Penal Substitution Theology and the faith of those without it

[TCassidy]

Atonement is certainly penal and substitutionary.

For whom? What is the scope of the Atonement?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Here is the Wikipedia definition: "Penal substitution (sometimes, esp. in older writings, called forensic theory) is a theory of the atonement within Christian theology, developed with the Reformed tradition. It argues that Christ, by his own sacrificial choice, was punished (penalized) in the place of sinners (substitution)...." Note the reference to specific "sinners."

There is no reference to specific "sinners." It just says "sinners." It might be some, it might be all.
John Wesley certainly believed in Penal Substitution (citations available on request), and other 'real' Arminians (as opposed to Semi-Pelagians) like Campbell Morgan also upheld PSA.

 

[JonC]

For whom? What is the scope of the Atonement?

For what purpose?

 

[JonC]

Again, when PSA is used in the modern context, it is the Reformed view, not the "unskewed" view.

Are you saying that Arminianism (which holds a Reformed view of PSA but rejects a Calvinistic view of limited atonement) no longer exists within the modern theological landscape? What about Amyraldianism? Does it no longer exist?

 

[Revmitchell]

Lots of folks claiming I am wrong, but note that no quote was forthcoming to say PSA refers to Christ dying for all mankind.

And?

Here is one view: "Kenneth J. Collins in his book "The Theology of John Wesley: Holy Love and the Shape of Grace" writes, "for Wesley, Christ makes compensation and satisfies the justice of God precisely by standing in the place of sinful humanity," Note that this view refers to "sinful humanity" not "sinners" as in specific individuals.

So you create a standard ie "everyone must use the phrase sinners or they do not mean all sinners" so you can knock down a standard no one else has. Got it.

Here is the Wikipedia definition: "Penal substitution (sometimes, esp. in older writings, called forensic theory) is a theory of the atonement within Christian theology, developed with the Reformed tradition. It argues that Christ, by his own sacrificial choice, was punished (penalized) in the place of sinners (substitution)...." Note the reference to specific "sinners."

Who cares what wiki says. Who uses that as a legitimate source for theology? Well except you.

Again, if you define PSA as Christ dying for all mankind, you are referring to an old and outdated view.

No you are parsing words to fit your presupposition and it is obvious.

 

[JonC]

I have demonstrated PSA and Limited Atonement are mistaken views. I have not denounced anyone, only the "skewed view of PSA."
Spot on. Now provide a quote that supports the "unskewed" view. The Leon Morris quote referred to Christ taking "the sinners" place, the limited atonement view.

Again, when PSA is used in the modern context, it is the Reformed view, not the "unskewed" view.

Something tells me that you are familiar with Admiral Nelson.

 

[HankD]

John 1:29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.

HankD

 

[Van]

To repeat, if PSA is defined as Christ paying the penalty for sinful humanity, then we can move on to discuss whether that is the best supported biblical view of what Christ accomplished on the Cross. But if PSA continues to be referring to "our sins" which might or might not exclude the sins of the whole world, or refers to "sinners" which might or might not refer to all humanity, then it is just a Trojan horse for limited atonement.

Ask yourself this, why do all the modern definitions of PSA include a vague reference to the scope of the atonement. Perhaps we should park it outside the gates until we see what is inside.

 

[JonC]

Ask yourself this, why do all the modern definitions of PSA include a vague reference to the scope of the atonement. Perhaps we should park it outside the gates until we see what is inside.

I always thought it was because so many really don't care about the "scope" of the atonement in terms of those who are not saved. It almost seems as if the Bible focuses on those who are being saved.

 

[Van]

If you study all that Christ commanded, you will find over and over the command to be fishers of men.

Christ died for sinful humanity on the cross, to take away the sin of the world. Today, God is reconciling the world to Himself, one sinner at a time.

If Christ died for sinful humanity, and He did, then how are individuals reconciled to God. The "at one ment" occurs when God transfers a person into Christ where they undergo the circumcision of Christ. Then they are sealed in Christ with the Spirit of Christ, such that they are in Christ and Christ is in them. This is the at one ment, the atonement, the reconciliation.

 

[JonC]

If you study all that Christ commanded, you will find over and over the command to be fishers of men.

Christ died for sinful humanity on the cross, to take away the sin of the world. Today, God is reconciling the world to Himself, one sinner at a time.
If Christ died for sinful humanity, and He did, then how are individuals reconciled to God. The "at one ment" occurs when God transfers a person into Christ where they undergo the circumcision of Christ. Then they are sealed in Christ with the Spirit of Christ, such that they are in Christ and Christ is in them. This is the at one ment, the atonement, the reconciliation.

I agree with you, except maybe that the Atonement is not necessarily encompassed entirely in that term "at one ment". While a bit catchy, it only focuses on the aspect of man being reconciled, so it also falls short of completely representing the biblical doctrine of the Atonement. Christ did die for sinful humanity on the cross. He did die to take away the sin of the world. Today God is reconciling the world to Himself, one sinner at a time. This reconciliation does occur when God transfers a person into Christ, when God "re-creates" us. And yes, we are sealed, such that we are in Christ and Christ is in us.

Christ also bore our sins and the consequences of that sin in His flesh. Christ also purchased us with His blood. Christ also was delivered to death for our transgressions and raised for our justification. It is penal substitution. It is also reconciliation. And it is victory over sin and death.

The Atonement is so very much more than penal substitution alone, but a rejection of penal substitution cannot but make the Cross so much less than it really is. You have cornered a truth that many do deny, but you are denying what is right before you simply because others take a doctrine to unbiblical conclusions. I agree that you see the errors, but insofar as seeing the truth you seem to be putting the telescope to the blind eye, brother.

 

[Van]

Thanks Jon, I appreciate discussion of the doctrine more than the gratuitous commentary on my supposed flaws.

First the scripture refers to reconciliation rather than atonement. Thus being separated from God in a sinful state, when we are united with God, that is our reconciliation, where we are at one with God. (Romans 5:11, 11:15; 2 Corinthians 5:18-19.) Was this accomplished when God accepted Christ's sacrifice on the cross? Nope. It is accomplished when God credits our faith as righteousness and transfers us into the kingdom of His Son.

Second, Christ's death for sinful humanity covers each and every sin of fallen mankind. So to say He bore our sins does not enlarge from the "sin of the world." It is included. (1 Peter 2:24 - refers to those who have undergone the washing of regeneration.) We were not healed when He died, but when we were put into Christ spiritually and sealed in Him. If we had been reconciled when Christ died, there would be no need for our ministry of reconciliation.

Third, Christ purchased sinful humanity, those saved and those who are never saved with His blood. (2 Peter 2:1)

Fourth, yes Christ died for our transgressions which are included in the sins of the whole world. Now lets camp on "raised for our justification." Does this not teach that our (and everyone's) justification occurs subsequent to Christ's death. Jesus lives and we have been baptized into His death and resurrection. This again points to reconciliation occurring subsequent to His death on the cross.

I only thing I have denied is Christ dying for the specific sins of the elect rather than all mankind. And we agree that is valid. The rest seems to be in the eye of the beholder, friend.

 

[JonC]

Thanks Jon, I appreciate discussion of the doctrine more than the gratuitous commentary on my supposed flaws.

First the scripture refers to reconciliation rather than atonement. Thus being separated from God in a sinful state, when we are united with God, that is our reconciliation, where we are at one with God. (Romans 5:11, 11:15; 2 Corinthians 5:18-19.) Was this accomplished when God accepted Christ's sacrifice on the cross? Nope. It is accomplished when God credits our faith as righteousness and transfers us into the kingdom of His Son.

Second, Christ's death for sinful humanity covers each and every sin of fallen mankind. So to say He bore our sins does not enlarge from the "sin of the world." It is included. (1 Peter 2:24 - refers to those who have undergone the washing of regeneration.) We were not healed when He died, but when we were put into Christ spiritually and sealed in Him. If we had been reconciled when Christ died, there would be no need for our ministry of reconciliation.

Third, Christ purchased sinful humanity, those saved and those who are never saved with His blood. (2 Peter 2:1)

Fourth, yes Christ died for our transgressions which are included in the sins of the whole world. Now lets camp on "raised for our justification." Does this not teach that our (and everyone's) justification occurs subsequent to Christ's death. Jesus lives and we have been baptized into His death and resurrection. This again points to reconciliation occurring subsequent to His death on the cross.

I only thing I have denied is Christ dying for the specific sins of the elect rather than all mankind. And we agree that is valid. The rest seems to be in the eye of the beholder, friend.

I know, Van, that the only thing you have denied is that on the Cross Christ was dying for specific sins committed by specific people. And I absolutely agree with you. Sins as in sinful acts have never been the issue. It is sin, the sin of humanity of which sinful acts are but manifestations....fruit, so to speak...that has always been the problem. My objection is that the way you have presented the topic seems almost to deny penal substitution as a whole, not merely the error of some narrow men. Too many have held to penal substitution without crossing that line.

 

[Van]

And my issue is that when discussing PSA you must define it and draw the line (all mankind, sinful humanity, etc.) Reconciliation, becoming at one with God, occurs when God puts individuals into Christ, and not when Christ died. Try to sort this out in your own mind, what was accomplished when Christ died, and what more is accomplished when God transfers individuals into the kingdom of His Son. If you lump the two separate spiritual transactions together, you get confusion, IMHO.

 

[JonC]

And my issue is that when discussing PSA you must define it and draw the line (all mankind, sinful humanity, etc.) Reconciliation, becoming at one with God, occurs when God puts individuals into Christ, and not when Christ died. Try to sort this out in your own mind, what was accomplished when Christ died, and what more is accomplished when God transfers individuals into the kingdom of His Son. If you lump the two separate spiritual transactions together, you get confusion, IMHO.

This is where we disagree. I do believe that we can legitimately discuss the Atonement as penal substitution (without having to touch every other aspect). Scripture does this often. Also, many (yourself included) want to talk about reconciliation but rightly do not feel that each time you open your mouth to deal with that topic you have to reiterate penal substitution.

I had a conversation in church about divine sovereignty. One member of our group could not discuss the topic of God's sovereignty without insisting we include human decision at ever turn. But if we were talking human responsibility no one would stop to insist we include sovereignty.

We can discuss Jesus dying on the cross as a guilt offering or sacrifice without turning it into a discussion of "at one ment" and reconciliation. That isn't to say that you are wrong in what you affirm of the atonement. I just am not sure that you are right in what you seem to deny.

 

[HankD]

John 1:29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.

HankD

iconoclast how is it brother that I post a scripture and you disagree?


HankD

 

[Iconoclast]

iconoclast how is it brother that I post a scripture and you disagree?


HankD

I was reading your posts.....as a series. ... I know you quoted the verse. ..
Explain it please.

 

[TCassidy]

For what purpose?

For the purpose of Atonement. I would think that would be obvious.

 

[JonC]

For the purpose of Atonement. I would think that would be obvious.

Yes, I suppose so. Christ died as the Savior to all people and in such a way as to make the general call of salvation a genuine call to all mankind, if that is what you mean. This was an intended purpose of the Cross and in that sense, the Atonement was purposed for all mankind.

So there is a universal scope to the atonement. Do you disagree?

 

[TCassidy]

Yes, I suppose so. Christ died as the Savior to all people and in such a way as to make the general call of salvation a genuine call to all mankind, if that is what you mean. This was an intended purpose of the Cross and in that sense, the Atonement was purposed for all mankind.

So you have redefined "Atonement" in such a way that no orthodox Christian in history would agree?

You are free to have your own opinions but you are not free to have your own facts.

The above is NOT the theological definition of "Atonement."