Penal Substitution

[Iconoclast]

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.

:thumbsup: very well said. Michael..offer some of your scriptural reasons for your claims

 

[jbh28]

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?

I would still like an answer since you accused my doctrine to be "abhorrent" and "harmful." You made the accusation, but I haven't seen why. Don't cop out by playing the victim roll. Just backup your accusations with facts.

 

[Iconoclast]

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

we have also seen these ideas before...we do not understand Mw;s allegations

 

[Iconoclast]

:thumbsup:

I would still like an answer sis you accused my doctrine to be "abhorrent" and "harmful." You made the accusation, but I haven't seen why. Don't cop out by playing the victim roll. Just backup your accusations with facts.

:thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[jbh28]

I read some objections.

Here they are

1. Perfect satisfaction for sin, even by way of substitution, leaves no room for divine forgiveness or pardon;
2. It is unjust both to punish the innocent and to allow the guilty to go free;
3. The finite suffering and temporary death of one is disproportionate to the infinite suffering and permanent death of many;
4. The grace of perfect satisfaction would appear to confer on its beneficiaries a freedom to sin without consequence.

1. All sin must be paid for. Sin cannot be simply forgiven and not paid. We are forgiven and pardoned by us not having to pay for the sin. Christ was our substitute. Without it, justice would not be. Romans 6:23

2. Who are the innocent? No one is innocent. Romans 5:12

3. Except that an infinite God was the one suffering and the one that died.

4. Paul answered this: "What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it? Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life."
(Romans 6:1-4 ESV)

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Here are some quotes from ECFs on Penal Substitution. I quoted one earlier:-

1. Justin Martyr: Dialogue with Trypho the Jew

'The Trypho remarked, "Beassured that all our nation waits for Christ; and we admit that all the Scriptures that you have qioted refer to him. Moreover, I do also admit that the name of Jesus, by which the son of [Nun] was called, has inclined me very strongly to adopt this view. But whether Christ should be so shamefully crucified, this we are in doubt about. For whoever is crucified is said in the law to be accursed, si that I am exceedingly incredulous on this point. It is quite clear indeed, that the Scriptures announce that Christ had to suffer; but we wish to learnif you can prove to us whether it was by the suffering cursed in the law."

[Justin:] "Though a curse lies in the law against persons who are crucified, yet no curse lies in the law on the Christ of God, by whom all that have committed things worthy of a curse are saved.........For the whole human race will be found under a curse. For it is written in the law of Moses, 'Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things that are written in the book of the law to do them. And no one has accurately done all, nor will you venture to deny this.......If then the Father of all wished His Christ for the whole human family to take upon Him the curses of all, knowing that, after He had been crucified and was dead, He would raise Him up, why do you argue about Him, who submitted to suffer these things according to the Father's will, as if He were accursed, and do not rather bewail yourselves?"

Eusebius of Caesarea: Proof of the Gospel.

'And the Lamb of God.....was chastised on our behalf, and suffered a penalty He did not owe, but which we owed because of the multitude of our sins; and so He became the cause of the forgiveness of our sins, because He received death for us, and transferred to Himself the scourging, the insults and the dishonour, which were due to us, and drew down upon Himself the appointed curse, being made a curse for us.'

Gregory of Nazianzus: Fourth Theological Oration.

'As for my sake He was called a curse, who destroyed my curse; and sin, who taketh away the sin of the world; and became a new Adam to take the place of the old, just so He makes my disobedience His own a Head of the whole body

Ambrose of Milan: Flight from the World.

'And so then, Jesus took flesh that He might destroy the curse of sinful flesh, and He became a curse for us that a blessing might overwhelm a curse, uprightness might overwhelm sin, forgiveness might overwhelm the sentence and life might overwhelm death. He also took up death that the sentence might be fulfilled and satisfaction might be given for the judgement, the curse placed on sinful flesh even to death. Therefore, nothing was done contrary to God's sentence when the terms of that sentence were fulfilled, for the curse was unto death but grace is after death.'

Plenty more where those came from. Not that I regard the Fathers as our authority; the Bible is our only authority. But I give these to nail the error that Penal Substitution was not taught until Anselm.

Steve

 

[Michael Wrenn]

It is quite evident, from all the quotes I've seen used that supposedly support penal substitution as a Biblical or earliest church doctrine, that some do not understand the differences between substitution and penal substitution. If you don't, I would suggest further study on the matter.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

As I said in a post on another thread, it is not my intention to inflict personal pain on anyone because they hold to a certain doctrine. I have strong beliefs, and I state them strongly, just as I expect others to do who are passionate about a doctrine.

I have been asked to give examples of how penal substitution is harmful. I'll give one: myself. Having grown up in a fundamentalist, Calvinist tradition, when I became old enough to think for myself, I became deeply disturbed by what I had been taught. To make this not unnecessarily long, I can just say that learning the New Testament definition of the "atonement", or more correctly, "reconciliation", and discovering what the earliest churches and the church fathers taught, saved me for Christianity. I had renounced my earlier beliefs and became briefly an agnostic -- perhaps even more briefly, atheistic -- but then I discovered the General Baptists, the Anabaptists, the Eastern Orthodox Church, and much later the ancient Celtic tradition. When I discovered that penal substitution and other related doctrines were basically Reformed innovations and aberrations which were almost totally absent from the early church, I was overjoyed. Plus, reading the Gospels re-introduced me to whom Jesus really was. All of this was like I was seeing Jesus and the Gospel message for the first time. Chains fell off me and the fog cleared from my eyes.

I have a close relative who right now has become an atheist because he was raised very similarly to the way I was, and he has simply been unable to continue with the belief system he had. I've been trying to talk with him, to show him that those beliefs are not the beliefs of the Bible or the early church, but he won't listen. In fact, he is so poisoned that he doubts everything now, even the historicity of Jesus.

So, yes, I strongly maintain that these doctrines are very damaging. They are "johnny-come-lately" doctrines, just as is the dispensationalism which says that the church is merely a parenthesis in history, to be removed so that God can deal with the true center of his plan, the political nation of Israel! At which time the temple will be rebuilt and the priests can begin anew the slicing of animals' throats.

Now I realize that not all fundamentalists are dispensationalists, and not all who believe in penal substitution are fundamentalists. I am merely trying to answer why I think these doctrines are abhorrent and harmful. I hope these personal examples have done that.

Also, my true spiritual grounding was given to me by my parents, two of the most Christlike people I have ever known, so the "bad" things that happened to me were in now way because of them.

 

[glfredrick]

As I said in a post on another thread, it is not my intention to inflict personal pain on anyone because they hold to a certain doctrine. I have strong beliefs, and I state them strongly, just as I expect others to do who are passionate about a doctrine.

I have been asked to give examples of how penal substitution is harmful. I'll give one: myself. Having grown up in a fundamentalist, Calvinist tradition, when I became old enough to think for myself, I became deeply disturbed by what I had been taught. To make this not unnecessarily long, I can just say that learning the New Testament definition of the "atonement", or more correctly, "reconciliation", and discovering what the earliest churches and the church fathers taught, saved me for Christianity. I had renounced my earlier beliefs and became briefly an agnostic -- perhaps even more briefly, atheistic -- but then I discovered the General Baptists, the Anabaptists, the Eastern Orthodox Church, and much later the ancient Celtic tradition. When I discovered that penal substitution and other related doctrines were basically Reformed innovations and aberrations which were almost totally absent from the early church, I was overjoyed. Plus, reading the Gospels re-introduced me to whom Jesus really was. All of this was like I was seeing Jesus and the Gospel message for the first time. Chains fell off me and the fog cleared from my eyes.

I have a close relative who right now has become an atheist because he was raised very similarly to the way I was, and he has simply been unable to continue with the belief system he had. I've been trying to talk with him, to show him that those beliefs are not the beliefs of the Bible or the early church, but he won't listen. In fact, he is so poisoned that he doubts everything now, even the historicity of Jesus.

So, yes, I strongly maintain that these doctrines are very damaging. They are "johnny-come-lately" doctrines, just as is the dispensationalism which says that the church is merely a parenthesis in history, to be removed so that God can deal with the true center of his plan, the political nation of Israel! At which time the temple will be rebuilt and the priests can begin anew the slicing of animals' throats.

Now I realize that not all fundamentalists are dispensationalists, and not all who believe in penal substitution are fundamentalists. I am merely trying to answer why I think these doctrines are abhorrent and harmful. I hope these personal examples have done that.

Also, my true spiritual grounding was given to me by my parents, two of the most Christlike people I have ever known, so the "bad" things that happened to me were in now way because of them.

Might I suggest that it is almost always wrong to toss out the baby with the bathwater?

Probably not in your case, but perhaps you can reflect on the ACTUAL PRINCIPLE espoused by the penal substitution and realize just how LOVING and GRACIOUS an act it really was/is (for it is as current as the next individual for whom Christ died).

We, who cannot on our own efforts, be saved must rely on another -- Jesus Christ -- and we who cannot "will" ourselves into God's eternity, must depend solely on another -- Jesus Christ -- to open that door for us.

As God sent His Son, Jesus -- to suffer and die in our stead -- He demonstrated the most possible loving expression of grace and mercy in that He took our sin and became sin for us, and He in turn imputed His perfect righteousness unto those who neither deserve nor can earn that gift of mercy and grace

This beautiful picture may indeed be taught and preached by persons who are not themselves beautiful people -- for their sin, for their usurping His power, and for the destructive tendencies they exhibit amongst God's people -- and yet God's grace and mercy are the same. He GIVES what we cannot give and He alone saves in a way that we can barely fathom, much less apprehend.

When we toss aside the biblical picture of God's love because SOME PEOPLE of whom we may be looking to INSTEAD OF GOD, then it is not God's fault for the tossing... It is ours, for we have removed our vision from the Savior to the people who are never the Savior.

I believe that is indeed what you have done. And in so doing, you have indeed tossed out the baby with the bathwater!

 

[Martin Marprelate]

It is quite evident, from all the quotes I've seen used that supposedly support penal substitution as a Biblical or earliest church doctrine, that some do not understand the differences between substitution and penal substitution. If you don't, I would suggest further study on the matter.

Well then, help me out here, Michael. Explain to me how the examples that I've given are of substitution and yet not penal substitution. It might also be good if you told us what you think penal sunstitution is, because I've got a sneaking suspicion that you actually don't know.

Steve

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Might I suggest that it is almost always wrong to toss out the baby with the bathwater?

Probably not in your case, but perhaps you can reflect on the ACTUAL PRINCIPLE espoused by the penal substitution and realize just how LOVING and GRACIOUS an act it really was/is (for it is as current as the next individual for whom Christ died).

We, who cannot on our own efforts, be saved must rely on another -- Jesus Christ -- and we who cannot "will" ourselves into God's eternity, must depend solely on another -- Jesus Christ -- to open that door for us.

As God sent His Son, Jesus -- to suffer and die in our stead -- He demonstrated the most possible loving expression of grace and mercy in that He took our sin and became sin for us, and He in turn imputed His perfect righteousness unto those who neither deserve nor can earn that gift of mercy and grace

This beautiful picture may indeed be taught and preached by persons who are not themselves beautiful people -- for their sin, for their usurping His power, and for the destructive tendencies they exhibit amongst God's people -- and yet God's grace and mercy are the same. He GIVES what we cannot give and He alone saves in a way that we can barely fathom, much less apprehend.

When we toss aside the biblical picture of God's love because SOME PEOPLE of whom we may be looking to INSTEAD OF GOD, then it is not God's fault for the tossing... It is ours, for we have removed our vision from the Savior to the people who are never the Savior.

I believe that is indeed what you have done. And in so doing, you have indeed tossed out the baby with the bathwater!

Thank you for your fine post. I think you are wrong -- I have not thrown out the baby with the bathwater. And I don't think the examples you have given teach penal substitution.

But I very much appreciate the manner in which you made your post, and your explanations were very good.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Well then, help me out here, Michael. Explain to me how the examples that I've given are of substitution and yet not penal substitution. It might also be good if you told us what you think penal sunstitution is, because I've got a sneaking suspicion that you actually don't know.

Steve

I can assure you that I do know what penal substitution is. Since the mid-1970's my passion has been the doctrine of the atonement, and the resurrection, because these were so central in determining first if I could be a Christian, and secondly what kind of Christian I was going to be if indeed I could be one.

Please read the article I referenced; that's all I can provide right now: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penal_substitution

My mature views on the "Reconciliation" are best summed up in the "Christus Victor" view of the atonement, which was an expanded version of the Ransom Theory, the view held by the earliest churches.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atonement_(Christus_Victor_view)

Although some modern liberals have embraced Christus Victor, I am not a liberal, and this is not a liberal doctrine.

I sort of wish I could get into long debates as I have in the past on various boards, but to tell you the truth, I am worn out from debating and also health problems. That's why I'm resorting to quoting these short articles.

Over the years, I have vigorously debated Roman Catholics, Episcopalians, Calvinists, fundamentalists, dispensationalists, Pentecostals, Charismatics, Methodists, and others, but I finally grew weary of it, among other things.

I don't want to fight with anyone or engage in personal attacks; I hope all will forgive me here if I have strayed over the line. It's just that when I think back to where or how I might have ended up if I hadn't discovered early church doctrine, I become passionate about this all over again.

But even so, I think it's more important to "love the brethren" than to be right. And I hope to see you all in heaven someday.

 

[quantumfaith]

I can assure you that I do know what penal substitution is. Since the mid-1970's my passion has been the doctrine of the atonement, and the resurrection, because these were so central in determining first if I could be a Christian, and secondly what kind of Christian I was going to be if indeed I could be one.

Please read the article I referenced; that's all I can provide right now: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penal_substitution

My mature views on the "Reconciliation" are best summed up in the "Christus Victor" view of the atonement, which was an expanded version of the Ransom Theory, the view held by the earliest churches.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atonement_(Christus_Victor_view)

Although some modern liberals have embraced Christus Victor, I am not a liberal, and this is not a liberal doctrine.

I sort of wish I could get into long debates as I have in the past on various boards, but to tell you the truth, I am worn out from debating and also health problems. That's why I'm resorting to quoting these short articles.

Over the years, I have vigorously debated Roman Catholics, Episcopalians, Calvinists, fundamentalists, dispensationalists, Pentecostals, Charismatics, Methodists, and others, but I finally grew weary of it, among other things.

I don't want to fight with anyone or engage in personal attacks; I hope all will forgive me here if I have strayed over the line. It's just that when I think back to where or how I might have ended up if I hadn't discovered early church doctrine, I become passionate about this all over again.

But even so, I think it's more important to "love the brethren" than to be right. And I hope to see you all in heaven someday.

Thank you Michael for sharing your thoughts and particularly for the links. Blessings

 

[mandym]

I can assure you that I do know what penal substitution is. Since the mid-1970's my passion has been the doctrine of the atonement, and the resurrection, because these were so central in determining first if I could be a Christian, and secondly what kind of Christian I was going to be if indeed I could be one.

Please read the article I referenced; that's all I can provide right now: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penal_substitution

My mature views on the "Reconciliation" are best summed up in the "Christus Victor" view of the atonement, which was an expanded version of the Ransom Theory, the view held by the earliest churches.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atonement_(Christus_Victor_view)

Although some modern liberals have embraced Christus Victor, I am not a liberal, and this is not a liberal doctrine.

I sort of wish I could get into long debates as I have in the past on various boards, but to tell you the truth, I am worn out from debating and also health problems. That's why I'm resorting to quoting these short articles.

Over the years, I have vigorously debated Roman Catholics, Episcopalians, Calvinists, fundamentalists, dispensationalists, Pentecostals, Charismatics, Methodists, and others, but I finally grew weary of it, among other things.

I don't want to fight with anyone or engage in personal attacks; I hope all will forgive me here if I have strayed over the line. It's just that when I think back to where or how I might have ended up if I hadn't discovered early church doctrine, I become passionate about this all over again.

But even so, I think it's more important to "love the brethren" than to be right. And I hope to see you all in heaven someday.

You are going to have a hard time being taken seriously that you know anything if you are going to source wiki. Especially if you are not wanting to be tied to the "liberal" label.

 

[glfredrick]

You are going to have a hard time being taken seriously that you know anything if you are going to source wiki. Especially if you are not wanting to be tied to the "liberal" label.

Actually, in disavowing all that is disavowed, the liberal stance is a given.

But our poster no longer wishes to debate the issue further, so we should just let this one (his participation anyway) slide.

 

[preachinjesus]

Sad to see the conversation have this predictable end.

 

[jbh28]

Michael, are you going to address my post? You've really not said anything but called it abhorrent. You gave a personal example, but never said why it caused you the problem, just that it did.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

You are going to have a hard time being taken seriously that you know anything if you are going to source wiki. Especially if you are not wanting to be tied to the "liberal" label.

The wiki links reference scholarly articles.

But so be it. I have spent countless hours, and years, studying church history, theology, and original writings and sources to get to where I am now.

I'm just tired.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Thank you Michael for sharing your thoughts and particularly for the links. Blessings

Thank you for your post. Blessings to you, too!

 

[preachinjesus]

The wiki links reference scholarly articles.

But so be it. I have spent countless hours, and years, studying church history, theology, and original writings and sources to get to where I am now.

I'm just tired.

Great gravy man, if his limited interaction leaves you tired than I have no idea how you've been able to sustain lengthy engagement at a (truly) scholarly level. Also, btw, just saying you've "spent countless hours" again and again and again then justifying by posting to Wiki doesn't do you case much good. Just saying...:thumbs: