Penal Substitution

[Martin Marprelate]

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!

This is absolutely right. :thumbs: To hold to Penal Substitution is not to dismiss all other descriptions of Christ's work upon the cross. However, to dismiss P.S. is to wreck the very heart of the Gospel. If my sins are not on Christ, they are still on me. If Christ's atonement did not satisfy the Father's justice (Rom 3:25), then His righteous anger is still upon me. If Christ did not bear my sins (1Peter 2:24) then I must bear them myself.

If Mr Wrenn wants quotations from Justin Martyr, Eusebius of Caesarea, Hilary of Poitiers, Athanasius, Gregory of Nazianzus, Ambrose of Milan, John Chrysostom or Augustine I can supply them. If he is getting his Church history from the Disciples Study Bible then he should stop wasting his time and ours.

Steve

 

[preachinjesus]

Take it from someone who has studied church history and theology passionately for four decades, especially early church history and theology: it IS true.

Okay, then prove it. The gauntlet is thrown down....prove it.

Listen man, I don't know you and you don't know me. That's fine. But don't think my thoughts on the subject are without reflection. I've done detailed work in historical theology for my PhD and had to do a seminar paper on this topic. So i can handle the conversation. Listen, hou aren't correct but if you insist on being do my challenge stands: prove it.

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

Well I hope you feel better. One of the great benefits of health is being able to take time to prove our dogmatic claims. So take this time and prove it!

 

[Iconoclast]

This is absolutely right. :thumbs: To hold to Penal Substitution is not to dismiss all other descriptions of Christ's work upon the cross. However, to dismiss P.S. is to wreck the very heart of the Gospel. If my sins are not on Christ, they are still on me. If Christ's atonement did not satisfy the Father's justice (Rom 3:25), then His righteous anger is still upon me. If Christ did not bear my sins (1Peter 2:24) then I must bear them myself.

If Mr Wrenn wants quotations from Justin Martyr, Eusebius of Caesarea, Hilary of Poitiers, Athanasius, Gregory of Nazianzus, Ambrose of Milan, John Chrysostom or Augustine I can supply them. If he is getting his Church history from the Disciples Study Bible then he should stop wasting his time and ours.

Steve

:applause::applause::thumbs:

 

[Michael Wrenn]

This is absolutely right. :thumbs: To hold to Penal Substitution is not to dismiss all other descriptions of Christ's work upon the cross. However, to dismiss P.S. is to wreck the very heart of the Gospel. If my sins are not on Christ, they are still on me. If Christ's atonement did not satisfy the Father's justice (Rom 3:25), then His righteous anger is still upon me. If Christ did not bear my sins (1Peter 2:24) then I must bear them myself.

If Mr Wrenn wants quotations from Justin Martyr, Eusebius of Caesarea, Hilary of Poitiers, Athanasius, Gregory of Nazianzus, Ambrose of Milan, John Chrysostom or Augustine I can supply them. If he is getting his Church history from the Disciples Study Bible then he should stop wasting his time and ours.

Steve

Insult me all you want; it hurts you but not me.

Most scholars agree with me and not you. It takes very little research to discover that fact. I'd be willing to bet that I know more about Patristics and have read more of the church fathers than you have or ever will. The Eastern church was really responsible for the theological interpretations of the early church, not the Roman Catholics whose views on the atonement would later influence the Magisterial Reformers. It would surely come as a shock to fundamentalist Calvinists especially if they knew that their perverse doctrine of penal substitution was an influence from the Romanist Anselm and his satisfaction theory, a view which was absent from the church for the first millennium of its existence.

 

[glfredrick]

Insult me all you want; it hurts you but not me.

Most scholars agree with me and not you. It takes very little research to discover that fact. I'd be willing to bet that I know more about Patristics and have read more of the church fathers than you have or ever will. The Eastern church was really responsible for the theological interpretations of the early church, not the Roman Catholics whose views on the atonement would later influence the Magisterial Reformers. It would surely come as a shock to fundamentalist Calvinists especially if they knew that their perverse doctrine of penal substitution was an influence from the Romanist Anselm and his satisfaction theory, a view which was absent from the church for the first millennium of its existence.

Wow, thanks for that radical view... Now, I'd love to see that list of "most scholars." I know quite a few personally. Wonder if any of the ones I have worked with are on your list. :tonofbricks:

 

[Amy.G]

It would surely come as a shock to fundamentalist Calvinists especially if they knew that their perverse doctrine of penal substitution was an influence from the Romanist Anselm and his satisfaction theory, a view which was absent from the church for the first millennium of its existence.

Perverse doctrine??? Are you serious?

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Okay, then prove it. The gauntlet is thrown down....prove it.

Listen man, I don't know you and you don't know me. That's fine. But don't think my thoughts on the subject are without reflection. I've done detailed work in historical theology for my PhD and had to do a seminar paper on this topic. So i can handle the conversation. Listen, hou aren't correct but if you insist on being do my challenge stands: prove it.



Well I hope you feel better. One of the great benefits of health is being able to take time to prove our dogmatic claims. So take this time and prove it!

Thank you for your well-wishes.

I don't have to prove anything. Facts don't need proving; they are there for anyone to read them.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Wow, thanks for that radical view... Now, I'd love to see that list of "most scholars." I know quite a few personally. Wonder if any of the ones I have worked with are on your list. :tonofbricks:[/
QUOTE]

If they are dispensational, fundamental Calvinists, then no.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Perverse doctrine??? Are you serious?

Indeed I am. Penal substitution is an unfortunate holdover from Jewish priestism, reflected in Anselm's Satisfaction Theory and brought to fruition in Calvinism. I prefer the correct views of the early church.

 

[preachinjesus]

Thank you for your well-wishes.

I don't have to prove anything. Facts don't need proving; they are there for anyone to read them.

You absolutely need to show proof. Your claims of "perversity" and "abhorrent" doctrine notwithstanding, the general tenor of your posts is ridiculous. You claim fact yet, in the face of nearly a dozen other commentors demanding, fail to show that it actually is such.

Even when somene with a PhD in theology, specialization in historical (read: patristic) theology like myself challenges you and tells you that you are overstating your case you simply reply with a haphazard, and flippant, statement of dogmatic arrogance.

Either engage the points and profer some kind of evidentiary support or leave in ruin.

You're better than this...I hope.

 

[Amy.G]

Indeed I am. Penal substitution is an unfortunate holdover from Jewish priestism, reflected in Anselm's Satisfaction Theory and brought to fruition in Calvinism. I prefer the correct views of the early church.

I don't know what Calvinism has to do with this. It's biblical. Christ became sin on our behalf. He paid the penalty for our sin. That is why He said "it is finished". By HIS stripes we are healed.

 

[glfredrick]

I don't know what Calvinism has to do with this. It's biblical. Christ became sin on our behalf. He paid the penalty for our sin. That is why He said "it is finished". By HIS stripes we are healed.

Involking Calvinism is nothing more than a dodge by desperate persons.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Insult me all you want; it hurts you but not me.

If you think I insulted you then you are extraordinarily thin-skinned. To declare yourself an expert on Church history and then quote from a rather pathetic study Bible is not likely to impress.

Most scholars agree with me and not you.

Which ones?

It takes very little research to discover that fact. I'd be willing to bet that I know more about Patristics and have read more of the church fathers than you have or ever will.

Obviously I can't comment on this since I've no idea how much research you've done. The only authority that you've quoted so far is the Disciples' Study Bible, a copy of which I have, so I know exactly how good it is (not). Let's see some of your authorities and quotations from the Fathers.

The Eastern church was really responsible for the theological interpretations of the early church, not the Roman Catholics whose views on the atonement would later influence the Magisterial Reformers.

Documentation please! Statements like this are easy to make but they need to be backed up.

It would surely come as a shock to fundamentalist Calvinists especially if they knew that their perverse doctrine of penal substitution was an influence from the Romanist Anselm and his satisfaction theory, a view which was absent from the church for the first millennium of its existence.

It comes as no shock whatsoever that Anselm wrote Cur Deus Homo. You seem to think that we are all ignorant on this forum. Perhaps we are, but you need to prove it, not state it. You also need to prove your views from the Bible. The Church Fathers cut very little ice on a Baptist forum.

Steve

 

[jbh28]

It's interesting that still Michael has refused to offer Bible to defend his position. He resorts to referring to the early church fathers as his source. He continues to call it Perverse, abhorrent and harmful but never why.

so Michael, please directly answer the questions.


1. What is perverse, abhorrent and harmful with penal Substitution?
2. What Bible passages do you use to support your theory.
3. How do you interpret passages like 2 Corinthians 5:21 and others that teach that Christ was our substitute?

 

[go2church]

Not defending anyone here just a reminder that there are many theories of the atonement that have been held by Christians throughout the ages. A study on theories of the atonement will reveal all you want to know.

Carry on

 

[mandym]

Indeed I am. Penal substitution is an unfortunate holdover from Jewish priestism, reflected in Anselm's Satisfaction Theory and brought to fruition in Calvinism. I prefer the correct views of the early church.

Your opposition to penal substitution and the Old Testament are based on your own private sense of morality divorced from scripture and the nature of God. When red letter Christians, like yourself, look to hold to their own personal desires they reinterpret Jesus divorced from the larger context of scripture and condemn all the rest of reality (the Bible).

 

[percho]

1 Cor 15:3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.
the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

I believe he died in our stead allowing us to be resurrected to life. Paid the penalty for our sin.

I also find it interesting that the Lamb of God was considered slain before man was created and sinned bringing death to all men. Was death in the garden before Adam? Heb 2:14 that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; James 1:14,15 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.

I also believe by his death we are ransomed from the devil.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

I don't know what Calvinism has to do with this. It's biblical. Christ became sin on our behalf. He paid the penalty for our sin. That is why He said "it is finished". By HIS stripes we are healed.

What does Calvinism have to do wit this? Everything, because it's the source of the perverse doctrine.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Not defending anyone here just a reminder that there are many theories of the atonement that have been held by Christians throughout the ages. A study on theories of the atonement will reveal all you want to know.

Carry on

Because of the insults and personal attacks coming from others, I am replying to your post, for which I thank you.

And since I refuse to reply directly to such posts as I have mentioned, here is a link to an article which I purposely place here to further aggravate my attackers :laugh: :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penal_substitution

Notice in the very first sentence where it says the doctrine was developed. Also read the section on "History", under that "Early Church".

The doctrine of the atonement contains much subtlety and variety; penal substitution is an extreme variety of the idea of substitution.

Actually, the word "atonement" is a bad designation for the work of Jesus; the most correct designation according to the meaning and purpose of the original languages is "reconciliation".

Oh, I'm sorry; I didn't mean to go that far in my discourse. I meant to keep it as sparse as possible so as to keep hidden from my detractors the fact that I know what I'm talking about. It's fun to see them foaming at the mouth and trying to tear me down. :smilewinkgrin:

 

[preachinjesus]

Michael,

No one here is "tearing [you] down." Rather you've made some very stark allegations concerning the nature of theology and theologians here and have yet to reply thoroughly to the numerous challenges to your position. You've stated that Calvinism is a dangerous doctrine and penal substitution is destructive. You're entirely entitled to believe these things but please back up your claims with more than simple statements.

As for the nature of the replies, no one here is impugning your character nor your virtue. Rather they are asking for a legitimate interaction with us. This is a conversation with others. You simply cannot come in and speak with such polarizing language and not expect to be challenged. No one here is yelling at you nor insulting you. To suggest we are is damaging. Please engage substantively.