Featured Penal Substitution - Did Jesus Experience Our Punishment?

I pretty much gave up on that secondary topic. I had fairly recently preached on penal substitution but when I was reviewing my sermon a week later I realized that it relied heavily on commentators and little on scripture for the "penal" part. I realized that I had automatically diverted to presuppositions in my understanding of the issue. So I know it is hard to look beyond one's traditions. For some here it is impossible. Such is life.

More importantly, and more to the OP, when smoking venison does it come out tender (does it pull apart as would a pork shoulder)? And it won't be too salty? You make it sound very good....I wish I had taken a chance with cutting it up myself (I'm still waiting both to come back from being processed).

 

Again, brother, I have not denied substitution atonement. I have not even denied penal aspects of atonement. Yes, Jesus died in our stead. And yes, it was a punishment for human sin. He lived the life we should have lived and died the death we should have died.

The subject here is penal substitution theory. Not penal aspects and substitution aspect, not even substitution theory. Certainly Jesus took God's wrath so that we would spared. Propitiation has wrath in mind. But you still have not proved that Jesus was punished instead of us with the punishment stored up for our sin.

 

Thanks....that roast looks great. I should have the deer back next week and I'm going to try it. I'll let you know if I'm worth my salt as a cook when it's done.

 

Eusebius is probably the best quote you could have come up with, brother, and I applaud the effort. When I started wrestling with this doctrine this was one of the first places I went (I had read Eusebius affirmed something akin to penal substitution theory). What is interesting is that I had just preached a sermon detailing the Father poring wrath on the Son and that wrath being our punishment for our sin. It was only afterwards that I realized I had interpreted out of tradition. Anyway, the quote you offer is from Demonstratio Evangelica and in the context of commentating on Psalm 40. The quote is definitely substitutionary and penal, no doubt about that. The problem is that the context itself as a whole prevents it from being mistaken for penal substitution theory. So I suppose you could say it is "a penal substitution theory" since it does have elements of both, but definitely not the Reformed penal substitution theory that we know.

Eusebius is speaking of the incarnation and suffering. Specifically, he is explaining Psalm 40 as prophesy of Jesus crying out to God “Heal my soul, for I have sinned against thee.” Jesus became flesh and took on our sin and suffering – as the whole of humanity/ human sin. This prevents mistaking Eusebius for teaching penal substitution. Jesus is not, in this text, taking the punishment of the elect or of those who are saved and passing over the punishment of the non-elect. He is, in effect, taking on human sin (Eusebius considers the “body of Christ” to be a two way street in that Jesus became flesh and “defiled humanity with himself.” Consider the context of his doctrine:

"NOW it was actually the case that the whole Humanity was absorbed by the Divinity, and moreover the Word of God was God as He had previously been man, and He deified humanity with Himself, being the firstfruits of our hope, since He thought actual manhood worthy of eternal lile with Him, and of fellowship in the blessed Godhead, and afforded to us all equally this mighty proof of an immortality and kingdom with Him. THIS then was the object of His coming to men, to bring back that which had of old wandered away from the knowledge of the Father to its own way, and to crown that which was thought worthy of being made in His own image as a relation and a friend with the joy of His own life, and to show that the humanity was beloved by and belonged to the Father, since for its sake the Word of God Himself consented to become man." (Eusebius, Demonstratio Evangelica, Aeterna Press).

Personally, I’m not sold on Eusebius’ idea of the “body of Christ.” But his point is obvious (if you read the entire commentary on the Psalm and his explanation of Christ absorbing human sin). But you are right that it shows penal and substitutionary aspects. This is why J.I. Packer insists that the elements were there for PST, just not developed until Calvin. I disagree because Eusebius’ theology actually denies what PST affirms (applied atonement at the individual level).

It is, BTW, a fascinating book. The electronic version can be had for a buck. I actually have two copies, but I like the e-book translated by Ferrar the best. Mostly because it’s searchable. This also has some of the partial chapters that are available (my other copy doesn’t).

 

I don't understand your point, brother.

I don't understand your point, brother. I have never denied penal or subsitutionary aspects of the atonement throughout history. Substitution is, as I've already said, throughout all of the major theories of atonement. A penal aspect is implied as Jesus bore our sins. I have never denied this, nor have I questioned it as I've explored my own penal substitution view in order to become more biblical. In other words, I have not shifted ground at all. Neither penal nor substitution is the issue. I'm asking about penal substitution theory. Not that Jesus took the cup, not that he represented us, bore our sins, etc. I started off affirming these truths. Again, try to narrow down to the issue at hand so that we can avoid strawmen arguments.

The issue is if Christ, on the cross, took our individual punishment for our individual sins. I am trying to explain it the best that I can, and apologize that for some reason we have a lapse in communication.
I guess to narrow it down we'll just have to look at wrath. You seem to indicate that the wrath Jesus took on the cross was our punishment for our Sin. I am not asking if that wrath is a wrath we deserve. I am not asking if that physical suffering was taken by Jesus while all the time it was the suffering that we deserved for our sins. Focus, grasshopper. I'm talking more how we are viewing the issue than some answer that you will find from a theologian who defends your view.

And no, I've been proven wrong before and I've never "hated it." Rippon and Icon have both correct me, and I appreciate the correction. The problem is that you are here only to defend your view, and your tradition. You have absolutely no interest in walking through the question, or exploring scripture, with the willingness to conform to that authority. Like I said before, such is life. I would just soon someone prove me wrong, then I could reuse some of my notes on the subject in good conscience.

If you would elaborate, which church father viewed the Father as punishing the Son on the cross with our individual punishment for our individual sins? What verse states the same?

 

I don't have a problem with reformed theology. I had a question of why understand the atonement in a specific context. I came back to this board to look at this issue (believe me, I know the "defenses" here, it was a difficult choice).

The theology that I hold is the same that you hold. There is one exception. I am reexamining exactly why I believed (and last month preached) that the Father punished the Son with our punishment for our individual sins. First I asked on a reformed board, and I did get some help but that wasn't the place I should have gone. Wonderful people, but like some of you not really open to evaluating their beliefs. And that is what I am doing.

Since you also agree with MM, maybe you can help. Expound on how you believe Eusebius' book, or at least the two chapters in question, reflect PST. Post the verse that affirms Jesus "died spiritually," "experienced the second death."

 

This is getting silly. First, the church fathers are not an authority. I was pointing out that no one before Calvin held the system or view that is inherent in PST. That is still my statement. There is no more integrity in extracting statement from Eusebius and claiming PST as there is in extracting statements from Calvin and claiming he presents God as authoring evil.

If I am wrong then it is because I did not realize that your belief was that on the cross Jesus took on sin for all humanity and made a way for salvation. I erroneously believed that you rejected Eusebius’ view and instead looked at atonement as Christ actually experiencing our punishment individually for our sins. As I said earlier, I am open to correction but that correction has to be precise and correct (not implied). But as Martin has pointed out (I am not sure why so negatively towards me), on the cross Jesus died, was substituted for us, experienced a punishment for human sin so that humanity may be reconciled to God. My misunderstanding was that I thought you believed otherwise.

I am not sure that I agree with your view that the primary reason Christ came was to show that God loved mankind, but it is not something I want to argue. I always thought that the primary reason was to demonstrate God's own glory, but I suppose it's not an either/or issue.

 

Yes, by "spiritual death" I mean that second death that is the consequence of sin. Revelation 20 describes the final judgment of the wicked to be a second death which is a future judgment where death and Hades are cast into Hell. Mat. 10:28 and Lk 12:14 also warn of this second death. I will grant that on this forum we have not agreed that spiritual death is the consequence of sin, so maybe that is a subject that we need to discuss.

I do have an agenda. Last month I preached on PST. But afterwards when looking over the sermon I realized that I spoke much from my own worldview (the first century church didn't seem to view things, of course, the same way which is understandable, but also I found it difficult to justify the degree to which I held my view based on the scripture that affirmed the view).

And we may differ theologically to great degrees. I shouldn't have assumed otherwise (my apologies, brother). My soteriological view is classic Calvinism. I forget that I am on a more open forum instead on a Reformed board (I have been gone a few months). But if you hold to an Arminian perspective, or even a more general Protestant perspective, then I think we can still discuss things on common ground. But I do understand God's work within the "doctrines of Grace." That is another reason I am questioning PST and trying to articulate a better ground.

I also realize that this is probably not the place to try to work out one's theology. This has, historically (at least since 2001), been a place to argue and defend your view....not walk through doctrine. But it's all I have so I came here. As I said, there are good people here who are willing to look at "why we believe what we believe." There are others who simply grab an apologetics book on whatever topic is at hand.

In all honesty, I don't know you so I don't know which type of person you are. But you don't know me, so I'll just come out and say that I look at my beliefs by asking questions contrary to what I hold. That's just how I learn and develop my understanding. I apologize if it comes off as being stubborn, or refusing to admit fault. It is actually the other way around. I don't lean heavily on my understanding, which I know is considered a fault and a weakness....blown by the wind, etc.

Here it was aggravating because I affirm the verses that were presented, but questioned how we arrive at our explanation. In other words, why do we "fill in the blanks" with what we choose to put in those blanks. That's how we arrive at PST, and I have to be confident that it is correct because it does color so much of how we see things. I just do not seen enough evidence to hold that view, but I am open to proof. I am looking at why I believe what I believe. So far, I do not find the "evidence" of PST adequate (and, to be honest, I don't know why no one else has bothered to note some texts have been taken out of their context...people are more defensive than honest sometimes).

 

I look forward, as always, to your insight Icon. My posts throughout this thread have actually been more thinking out loud than declaring or defending one doctrine. And I often, as you have probably noticed from the past, argue against a position to flesh out a better understanding (for me).