (in reading) Justin Martyr, Athanasius, and Augustine the substitutionary atonement is specifically engaged and developed.

One text, which is short enough, you can check this on is Athanasius' magnificent work On the Incarnation which is available for free at CCEL.org. In it Athanasius makes an explicit (and excellent) case for the substitutionary atonement of Jesus Christ on the Cross. You can't find ransom theory as an option there.

Nobody here believes that. I challenge you, again, to show evidence of your claims. This is a pretty outlandish charge (being a non-Reformed person myself I find it incredulous) for you to make. So make your claims, show us evidences, use historical documents. We can handle it.

 

Moral influence/ransom paid to satan/Government view for some!

 

well. think that Calvin and others JUST expounded upon the truth that Jesus/paul?John ALL agreed that in the Cross, Jesus died to atone for sins, and that he was taking uopon himself as a substitiute our sins, being a mercy seat /propiation for us!

 

The Ransom Theory was the view held by the early church, and it held sway for a thousand years. I agree with it but even more so the version of it called Christus Victor which most fully encompasses all the meanings of Jesus's life, death, and resurrection.

Oh, and denying penal substitution does not mean one disavows all aspects of substitution. Penal substitution is one element of the entire Calvinistic system which is abhorrent and harmful. It makes God out to be a monster. It is fatalistic, deterministic, and pictures God as an abuser.

 

Actually , the concept of substitutionary aspectto the Atonement is found throughout the OT witj the vasrios sacrifices ordained by god, and culminated in the Cross, as those animal sacrifices merely types to point to the Cross, where lamb of God would willingly die on behalf of his peoples as a sin offering... As the sin bearer...

God anger is against Sin of ANY kind, as he is Holy, and MUST judge sin due to that attribute!

So God being Holy and Just MUST render judgement against all sin, and the Lord had to have someone pay the due penalty for sinning against Him and His law...

So either jesus takes my sins in full and pays for it by suffering "hell" upon the Cross, which is seperation from God, or else I pay for my own sins, and go to hell to be eternally seperated from God!

There is NO remission of sin without the shedding of Blood, as the life is in it...

Jesus death was as a man, so that would be able to be in my stead, but also being God, his death would have infinite worth!

 

Elaborate please.

In no way does it make God to be a "monster" but we'll leave the Calvinistic stuff for another time.

However, what's your definition of "penal substitution"?

 

No, no, no, no, no, no....absolutely no. Take it from someone who has done their share of work in patristic theology, this is not true. You can't, ever, walk around saying that ________ is THE view of the early church. Certainly not ransom theory....and certainly not for 1,000 years. Great gravy, never for 1,000 years.

That's fine. I like Christus Victor as well and utilize it and penal substitution to better frame a biblical understanding of the atonement.

This is wrong and a terrible theological mischaracterization of the system you're critiquing. You can't make this connection and you can't make these allegations.

So go back and answer my questions above in my reply to you. They will help us all understand what you are trying to say. Thanks:thumbs:

 

Quotations from the Church Fathers teaching Penal Substitution abound. This is my personal favourite:-

'He Himself took upon Himself the burden of our transgressions; He gave His own Son as a ransom for us, the Holy One for sinners, the Blameless One for the wocked, the Righteous One for the unrighteous, the Incorruptible One for the corruptible, the Immortal One for mortals. For what else could cover our sins but His righteousness? Who else could justify wicked and ungodly people like us, except the only Son of God? O sweet exchange! O unsearchable work! O blessings that surpass all expectation! The wickedness of many has been swallowed up in a single righeous One; the righteousness of One has justified a multitude of transgressors!
[Epistle of Diognetus Emphases mine]

I realise that the word 'ransom' is used here, and assuredly Christ's death was indeed a ransom, but it is far more than that. The writer speaks of Luther's 'Great exchange.' That when Our Lord hung upon the cross, all our sins were heaped upon His sinless shoulders and His perfect righteousness credited to those who believe.

The first Century Christians undoubtedly believed in particular atonement as, of course, did the Lord Jesus (Matt 11:25-27 etc.).

Steve

 

didn't jesus Himself see that his "primary" purpose in coming to earth would be to offer Himself upon the Cross as the sin bearer, sin offering for mankind?

And that the Apostles John and Paul elaborated upon this, as especially John would have heard from jesus Himself that he viewed his main mission while here on earth as coming to bring final Atonment for sins?

 

I've been away for a while, battling illness. I like these discussions, but my health interrupts things sometimes.

 

Thank you for your quote that proves my point: That the Early Church taught and believed the Ransom Theory.

The last words of yours that I bolded are very funny. Of course, Jesus was a Calvinist! LOL

 

Can we have some clarification here? What do you mean when YOU say "Ransom Theory"? Ransom paid to whom?

 

There were varying views over to whom the ransom was paid. Study some early church history. I wish I felt well enough to go into it further right now; maybe I will soon.

For now, here is part of a quote from the Disciples Study Bible: "Ransom Theory -- Introduced by the early church fathers and held as dominant for over a thousand years, this theory holds that Christ's death was the price paid to set us free from bondage to sin..."

This contention that penal substitution was the view of the earliest churches is a fundamentalist Calvinist delusion.

You know, I think the Eastern Church had (and has) it right about many things. If I could find a church with Eastern views of God, man, and the atonement combined with Baptist/Anabaptist views of sacraments, ministry, and polity, I believe I would have found my church home.

 

As I said above, there is justification for ALL of the various theories used to describe the atonement. No one is the only descriptor of what Christ did, for indeed, He satisfied every requirement of the Law, both actively and passively, He redeemed lost sinners, He ransomed those held hostage, He offered a writ of manumission to those held as slaves to sin, He was our Victor, He was our Prophet, Priest, and King who fought valiently for His Father's honor and for us as well, and He substituted Himself, becoming sin so that we might gain His imputed righteousness.

Praise God, Jesus Christ did it ALL!

 

AMEN and AMEN!!!!