The Biblical Doctrine of Penal Substitution

[The Biblicist]

Not at all. You are projecting your assumptions on me (you made the false accusation of me a few posts back). My comment was that all of those things are in Scripture. I was asking how you came to put them together.

By simply studying the scriptures - period! Concerning "the false accusation" it was you that freely admitted that the PST theory was in your own words "impossible."

You are adapting a cultic (or Catholic) approach - “God told me, don’t question it, just believe”.

Hardly! I have explained my position and reasoning behind it with much scriptures.

Your position is not the historical view, so how did this “obvious” articulation stay hidden for so long? Was it “hidden knowledge” for a time, known only by some underground “true church” until John Calvin caught wind of it and let the cat out of the bag? And do you guys have secret handshakes and passwords?

The secular historical record is namely that "secular" and uninspired, and incomplete and more often wrong than right. You are assuming contrary to Christ's promise that he would be with NT Christianity as summarized in the Great Commission (Mt. 28:19-20) and as revealed in the New Testament has failed, and that Catholic history is "Christian." Far from it!

In other words, stop making assumptions. I have only asked you a few questions. If you are unable to answer then so be it.

I have answered every single question you have posed.

I know how PST developed. I am asking why the context is appropriate (not even saying it is not appropriate).

Again, these very assertions presume it was not taught or believed between the first century and the Reformation and based upon what? Based solely upon uninspired, incomplete and often errant Catholic history.

I understand both PST and your version of PST.

If so, you have not done too well in demonstrating my "version" is unbiblical at any point!

I was asking about the reasoning and context of your theory, how it came to be articulated as PST. Since you cannot comprehend the other positions but instead insist that this “truth” of Scripture has remained hidden until the Reformers discovered it in the 16th century, and then you (uninfluenced by the Enlightenment and the Reformation, discovered it even later straight from the Bible) I highly suspect you are not the person to ask. You really don’t know why you make those assumptions (even if they are correct).

It is so amazing you have such great faith in Roman Catholic historians and secular history. In other words if Rome does not provide a written record it can't exist.

 

[JonC]

By simply studying the scriptures - period! Concerning "the false accusation" it was you that freely admitted that the PST theory was in your own words "impossible."



Hardly! I have explained my position and reasoning behind it with much scriptures.



The secular historical record is namely that "secular" and uninspired, and incomplete and more often wrong than right. You are assuming contrary to Christ's promise that he would be with NT Christianity as summarized in the Great Commission (Mt. 28:19-20) and as revealed in the New Testament has failed, and that Catholic history is "Christian." Far from it!


I have answered every single question you have posed.



Again, these very assertions presume it was not taught or believed between the first century and the Reformation and based upon what? Based solely upon uninspired, incomplete and often errant Catholic history.




If so, you have not done too well in demonstrating my "version" is unbiblical at any point!




It is so amazing you have such great faith in Roman Catholic historians and secular history. In other words if Rome does not provide a written record it can't exist.

I've never been much of a conspiracy theorist, so I will leave the comment that history here is fake. But not without noting the silliness of it, and that you have adopted the Reformed position (Penal Substitution Theory) regardless of how you arrived there.

 

[The Biblicist]

I've never been much of a conspiracy theorist, so I will leave the comment that history here is fake. But not without noting the silliness of it, and that you have adopted the Reformed position (Penal Substitution Theory) regardless of how you arrived there.

In other words, Rome is your final authority and no one is capable of studying the Bible and coming to the position I hold! That is very revealing indeed!

Why are you not a Roman Catholic then???? According to secular history Roman Catholicism is the only true church of Christ between the 4th and 16th century. Why are you not a Roman Catholic then IF no other kind of Christianity existed???

 

[JonC]

In other words, Rome is your final authority and no one is capable of studying the Bible and coming to the position I hold! That is very revealing indeed!

What is revealing is that in your theology all roads do lead to Rome.


You know you are on a Baptist board when people start accusing others of acting Catholic.

 

[Yeshua1]

What is revealing is that in your theology all roads do lead to Rome.

Actual, the theology of Penal substitution lead straighr back to Paul!

 

[The Biblicist]

What is revealing is that in your theology all roads do lead to Rome.

Again, very revealing as you are now claiming that the PST position is not Biblical in origin, but is Roman Catholic in origin as "all roads do lead to Rome" is your estimation of the PST view and not "some roads" with regard to pst.

 

[Yeshua1]

I've never been much of a conspiracy theorist, so I will leave the comment that history here is fake. But not without noting the silliness of it, and that you have adopted the Reformed position (Penal Substitution Theory) regardless of how you arrived there.

He arrived there by the basis that I and Martin have, by accepting what the scvriptures advocate is the man and oprimary way to see the Cross of Jesus in light of salvtion!

God sent the truth of the Gospel and the Cross back into His church, as both were absent for many centuroies. under darkness of Rome!

 

[JonC]

He arrived there by the basis that I and Martin have, by accepting what the scvriptures advocate is the man and oprimary way to see the Cross of Jesus in light of salvtion!

God sent the truth of the Gospel and the Cross back into His church, as both were absent for many centuroies. under darkness of Rome!

Yes, I know. Lest you forget, I had arrived there right along side you as well.

So, let's all stop this stupidity of "I got there by Scripture alone", or "you got there by following men", or "my mama told me".

What I am claiming is that we all have inclinations to view things (like Scripture) in certain contexts. The reason no one articulated Penal Substitution Theology exactly as was done by the Reformers is because some of theories and ideas that PST draws upon was foreign to mankind prior to the early Enlightenment period (or running up to that time, depending on how you date things). The Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement depends on the substitutionay definitions of Anselm's satisfaction theory (in his "corrections" to the Ransom Theory) and the philosophy of Aquinas (that a man can be punished in place of another man). Without these two ideas Penal Substitution Theology does not exist (which explains why there is no record of the theory prior to John Calvin's development in the Sixteenth Century). Calvin changed the focus from honor to punishment and the notion of Christ paying penance became Christ suffering the actual punishment for the individual sins of individual men. But the system remained essentially the same. God has a ledger, and sins must be dealt with. They cannot be forgiven (not merely forgiven). Sin is a debt owed which must be collected, not an action that must be addressed. Sin is a thing that necessitates a need on the part of God to fulfill, not a behavior that needs to be corrected.

And these ideas are inherent in our own culture and worldview (perhaps now more than ever). You do not have to study John Calvin, or any book, to learn these ideologies. They are instilled in you already.

This does not mean PST is wrong. Penal substitution itself is not only biblical, it is also present in the historical position as such things developed into some sort of theory. When I say historical position, I mean a type of Christus Victor motif, not necessarily Christus Victor Theory of Atonement.

What I have been asking about is not Scripture (we all agree there, we all have the same passages and access to the same Bibles). What I have been asking about is the reasoning and ideologies that form the context of PST. But it takes people who are able to identify these traits and who are willing to set them aside and become objective to discuss this topic. And again, I insist this will not happen on this forum. There are too many who are emotionally connected to their theories that they are blind to how they are held. I've already been told we shouldn't question PST because it could cause doubt. Really? That is the type of doctrine we want to hold? Don't question it because it could cause doubt means don't question it because it may not stand up to you the questioning. And we want to hold that???

 

[JonC]

Again, very revealing as you are now claiming that the PST position is not Biblical in origin, but is Roman Catholic in origin as "all roads do lead to Rome" is your estimation of the PST view and not "some roads" with regard to pst.

Again, please refrain from false accusations (whether intentional or not, they are "misrepresentations").

I am not saying that PST is not biblical in origin. In fact, I claimed exactly the opposite. Penal substitution is clear thorough out Scripture. It is clear in many of the earlier theories. I am saying that the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement it is not Scripture itself, but a systematic and reasoned theory or theology based on Scripture. I am questioning that reasoning.

 

[JonC]

Let's do it this way, you have provided many verses in your argument, but none of them prove your position. Let's look at the passages that you believe prove penal substitutionary atonement Theory to be correct. Let's just take them a couple at a time so as to be honest with the conversation. Maybe this way we can see where we stand.

What passage do you believe proves your position to be correct?

 

[The Biblicist]

I am not saying that PST is not biblical in origin....... I am saying that the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement it is not Scripture itself, but a systematic and reasoned theory or theology based on Scripture. I am questioning that reasoning.

If you are not questioning that reasoning then why are we discussing this doctrine? It seems to me that you are questioning the very foundations of this doctrine and denying the very fundamental meaning of the terms "penal" and "substitutionary" that the whole doctrine rests upon.

Let's do it this way, you have provided many verses in your argument, but none of them prove your position. Let's look at the passages that you believe prove penal substitutionary atonement Theory to be correct. Let's just take them a couple at a time so as to be honest with the conversation.

No singular text teaches all the facets of PST just as no single text teaches all the facets of the Trinity. However, all facets are taught in the Sacrificial laws. So, if I simply present one text all you have to say is where is this facet taught in that text and so on and so forth. Like the Trinity, PST is the Biblical teaching of the accumulation of all relevant texts when taken together. However, all facets of PST are clearly seen in the sacrifice as prescribed in the book of Leviticus.

 

[The Biblicist]

Yes, I know. Lest you forget, I had arrived there right along side you as well.

So, let's all stop this stupidity of "I got there by Scripture alone", or "you got there by following men", or "my mama told me".

I am sorry if that offends you, but I did get to that position by Scripture alone. You don't see me quoting anyone. I admit that the terms are extra biblical but the doctrine as presented in scripture demands the terms to aptly express it. However, before using those terms I simply used biblical terms and illustrations.

The reason no one articulated Penal Substitution Theology exactly as was done by the Reformers is because some of theories and ideas that PST draws upon was foreign to mankind prior to the early Enlightenment period (or running up to that time, depending on how you date things).

I can swallow the idea that that the precise terms may not have been previously used to articulate this truth, but I totally reject that the substance of this doctrine was lost to mankind based upon Roman Catholic monks version of history. Before I was introduced to these extra-biblical terms I simply used Biblical terms but without a change of doctrine at all.

The Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement depends on the substitutionay definitions of Anselm's satisfaction theory (in his "corrections" to the Ransom Theory) and the philosophy of Aquinas (that a man can be punished in place of another man). Without these two ideas Penal Substitution Theology does not exist (which explains why there is no record of the theory prior to John Calvin's development in the Sixteenth Century).

Again, you are confusing certain formulated expression with the abiding truth of the doctrine. Roman Catholicism is merely christianized paganism that has usurped and dominated secular expression of NT. Christianity, but NT Christianity has continued to exist right up to through the Reformation period distinct and separate from both Catholicism and Reformed Catholicism under the epitaph of "heretic" by harlot Rome.

Calvin changed the focus from honor to punishment and the notion of Christ paying penance became Christ suffering the actual punishment for the individual sins of individual men.

Absolute nonsense! Punishment for sin is a clear Biblical concept and Gehenna is its reality apart from PST.

Sin is a thing that necessitates a need on the part of God to fulfill, not a behavior that needs to be corrected.

Sin is not a "thing" but the violation of God's Law, coming short of the "glory of God" absolute rebellion against the rule and righteousness of God.

And these ideas are inherent in our own culture and worldview (perhaps now more than ever). You do not have to study John Calvin, or any book, to learn these ideologies. They are instilled in you already.

If this were even close to truth,then it should be instilled in all who claim to be Christian but it is not! So much for your logic. I believe you are describing yourself, you are certainly not describing me. Please don't attribute to me things I don't believe are true of me. You paint with too wide of a brush which in fact, when applied according to your logic is proven wrong.

mean a type of Christus Victor motif, not necessarily Christus Victor Theory of Atonement.

A false theory in my opinion.

What I have been asking about is not Scripture (we all agree there, we all have the same passages and access to the same Bibles). What I have been asking about is the reasoning and ideologies that form the context of PST. But it takes people who are able to identify these traits and who are willing to set them aside and become objective to discuss this topic. And again, I insist this will not happen on this forum. There are too many who are emotionally connected to their theories that they are blind to how they are held. I've already been told we shouldn't question PST because it could cause doubt. Really? That is the type of doctrine we want to hold? Don't question it because it could cause doubt means don't question it because it may not stand up to you the questioning. And we want to hold that???

Your reasoning here is oxymoronic as you are claiming scriptures are not the cause for that reasoning but such reasonings are independent of the scriptures and originate with the Reformation. I utterly deny that! My reasonings are a direct INSEPARABLE result of those scriptures.

 

[The Biblicist]

Calvin changed the focus from honor to punishment and the notion of Christ paying penance became Christ suffering the actual punishment for the individual sins of individual men.

I find this statement absolutely abhorrent! Not due to my emotions, but due to the impact of that statement upon Biblical truth! God's "honor" and "punishment" are not antithetical but partners in God's Word. To claim that Calvin is responsible for changing the Biblical focus from "honor" to "punishment" is an ugly lie, and ugly perversion of God's Word. Punishment for sin is such a Biblical fundamental that is even found in the home in reaction to rebellion against parental authority as symbolized by the "rod." It is established in civil government (Rom.13:1-5) worldwide. It permeates the judicial system of Israel in the Old Testament. The "honor" of God is vindicated in just retribution for sin.

Sin is a thing that necessitates a need on the part of God to fulfill, not a behavior that needs to be corrected.

This is a deeply disturbing statement as it indicates you have no clue as to the biblical nature of sin. No theologian, who even has a superficial understanding of the Biblical nature of sin would dare define or describe it as "a thing." However, that is precisely what a person is forced to do when they deny there is but ONE STANDARD of righteousness and sin is the violation of that standard.

God's HEART is his MORAL attribute and determined thoughts from that MORAL SOURCE in God is known as God's "will" and when that "will" is expressed in words it is known as God's LAW. The Summation of God's MORAL NATURE is provided in a MORAL value called "love." The Law is always MORAL as it originates from God's MORAL NATURE (his heart). The written Law of God is the written revelation of His own righteousness and that precisely why BOTH can be summarized in the chief of moral values - LOVE.

You simply don't get that! That does not originate with the Reformation, with Rome,but from a careful evaluation of God's Word.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I also appreciate your understanding (I think) that I am not denying PST as much as I am asking how you (and others here) would deal with "issues" within the theory. From previous discussions, I would at least hope that you understand I accept both the penal and substitutionary aspects of the atonement as necessary for our salvation (and biblical).

Well, as I have said, I have problems with some of your posts because in one breath you say you support Penal Substitution and in the next breath you seem to be denying it, or at least, muddying the waters. However, let us proceed.

That said, people put them together differently. Martin Luther accepted substitutionary atonement (maybe we could even say a penal substitution theory, I'm not sure). But he did not hold PST as developed (or articulated) by John Calvin.

As you know, I strongly deny that PST leapt like Athene, fully-armed from the brow of Calvin. I gave you a pile of quotations from Church fathers who supported the doctrine, at least in embryo. Luther spoke of the 'Great Exchange' on the cross (our sins upon Christ; His righteousness upon us) which is certainly substitution. In the book I recommended to you, Pierced for our Transgressions by Ovey, Jeffrey and Sach, the authors give about 50 pages to the historical pedigree of P.S. and show that its development has been much more gradual than you have allowed. Calvin's work was based (to some degree) on that of Athanasius and Aquinas (amongst others), and developed by Turretine and Owen, for example.

As we look back through history, there is no evidence that PST existed as articulated today before the 16th century. The primary argument from Reformed theology is that the elements were there but not assembled. And I agree. The elements were there - both penal and substitution exist throughout Scripture and in the writings of the early church.

The reason may be that the ECFs were taken up with establishing the Deity of Christ and the doctrine of the Trinity and didn't give the attention to P.S. that they should. The later Roman Catholics were absorbed with the 'sacraments.' In the time of Turretine and Owen, there was a specific need to counter the teachings of Socinius, so the doctrine of P.S. needed to be honed and expounded at that time. I think most theology tends to be reactive.

What I am asking here, against my better judgment (nothing against you, but we all know how this is going to go), is how these penal substitution building blocks came to be put together. In other words, I agree with most of the Reformed commentators that the "bricks" were there. We agree on who set the mortar. I am asking why one design was chosen over another.

Well I hope I have given you something to chew on, at least.

 

[JonC]

.Your reasoning here is oxymoronic as you are claiming scriptures are not the cause for that reasoning but such reasonings are independent of the scriptures and originate with the Reformation. I utterly deny that! My reasonings are a direct INSEPARABLE result of those scriptures.

I do not care what you deny. I have been asking what you believe and why. I know you came to your view via Scripture. We both did.

Your reasoning, however, is not a direct, inseparable result of Scripture. That is not only heresy but it's just plain silly. We are to believe you because out of centuries of scholarship God has given you a reasoning that is inseparable from Scripture? Like the Pope?

 

[The Biblicist]

I am saying that the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement it is not Scripture itself, but a systematic and reasoned theory or theology based on Scripture. I am questioning that reasoning.

You are saying that PST is a "systematic and REASONED theory or theology based on scripture, and yet is is that very REASONING you are challenging! Well if your challenge disproves the reasoning then it disproves the theory and if the reasoning is "based on scripture" and you disprove it then are you not saying it is unscriptural rather than "based on scripture"??????

 

[JonC]

You are saying that PST is a "systematic and REASONED theory or theology based on scripture, and yet is is that very REASONING you are challenging! Well if your challenge disproves the reasoning then it disproves the theory and if the reasoning is "based on scripture" and you disprove it then are you not saying it is unscriptural rather than "based on scripture"??????

It is that human reasoning I am questioning, yes. Those Presbyterians whose faith you despise so much have a reasoning based on Scriptures. Scripture is right. The reasoning is debatable.

 

[The Biblicist]

Your reasoning, however, is not a direct, inseparable result of Scripture. That is not only heresy but it's just plain silly.

If your theology is not composed of reasonings as a direct and inseparable consequence of Scripture, then you better give up your theology and find one that can be reasoned inseparably from Scripture. I did not say my reasonings are the cause and scripture is the result, I said scripture is the cause and my reasonings are the result. That is not heresy that is the only true basis for sound doctrine.

We are to believe you because out of centuries of scholarship God has given you a reasoning that is inseparable from Scripture? Like the Pope?

You are making this assumption not based on Scripture but based wholly upon incomplete,uninspired and often erroneous writings preserved by Rome. Like Rome, the bible is not final authority in your logic but councils, traditions and uninspired opinions of men. I don't care if you like what I said or agree with what I said. Proper Biblical understanding is not dependent upon uninspired, incomplete and often erroneous opnions by fallen men. God has been teaching this truth to us "heretics" all through the Paganized Roman Catholic existence by His Spirit (1 Jn. 2:29). This truth is not dependent upon the terms "penal" or "substitutionary" but upon the biblical language that means the very same thing, just as the doctrine of the Trinity was not invented in the 4th century nor depended upon the term "trinity" found in the scriptures but has been the revealed truth from New Testament times to his people who were killed and treated as "heretics" by the Great Whore and her protestant daughters.

 

[The Biblicist]

It is that human reasoning I am questioning, yes. Those Presbyterians whose faith you despise so much have a reasoning based on Scriptures. Scripture is right. The reasoning is debatable.

That is not what you are saying! Either PST is biblical based or it is not! If it is,then the reasonings to support that theory must also be Biblical based or that theory is false. In truth you believe those reasonings to be false and therefore you are repudiating the very PST you claim is Biblical based and redefining it into some other kind of PST based on your reasonings or else there would be no discussion.

 

[JonC]

If your theology is not composed of reasonings as a direct and inseparable consequence of Scripture, then you better give up your theology and find one that can be reasoned inseparably from Scripture.

So, if you and I disagree and my reasoning is a direct and inseparable consequence of Scripture, then I am correct and you are wrong because God's Word never fails....right?

If you cannot separate your reasoning from the text that you study, then you will never truly study Scripture. Your conclusions will always be a blend of presupposition and truth. I suppose that is inherent, but with you it will be greater than with those who can identify and recognize the nature of theology itself.

Regardless, when you are ready (or able) to defend your position by pointing out two passages, then let me know.