Baptists, Penal Substitution, Original Sin

[Van]

As I said before, Penal Substitution Theory teaches Christ died for the specific sins of supposedly previously chosen individuals. That is why it does not teach Universalism. I do not believe PST could exist before Limited Atonement as they are two sides of the same coin. If you strip away the idea that Christ died for the specific sins of the previously chosen elect, then you are left with Substitutionary Theory and that is a Biblical Concept. But do not conflate them!

 

[JonC]

I seem to recall having done this before.
'The doctrine of Penal Substitution states that God gave Himself in the person of His Son to suffer instead of us the death, punishment and curse due to fallen humanity as the penalty for sin' (Jeffrey, Ovey and Sach, Pierced for our Transgressions, IVP, 2007).

I have given multiple quotes from Church Fathers on various threads in favour of Penal Substitution. It is by no means impossible that some of them may have contradicted themselves elsewhere. That is one reason why I don't find study of the Fathers to be particularly profitable. I only trot these quotes out because you and Rebel keep insisting that they don't exist.

I am trying to look at this in a systematic way. I have also provided extensive quotes from many of those Church Fathers which would deny PST as I would define it, but thought that perhaps it was in definition that we disagreed.

The reason is that I also have posted the quote you offered of several Church Fathers, and you never objected. I think that perhaps what we are calling PST is not the same. I'll use Eusebius as a quick example here, and assume he holds to PST.

Penal Substitution Theory:
1. Strongly denies the Son and Father experienced a separation on the Cross.
2. Denies Christ suffered a "spiritual death."
3. Focuses on the reconciliation of all men to God.
4. Places the Law as applicable only to the Jewish race (and only tho them that lived in their own land).
5. The Atonement is the basis of reconciliation of humanity upon which the father forgives sins.
6. The Atonement is the summoning of all men equally to share in this reconciliation.

(These teachings are from “Demonstratio Evangelica")

It is a matter of definition. Those teachings (the context of the quote you offered proving Eusebius taught Penal Substitution) stands in contract to my view of PST. I may be able to go along with your view, if it is, as you indicate, what has been taught by the ECF's.

 

[JonC]

That is why it does not teach Universalism. I do not believe PST could exist before Limited Atonement as they are two sides of the same coin.

Please correct me where I have misunderstood. Calvin believed in PST. He did not even hear of limited atonement. Arminus believed in PST but not limited atonement. I don't understand how PST existed for Calvin and Arminius, limited atonement developed afterwards, but the older doctrine is dependent on the younger.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I am trying to look at this in a systematic way. I have also provided extensive quotes from many of those Church Fathers which would deny PST as I would define it, but thought that perhaps it was in definition that we disagreed.

The reason is that I also have posted the quote you offered of several Church Fathers, and you never objected. I think that perhaps what we are calling PST is not the same. I'll use Eusebius as a quick example here, and assume he holds to PST.

Penal Substitution Theory:
1. Strongly denies the Son and Father experienced a separation on the Cross.
2. Denies Christ suffered a "spiritual death."
3. Focuses on the reconciliation of all men to God.
4. Places the Law as applicable only to the Jewish race (and only tho them that lived in their own land).
5. The Atonement is the basis of reconciliation of humanity upon which the father forgives sins.
6. The Atonement is the summoning of all men equally to share in this reconciliation.

(These teachings are from “Demonstratio Evangelica")

It is a matter of definition. Those teachings (the context of the quote you offered proving Eusebius taught Penal Substitution) stands in contract to my view of PST. I may be able to go along with your view, if it is, as you indicate, what has been taught by the ECF's.

Here is the Eusebius quote again. It is from Proof of the Gospel, Book 10, Ch. 1:

'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 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.'

The quote is rather clear, I think. That Eusebius may have contradicted himself elsewhere I do not doubt for a second. I find that the Fathers do that with some regularity, which is why they are not really sound guides to true Christian doctrine. Nor do I believe that the doctrine of P.S.A. emerged from the E.C.F.s fully formed, like Athene from the brow of Zeus. The Fathers stumbled and fell short in all sorts of ways, most notably over baptismal regeneration.

 

[Darrell C]

I understand. I didn't think you were implying that.

Here is a good brief treatment of it:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_atone10.htm

What I meant is what JonC states in Post15, how you see it, your understanding of it.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

That is one reason why I don't find study of the Fathers to be particularly profitable.

I would agree with that. Nothing wrong with knowing what they believed and taught, as long as it doesn't become the dominant factor in our study.


God bless.

 

[JonC]

Here is the Eusebius quote again. It is from Proof of the Gospel, Book 10, Ch. 1:

'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 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.'

The quote is rather clear, I think. That Eusebius may have contradicted himself elsewhere I do not doubt for a second. I find that the Fathers do that with some regularity, which is why they are not really sound guides to true Christian doctrine. Nor do I believe that the doctrine of P.S.A. emerged from the E.C.F.s fully formed, like Athene from the brow of Zeus. The Fathers stumbled and fell short in all sorts of ways, most notably over baptismal regeneration.

Eusebius may contradict what some want his comments to mean, but he doesn't contradict himself. Here is your quote in context of the whole:

He too by the laws of sympathy (since the Word of God was pleased to take the form of slave and to be knit into the common tabernacle of us all) takes into Himself the labours of the suffering members, and makes our sickness His, and suffers all our woes and labours by the laws of love. And the Lamb of God not only did this, but 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, and because He received death for us, and transferred to Himself the scourging, the insults, and the dishonor, which were due us, and drew down on Himself the apportioned curse, being made a curse for us. And what is that but the price of our souls? And so the oracle says in our person: ‘By his stripes we are healed,’ and ‘The Lord delivered him for our sins,’ with the result that uniting Himself to us and us to Himself, and appropriation our sufferings, He can say, ‘ I said, Lord, have mercy on me, heal my soul, for I have sinned against Thee.

For the words, 'Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?' which He spoke on the Cross, and which were prophetically foretold in the Psalm, what else did they mean but that like a great athlete He was matched against all these adversaries, while Almighty God ordered the contest and gave the decision? Thus He summons His Father as the overseer of what is being done, and as the adviser, like a clever Anointer, to come to Him, especially as He has no other helper, but only Him that governs the context. And so He says in prayer, "Be not thou far from me, for trouble is near, and there is no helper."...And though He says this, His farther is not too far off to hear Him, He is not removed far off, He is not separated by the smallest space, but is actually saying to Him: "While thou speakest, I will say, I am here.

Since it was impossible for the blood of bulls and of goats to take away sins, and the whole race of mankind needed a living and true offering, of which the Mosaically designed propitiation was a type, and our Lord and Saviour was this Lamb of God, as it was said of Him, ‘Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world’; and again, ‘He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but for those of the whole world’” He brings redemption also, according to Paul’s words, “Who is become wisdom to us from God, and righteousness and sanctification and redemption’ naturally teaches that His coming is at once the fulfilment and the contemplation of sin of those who have sinned against Him, at the same time as it is the blotting out and purification of sins, and the propitiation for the transgressions of them that believe in Him.

I have now proved that the old covenant and the law given by Moses was only applicable to the Jewish race, and only to such of them as lived in their own land.” …… “But the new covenant leads those who, through our Saviour by the grace and gift of God are raised up, to a rapid march into the kingdom promised by God. It summons all men equally to share together the good things.

And His coming shewed clearly the righteousness of God, who reckoned the whole of mankind worthy of the calling of God. Such was not the Mosaic dispensation, which was given to the Jews only: wherefore having appeared for a time it has passed away. But the righteous proclaimed by our Saviour is fitly called eternal righteousness. (“Demonstratio Evangelica”).

My argument is with those who believe that Christ took the punishment of our individual sins in our place. I agree with your view, which you call Penal Substitution theory, as expressed through Eusebius. We simply disagreed on what constituted Penal Substitution Theory.

 

[JonC]

As I said before, Penal Substitution Theory teaches Christ died for the specific sins of supposedly previously chosen individuals. That is why it does not teach Universalism. I do not believe PST could exist before Limited Atonement as they are two sides of the same coin. If you strip away the idea that Christ died for the specific sins of the previously chosen elect, then you are left with Substitutionary Theory and that is a Biblical Concept. But do not conflate them!

The bold part is correct. Limited Atonement was a doctrine that arose as a Calvinistic address to the ideas of James Arminius, which concerned not the Atonement but the doctrine of divine predestination. I agree that it is more suited for those who believe in limited atonement, but conclusions are not always logical. I've said before, it is not logical that a man will die and then come back to life three days later....or that a man could walk on water. The substitution theory that PST grew out out of was a refinement of satisfaction theory (most combine these as one), but it had in mind penance and God's honor.

I think that you are not holding to any theory, but are speaking of substitution in general. If so, then I would agree with you. There are centuries of believers who held to the fact that Christ died on the cross to save them, bore their sins, turned aside God's wrath due them for their sin, and freed them from the bondage of sin and death as enough to sustain their faith. They looked to Christ as a mediator when they sinned and held a steadfast faith that being reconciled to God through the death of his Son that they would be saved by his life. I wish we had more people like that today.

 

[TCassidy]

Limited Atonement was a doctrine that arose as a Calvinistic address to the ideas of James Arminius, which concerned not the Atonement but the doctrine of divine predestination.

Well, actually, it didn't. Limited Atonement has been with us since the "Amen" was penned to the Book of the Revelation. Limited Atonement can be found all through the New Testament.

And while on the subject, every Christian, with the exception of a few Universalists, believes in Limited Atonement.

Do you posters who think you deny Limited Atonement believe the Devil will be saved? Or His demons? If not then don't you limit the Atonement to humans only? Just as those of us who accept Limited Atonement limit it to believers only? Remember, Limited Atonement does not teach that the Atonement was limited in its ability to save, but rather, limited only in its application. It is sufficient for all, efficient only for believers.

 

[JonC]

Well, actually, it didn't. Limited Atonement has been with us since the "Amen" was penned to the Book of the Revelation. Limited Atonement can be found all through the New Testament.

And while on the subject, every Christian, with the exception of a few Universalists, believe in Limited Atonement.

Do you posters who think you deny Limited Atonement believe the Devil will be saved? Or His demons? If not then don't you limit the Atonement to humans only? Just as those of us who accept Limited Atonement limit it to believers only? Remember, Limited Atonement does not teach that the Atonement was limited in its ability to save, but rather, limited only in its application. It is sufficient for all, efficient only for believers.

I stand corrected......just because something wasn't considered r worked out doesn't necessarily mean it didn't exist (the doctrine of the Trinity demonstrates this).

Sent from my TARDIS

 

[TCassidy]

just because something wasn't considered r worked out

I am not sure Limited Atonement wasn't considered or worked out prior to 1610. Just because some Christians missed it doesn't imply all Christians missed it.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

My argument is with those who believe that Christ took the punishment of our individual sins in our place. I agree with your view, which you call Penal Substitution theory, as expressed through Eusebius. We simply disagreed on what constituted Penal Substitution Theory.

I don't follow you here. what are you trying to say? Eusebius mixes up truth with error at various points in the extended quote you gave (specifically concerning His separation from the father- Psalm 22:1), but he is clearly speaking of Christ taking the punishment for our sins. I'm not quite sure what you mean by the punishment of our sins. Sins are inanimate. They feel no pain and cannot be punished. Christ received the punishment that we deserve for our sins.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I am not sure Limited Atonement wasn't considered or worked out prior to 1610. Just because some Christians missed it doesn't imply all Christians missed it.

This is quite correct. For example the XXXIX Articles of the Church of England (c. 1551) teach predestination, and while the words 'Limited Atonement' are not actually printed, they are certainly implied clearly by Art. XVII.

 

[Darrell C]

(specifically concerning His separation from the father- Psalm 22:1),

If you mean that he was in error in denying that the Son was separated from the Father, I will stand with what he states, which I see as correct. The difference between Christ and fallen man is that men are not in relationship with God when taking upon themselves the punishment for sin, whether that be the physical death exacted under Old Testament Economies, or, the eternal separation more clearly revealed and taught in the New Testament they will ultimately undergo.

Christ received the punishment that we deserve for our sins.

So what is that punishment?

It's just my view, but, it seems to me that Atonement was accomplished by the death of Christ, and did not require anything beyond a literal standing in our place. I would agree that individual sins are not in view, because men receive the same punishment from a general perspective, meaning, while we do see differing degrees of punishment, in regards to dying for sin that is the punishment in view. This would be contrasted with the thought that "Eternal separation is worse for some (i.e., Hitler, Stalin, et cetera)," or, has hotter locations than others. The punishment for sin is death, which ultimately speaks of separation.

We could compare this with salvation, in regards to rewards: while we are told reward will vary, that does not change the fact that salvation is identical for all. It is received the same way, and has the same result, which is, a removal of that separation men are born into.

So again, what is the punishment? And how does that relate to Atonement? I suggest it is that simple, Christ died in our stead, and varying degree of culpability isn't really a factor relevant to Atonement.


God bless.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

So again, what is the punishment? And how does that relate to Atonement? I suggest it is that simple, Christ died in our stead, and varying degree of culpability isn't really a factor relevant to Atonement.

I do not know if there is one part of hell which is hotter and blacker than the rest. Heb. 10:19 and James 3:1 might possibly suggest it but I don't care to argue the point.

My argument is that Christ, the sinless One, took our sins upon Himself and bore the penalty of them. What penalty was that? It was the penalty that God prescribed. He was beaten scourged, nailed to the tree, treated as one who was accursed. He was, for the three hours of darkness, deserted by the Father (I don't see how you can interpret Psalm 22:1-18 any other way) and surrounded by figures taunting Him and goading Him. That was His hell. The Father is propitiated, and Christ, after the suffering of His soul, is satisfied (Isaiah 53:11), for He has borne the sins of many, and redeemed a vast crowd that no man can number, from hell.

I've covered this at length in other threads. If you need more, I will look them out and cut and paste them here.

 

[Darrell C]

He was, for the three hours of darkness, deserted by the Father (I don't see how you can interpret Psalm 22:1-18 any other way)

I interpret Psalm 22 in it's entirety, the primary truth being this is Messianic, and David...was a bit of a sniveler of compromised faith when He wrote it...



Sound irreverent? Perhaps, but the fact is that David, when not in the throes of the consequences of sin (and it matters little if we ascribe his sin, the sin of others, or sin as a general factor in the generation of torment, trial, and tragedy)...

...understood that God would never forsake Him:

Turn the page, and we read...


Psalm 23:4

King James Version (KJV)

4 Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me.


Two entirely perspectives, right? Either the Lord is with him, though he walk through the valley of the Shadow of death, or...He has forsaken David.

So we ask the question...was David forsaken at that time? Is that the case, or, is this simply a perspective of David in a time of great trial.

Secondly, we look at the Messianic nature of David's writing, which can equally said to have application to Christ and David and solely to Christ.

When we look at David's statement as applied to David, we look on from a perspective of having the...rest of the story.

Those looking on Christ and hearing these words, not only did they not have the rest of the story, but, they miss it completely...


Matthew 27:46-48

King James Version (KJV)

46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

47 Some of them that stood there, when they heard that, said, This man calleth for Elias.


We, though, do not stop at David's crying out "Why hast thou forsaken me," but, we continue on in the Psalm and see, in full revealed understanding in retrospect, that no, David was not forsaken, and yes, everything in the Psalm has to be considered.

While the trauma of both David and the Lord are great, I think it an error to take a view that the Father was separated from the Son at this time. Rather, the Lord is making a pointed correlation to the Psalm.

If we say Father and Son were separated, I think we are forced to conclude that Christ ceased being God at that time, and this is an impossibility. At no time did God cease being God. This suggests that in that time Christ was but a man, which view we usually reject, do we not?

That was His hell.

There is no Hell associated with the Atonement.

It was finished upon the Cross, and it was accomplished by His death.

Communion is a reference to His death, that is the means by which He saves us. While the sufferings He endured are not neglected nor dismissed, had He been beaten yet not died, then sin would not have been atoned for. They did not beat the sacrifices of the Law, they put them to death. Those animals died in the stead of the sinner (the comer thereunto), that was the provision of the Law (and even prior to the Law, i.e., Abel, Noah, Abraham, Job).

So, in my view, think we have to maintain that pattern/figure in regards to Christ. He did not bleed so we could be forgiven our sins, He did not suffer flogging so we could receive remission, He did not carry a Cross that we might be redeemed.

He died in our stead. The death was necessary.


God bless.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

If we say Father and Son were separated, I think we are forced to conclude that Christ ceased being God at that time, and this is an impossibility. At no time did God cease being God. This suggests that in that time Christ was but a man, which view we usually reject, do we not?

I do not think we have to believe that at all. We need to keep in mind the Threeness as well as the Oneness of God.
I'm afraid I've run out of steam today; I'm all posted out.
May I just refer you to a transcription of a sermon I gave a while ago on this subject?
https://marprelate.wordpress.com/2011/04/08/the-cry-of-desolation/

 

[JonC]

I don't follow you here. what are you trying to say? Eusebius mixes up truth with error at various points in the extended quote you gave (specifically concerning His separation from the father- Psalm 22:1), but he is clearly speaking of Christ taking the punishment for our sins. I'm not quite sure what you mean by the punishment of our sins. Sins are inanimate. They feel no pain and cannot be punished. Christ received the punishment that we deserve for our sins.

I am saying that you are extracting from him what you view as error and applying what is left over to say Eusebius believed PST. If you take his view as he offers it, then those elements of punishment and substitution don't quite add up to PST. In fact, his view that this punishment was the sin of humanity that Christ took as our substitute (like Martyr insists, as our representative) so that in the reconciliation of mankind all may become reconciled to God flatly denies many aspects of how some hold PST.

I've said before, and will again, that elements of substitution and due punishment are present in most, if not all, theories. That does not mean those other theories affirm PST.

As an illustration only : John Owen clearly believes that through the Atonement we are freed from the bondage of sin. Therefore he held to Christus Victor theory.....only with some error and confusion mixed in.

I am saying, brother, that when we dissect a man's theory or theology, hold on to one part while dismissing the whole, then we do disservice to the brother's position. I would not do that to you, intentionally, and we shouldn't do it to others.

I believe you will find your strongest argument from Scripture, not antiquity.

Sent from my TARDIS

 

[JonC]

I am not sure Limited Atonement wasn't considered or worked out prior to 1610. Just because some Christians missed it doesn't imply all Christians missed it.

Are there any writings or evidences of the doctrine of Limited Atonement being worked out prior to the work of the Reformers?

 

[TCassidy]

Barnabas (A.D. 70): “[Christ speaking] I see that I shall thus offer My flesh for the sins of the new people.”

Justin Martyr (A.D. 150): “He endured the sufferings for those men whose souls are [actually] purified from all iniquity…As Jacob served Laban for the cattle that were spotted, and of carious forms, so Christ served even to the cross for men of every kind, of many and various shapes, procuring them by His blood and the mystery of the cross.”

Irenaeus (A.D. 180): “He came to save all, all, I say, who through Him are born again unto God, infants, and little ones, and children, and young men, and old men…Jesus is the Savior of them that believe; but the Lord of them that believe not. Wherefore, Christ is introduced in the gospel weary…promising to give His life a ransom, in the room of, many.”

Tertullian (A.D. 200): “Christ died for the salvation of His people…for the church.”

Cyprian (A.D. 250): “All the sheep which Christ hath sought up by His blood and sufferings are saved…Whosoever shall be found in the blood, and with the mark of Christ shall only escape…He redeemed the believers with the price of His own blood…Let him be afraid to die who is not reckoned to have any part in the cross and sufferings of Christ.”

Lactantius (A.D. 320): “He was to suffer and be slain for the salvation of many people…who having suffered death for us, hath made us heirs of the everlasting kingdom, having abdicated and disinherited the people of the Jews…He stretched out His hands in the passion and measured the world, that He might at the very time show that a large people, gathered out of all languages and tribes, should come under His wings, and receive the most great and sublime sign.”

Eusebius (A.D. 330): “To what ‘us’ does he refer, unless to them that beleive in Him? For to them that do not believe in Him, He is the author of their fire and burning. The cause of Christ’s coming is the redemption of those that were to be saved by Him.”

Julius (A.D. 350): “The Son of God, by the pouring out of His precious blood, redeemed His set apart ones; they are delivered by the blood of Christ.”

Hilarion (A.D. 363): “He shall remain in the sight of God forever, having already taken all whom He hath redeemed to be kings of heaven, and co-heirs of eternity, delivering them as the kingdom of God to the Father.”

Ambrose (A.D. 380): “Before the foundation of the world, it was God’s will that Christ should suffer for our salvation…Can He damn thee, whom He hath redeemed from death, for whom He offered Himself, whose life He knows is the reward of His own death?”

Pacian (A.D. 380): “Much more, He will not allow him that is redeemed to be destroyed, nor will He cast away those whom He has redeemed with a great price.”

Epiphanius (A.D. 390): “If you are redeemed…If therefore ye are bought with blood, thou are not the number of them who were bought with blood, O Manes, because thou deniest the blood…He gave His life for His own sheep.”

Jerome (A.D. 390): “Christ is sacrificed for the salvation of believers…Not all are redeemed, for not all shall be saved, but the remnant…All those who are redeemed and delivered by Thy blood return to Zion, which Thou hast prepared for Thyself by Thine own blood…Christ came to redeem Zion with His blood. But lest we should think that all are Zion or every one is Zion is truly redeemed of the Lord, who are redeemed by the blood of Christ form the Church…He did not give His life for every man, but for many, that is, for those who would believe.”