• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Martin Luther and the Atonement (theories of atonement)

JamesL

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I like your term “shackled”. @Yeshu commented that the difference between Luther and Calvin was small, but it was very significant. I’ve been amazed at how powerful Scripture is when unshackled from Calvin’s “contribution” (and I don’t mean this derogatory towards Calvin – I appreciate his work in other areas, particularly on prayer).

My initial difficulty with PSA was also that it failed to harmonize with certain passages of Scripture, initially with the concept of divine forgiveness. I had accepted the PSA answer but it really never set well. As I studied, other issues crept into view. When I wrote down every passage dealing with substitutionary atonement I quickly realized that none of them defined the atonement as PSA (for an exercise, I’d suggest some here write down their definition of PSA on a dry erase board. Look up passages that confirm your definition EXACTLY. Underline those parts in blue. Underline the unconfirmed parts in red. What you will find is a biblical definition that is satisfaction/substitution underlined in blue and the PSA distinction underlined in red).

And as a graduate student studying theology I started moving more and more away from tradition and closer to Scripture. What I discovered is that so many of the blanks my tradition of PSA filled in were never there to begin with. Scripture very often defines itself – it isn’t a puzzle we need to arrange and imagine what the missing pieces looked like (or leave them to “mystery”) but a clear cut revelation from God. We didn’t have to spiritualize Christ’s death in order to make it sufficient to satisfy anything – His physical death is sufficient because He is God. And God could forgive – not because He had already collected His “pound of flesh” but because of who He is. Before that time I had never fully realized just how humanistic PSA and Calvinism could be (we thought we were the one’s lifting up God’s glory when in fact we were lifting up man’s sins).

But it is hard to change. I still sometimes say that I hold to penal substitution because I believe both are aspects of the atonement and it's just the easiest way out. I guess this makes me just as wrong as @Yeshua1 and @Martin Marprelate who do believe the position I hold is PSA.
I think the distinction in views might be which of the two elements - penal and substitution - has the higher priority.

I can see where the priorities have shifted in my understanding (although maybe subtly). Whereas I used to see the penal aspect as having the hire priority, now I see the substitution aspect slightly higher.

However, I'm not certain that those two aspects occupy the top two seats because I have developed a dramatically different view of what constitutes sin and righteousness in the first place.

In the Protestant framework, sin and righteousness are purely on the basis of works. Now, before I get run out on a rail, let me characterize it (even though I know many might balk at my characterization).

Adam and Eve were under a covenant of works. If they obeyed (works) they could stay in the garden. But if they disobeyed (works) they would be put out of the garden. They made the decision (works) to disobey (works) and died instantly on the inside and began a slow process of death on the outside. With that one act of sin (works) Adam condemned the entire human race as if we had all participated in his (works of) unrighteousness. But in addition to sharing in Adam's guilt, he also gifted to each of us a nature (whatever that is) by which we are driven to fulfill our (own works) of unrighteousness.

Now enter the remedy: Jesus, the sinless (works) One, being made similar to humans (not like us in all things), never did anything wrong (works). He fulfilled the law (works) on our behalf, died to take the punishment for our bad works, and traded His perfect works for our imperfect works. And then his perfect works are credited to our account, where we are viewed as having done nothing wrong (works).

Now, I realize I have breezed right through the atonement. But like I said, it has been a focused study in other areas which is leading me to the train wreck of the atonement.

What if it wasn't works which plunged Adam or anyone else into ruin? If there is such a thing as righteousness apart from works, is there such a thing as unrighteousness apart from works?

Additionally, if our plunge into despair is not on the basis of works, and the results of our rescue are not on the basis of works, can we rightly say that the rescue itself is on the basis of works?

Indeed, there was some kind of rescue, some kind of price for restitution made, some kind of substitution. But Jesus said the well have no need for a physician. We're told that by his stripes we are healed. We're told that we are new creations, and then we have become the righteousness of God.

Can we rightly say that God is righteous because he doesn't do any bad things? If righteousness is synonymous with lawfulness, can any of us really say that we are a new creation and have become the righteousness of God? And especially with a view of imputed righteousness only, how can anyone lay claim to "become" ? why didn't Paul plainly state that we are viewed as the righteousness of God?

See, I don't think any atonement theory can be genuine unless the practical implications can be tied in.

There are more of these non atonement issues which I feel need to be considered in a view of the atonement

and I'd be happy to share some of the scriptures which I feel run this works based sin and righteousness into a bind
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
I think the distinction in views might be which of the two elements - penal and substitution - has the higher priority.

I can see where the priorities have shifted in my understanding (although maybe subtly). Whereas I used to see the penal aspect as having the hire priority, now I see the substitution aspect slightly higher.

However, I'm not certain that those two aspects occupy the top two seats because I have developed a dramatically different view of what constitutes sin and righteousness in the first place.

In the Protestant framework, sin and righteousness are purely on the basis of works. Now, before I get run out on a rail, let me characterize it (even though I know many might balk at my characterization).

Adam and Eve were under a covenant of works. If they obeyed (works) they could stay in the garden. But if they disobeyed (works) they would be put out of the garden. They made the decision (works) to disobey (works) and died instantly on the inside and began a slow process of death on the outside. With that one act of sin (works) Adam condemned the entire human race as if we had all participated in his (works of) unrighteousness. But in addition to sharing in Adam's guilt, he also gifted to each of us a nature (whatever that is) by which we are driven to fulfill our (own works) of unrighteousness.

Now enter the remedy: Jesus, the sinless (works) One, being made similar to humans (not like us in all things), never did anything wrong (works). He fulfilled the law (works) on our behalf, died to take the punishment for our bad works, and traded His perfect works for our imperfect works. And then his perfect works are credited to our account, where we are viewed as having done nothing wrong (works).

Now, I realize I have breezed right through the atonement. But like I said, it has been a focused study in other areas which is leading me to the train wreck of the atonement.

What if it wasn't works which plunged Adam or anyone else into ruin? If there is such a thing as righteousness apart from works, is there such a thing as unrighteousness apart from works?

Additionally, if our plunge into despair is not on the basis of works, and the results of our rescue are not on the basis of works, can we rightly say that the rescue itself is on the basis of works?

Indeed, there was some kind of rescue, some kind of price for restitution made, some kind of substitution. But Jesus said the well have no need for a physician. We're told that by his stripes we are healed. We're told that we are new creations, and then we have become the righteousness of God.

Can we rightly say that God is righteous because he doesn't do any bad things? If righteousness is synonymous with lawfulness, can any of us really say that we are a new creation and have become the righteousness of God? And especially with a view of imputed righteousness only, how can anyone lay claim to "become" ? why didn't Paul plainly state that we are viewed as the righteousness of God?

See, I don't think any atonement theory can be genuine unless the practical implications can be tied in.

There are more of these non atonement issues which I feel need to be considered in a view of the atonement

and I'd be happy to share some of the scriptures which I feel run this works based sin and righteousness into a bind
I agree with you concerning practical applications,but my experience was over the nature of forgiveness (what if we forgave like God forgives according to PSA?).

Insofar as unrighteous and righteousness goes, I suppose you do have a point. There has to be a state of unrighteousness that did not result from works (otherwise righteousness would be a matter of works....at least with Adam). Sometimes we forget that when Adam sinned he did so without what people would assign to him as a "fallen nature" (the Fall being a result of the sin). I believe that God's command in the Garden served the same purpose as the Law to Israel. Which would be an interesting topic.

With PSA, however, I think that the error goes back to imposing a framework of restorative justice not only to the atonement but to God in general. This skews the meaning not only of what it means to satisfy the demands of the Law, but of the Law itself...and of things like forgiveness, righteousness, and sin. PSA is simply the result of superimposing an extra-biblical conceptual framework onto Scripture.
 

Martin Marprelate

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Athanasius also said, ‘The Word perceived that corruption could not be got rid of otherwise than through death; yet He Himself, as the Word, being immortal and the Father’s Son, was such as could not die. For this reason, therefore, He assumed a body capable of death, in order that it, through belonging to the Word Who is above all, might become in dying a sufficient exchange for all, and, itself remaining incorruptible through His indwelling, might thereafter put an end to corruption for all others as well, by the grace of the resurrection. It was by surrendering to death the body which He had taken, as an offering and sacrifice’.
It would be good to finish the quotation off properly since you appear to have ended it in mid-sentence. It was by surrendering to death the body which He had taken, as an offering and sacrifice free from every stain, that He forthwith abolished death for His human brethren by the offering of an equivalent. For naturally, since the Word of God was above all, when He offered His own temple and bodily instrument as a substitute for the life of all, He fulfilled in His death all that was required.

Both penal and substitutionary elements seem to be present. :)
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
Both penal and substitutionary elements seem to be present. :)
Duh..

You have a very weak Penal Substitution Theory (it means "any view that has at least at one time been orthodox belief"). It is amazing that you see no distinction between Luther, Martyr and Athanasius.

In a way, I like that because you have no ground to argue that my own position is not PSA. In a way I don't like that because you believe my position is PSA.

What is strange is how you argue that I reject Penal Substitution when I say one thing but Luther affirms it when you see that he has written the same thing.
 
Last edited:

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
Ok, I think I may be able to get us on the same page. It’s not with what other’s have believed but with what PSA means. Let’s look at PSA and my own view.

We know that I don’t believe God punished Jesus with the penalty the lost will suffer at Judgment. We know that I don’t believe God separated from Jesus at the Cross. These two things I share with many throughout history.

BUT I hold Luther’s view here. I believe that Jesus “became a sacrifice for us; and with his purity, innocence, and righteousness, (I’d add obedience) which was divine and eternal, he outweighed all sin and wrath he was compelled to bear on our account.”

So there are penal and substitution elements. I therefore hold to PSA and you have been wrong to accuse me otherwise throughout these several threads.
 

Martin Marprelate

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Ok, I think I may be able to get us on the same page. It’s not with what other’s have believed but with what PSA means. Let’s look at PSA and my own view.

We know that I don’t believe God punished Jesus with the penalty the lost will suffer at Judgment. We know that I don’t believe God separated from Jesus at the Cross. These two things I share with many throughout history.
Then you don't believe in PSA. Part of the sinner's penalty at Judgement will be to be cut off from the presence of the Lord (2 Thessalonians 1:9). For the rest, see the definition I gave earlier.
BUT I hold Luther’s view here. I believe that Jesus “became a sacrifice for us; and with his purity, innocence, and righteousness, (I’d add obedience) which was divine and eternal, he outweighed all sin and wrath he was compelled to bear on our account.”
I have previously given you a quote by Luther which shows that he did hold to Penal Substitution. I don't have time to look it out again, but it's there.
So there are penal and substitution elements. I therefore hold to PSA and you have been wrong to accuse me otherwise throughout these several threads.
See above.
 

HankD

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Another quibble which goes on and on...

My view FWIW - Both penal and substitutionary are taught

Isaiah 53:10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.

bruised (crushed)
offered

IMO, the penal side reveals the horror of sin by the substitute of an innocent victim being punished by death in my stead.

It is natural (fleshy) that we should want to run and hide from God for the offense like Adam and Eve knowing that the innocent lamb of God was crucified/punished in my place.

The full price of sin.

My opinion of course.

HankD
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
Another quibble which goes on and on...

My view FWIW - Both penal and substitutionary are taught

Isaiah 53:10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.

bruised (crushed)
offered

IMO, the penal side reveals the horror of sin by the substitute of an innocent victim being punished by death in my stead.

It is natural (fleshy) that we should want to run and hide from God for the offense like Adam and Eve knowing that the innocent lamb of God was crucified/punished in my place.

The full price of sin.

My opinion of course.

HankD
I agree that Luther teaches both penal and substitution.

Do you think that his view, since he taught Christ's sacrifice satisfied the demands of the Law - his physical suffering and death, bearing our sins in the flesh - outweighed sin and wrath by virtue of the merit itself (by virtue of Christ's blood) instead of by virtue of Christ suffering the punishment we would have suffered (a spiritual death, an experience of "Hell" or a separation from God) is still classified as PSA?

And if so, is there a name for the distinction that holds that the demands of the Law were satisfied because God inflicted the punishment we would have experienced at Judgment on Christ?
 

HankD

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I agree that Luther teaches both penal and substitution.

Do you think that his view, since he taught Christ's sacrifice satisfied the demands of the Law - his physical suffering and death, bearing our sins in the flesh - outweighed sin and wrath by virtue of the merit itself (by virtue of Christ's blood) instead of by virtue of Christ suffering the punishment we would have suffered (a spiritual death, an experience of "Hell" or a separation from God) is still classified as PSA?

And if so, is there a name for the distinction that holds that the demands of the Law were satisfied because God inflicted the punishment we would have experienced at Judgment on Christ?
I would chose the English word equilibrium, the quantitative aspect being the infinite/eternal.

noun equilibrium
1.a state of rest or balance due to the equal action of opposing forces.
2.equal balance between any powers, influences, etc.; equality of effect.
3.mental or emotional balance; equanimity:
The pressures of the situation caused her to lose her equilibrium.

the definition of equilibrium

HankD
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
I would chose the English word equilibrium, the quantitative aspect being the infinite/eternal.

noun equilibrium
1.a state of rest or balance due to the equal action of opposing forces.
2.equal balance between any powers, influences, etc.; equality of effect.
3.mental or emotional balance; equanimity:
The pressures of the situation caused her to lose her equilibrium.

the definition of equilibrium

HankD
I've never heard that term used to on this topic, but I see how it could be applied. God had to keep the scales of justice balanced, so to speak.
 

Martin Marprelate

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I agree. The odd thing is that I do believe hold the same view as Luther on this topic.
I quoted this on another thread. Here is Luther on Galatians 3:13:

'But here we must make a distinction, as the words of Paul plainly show. For he saith not that Christ was made a curse for Himself, but for us. Therefore all the weight of the matter standeth in this word "for us." For Christ is innocent as concerning His own person, and therefore He ought not to have been hanged on a tree; but because according to the law of Moses, every thief and malefactor ought to be hanged, therefore Christ also ought to be hanged, for He sustained the person of a sinner and a thief, not of one, but of all sinners and thieves. For we are sinners and thieves, and therefore guilty of death and everlasting damnation. But Christ took our sins upon Him, and for them died upon the cross; therefore it behoveth that He should become a transgressor and (as Isaiah saith, chapter LIII) "be reckoned with the transgressors............Paul therefore doth very well allege this general sentence out of Moses as concerning Christ: "Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree." But Christ hath hanged upon a tree, therefore Christ is accursed of God.'

Is that what you believe?
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
I quoted this on another thread. Here is Luther on Galatians 3:13:

'But here we must make a distinction, as the words of Paul plainly show. For he saith not that Christ was made a curse for Himself, but for us. Therefore all the weight of the matter standeth in this word "for us." For Christ is innocent as concerning His own person, and therefore He ought not to have been hanged on a tree; but because according to the law of Moses, every thief and malefactor ought to be hanged, therefore Christ also ought to be hanged, for He sustained the person of a sinner and a thief, not of one, but of all sinners and thieves. For we are sinners and thieves, and therefore guilty of death and everlasting damnation. But Christ took our sins upon Him, and for them died upon the cross; therefore it behoveth that He should become a transgressor and (as Isaiah saith, chapter LIII) "be reckoned with the transgressors............Paul therefore doth very well allege this general sentence out of Moses as concerning Christ: "Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree." But Christ hath hanged upon a tree, therefore Christ is accursed of God.'

Is that what you believe?
Yes, this is what I believe.

Where we disagree is not with the Father laying our sins on Christ, or with Christ bearing our sins. This was, as Peter and John explained to the Jews, the will of God. Where we disagree is how this satisfied the demands of the Law. I agree with Luther that it is the blood of Christ in that the nature of Christ Himself - becoming a curse for us, bearing our sins in the flesh, beaten and dying - by virtue of His worth that "outweighed sin and wrath". From you posts (please let me know if I've misunderstood) you seem to believe that the demands of the justice were satisfied because God punished Jesus with our punishment.

The difference is not that I deny Jesus stood in our place and took the stroke due us. The difference is that I believe this stroke to be the physical death He suffered on the Cross and by virtue of Jesus' blood God's wrath is propitiated. I do not believe Jesus experienced the spiritual death that would have been our punishment.
 

Martin Marprelate

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
From you posts (please let me know if I've misunderstood) you seem to believe that the demands of the justice were satisfied because God punished Jesus with our punishment.
I agree with Luther. 'Every thief and malefactor ought to be hanged, therefore Christ also ought to be hanged.' Is that Christ being punished with our punishment or is it not?
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
I agree with Luther. 'Every thief and malefactor ought to be hanged, therefore Christ also ought to be hanged.' Is that Christ being punished with our punishment or is it not?
As our representative, yes...is this not what is meant by "bearing our sins"? I absolutely agree with that statement.

Do you agree with Luther that Christ "by his blood and death, in which he became a sacrifice for us; and with his purity, innocence, and righteousness, which was divine and eternal, he outweighed all sin and wrath he was compelled to bear on our account; yea, he entirely engulfed and swallowed it up, and his merit is so great that God is now satisfied and says, “If he wills thereby to save, then there will be a salvation.”?
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Wait a minute....you and @Martin Marprelate seriously want us to believe that Athanasius held to the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement??? From your link:

"Yet Athanasius was also an explicit promoter of penal substitution." "For instance, Athanasius stated,

’Thus, taking a body like our own, because all our bodies were liable to the corruption of death, He surrendered His body to death in place of all, and offered it to the Father. This He did out of sheer love for us, so that in His death all might die, and the law of death thereby be abolished because, having fulfilled in His body that for which it was appointed, it was thereafter voided of its power for men. This He did that He might turn again to incorruption men who had turned back to corruption, and make them alive through death by the appropriation of His body and by the grace of His resurrection. Thus He would make death to disappear from them as utterly as straw from fire.’

Athanasius also said, ‘The Word perceived that corruption could not be got rid of otherwise than through death; yet He Himself, as the Word, being immortal and the Father’s Son, was such as could not die. For this reason, therefore, He assumed a body capable of death, in order that it, through belonging to the Word Who is above all, might become in dying a sufficient exchange for all, and, itself remaining incorruptible through His indwelling, might thereafter put an end to corruption for all others as well, by the grace of the resurrection. It was by surrendering to death the body which He had taken, as an offering and sacrifice’.


Read what Athanasius believed. Is this what you believe? Is this how you define Penal Substitution - that it was by surrendering to death that the body the Word had taken was an offering and sacrifice?
The Lord Jesus died in the place of those whom God would save by that Act, and as being the Sin bearer, he would face the full wrath of God towards sinners, and he experienced suffering and felt the isolation and terrible extent of separation from presence of God, as all lost sinners will!
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Yes. I agree. And Luther's comments agreed as well. AND Thomas Aquinas made almost that same statement as well.

This is not Penal Substitution. You are assuming a definition here for "punishment" that Luther, Martyr, and Aquinas rejected. That's the difference.

Do you really not understand? Let's slow down and take the statement you just made:

NOT PENAL SUBSTITUTION: "The punishment (Luther and Martyr have this as physical suffering and death by the will of God at the hands of man) the Father laid upon Jesus was in order to render full satisfaction for the wrath of God directed towards sins (here Luther and Martyr both stated the wrath as being towards the human race, but we may be saying the same thing)."

PENAL SUBSTITUTION: "The punishment (taken in the context of restorative justice - the punishment that was to be inflicted on the offenders) the Father laid upon Jesus in order to render full satisfaction for the wrath of God directed towards sins."

Are you starting to see the difference. Luther and Martyr viewed the punishment, the curse, to be that physical suffering - NOT a spiritual separation from God. And Luther believed that the reason this satisfied the demands of the Law was not the punishment but the nature of Christ. God dying in the flesh satisfied the demand of the Law (ended the Old Covenant because it was a covenant) and began the New.

I'm not trying to get to you come to my view, but I do hope at least you can see the difference between my view (which on this point is Luther's) and yours. We both see the cross as sufficient to meet the demands of the Law, but for very different reasons.
2 things at play within PST, namely, that while Jesus had to experience in full what the lost sinners will forever while becoming our sin bearer is true, including for a time separation from the Father in His own humanity, He also had to be the perfect law Keeper in order to have his death acceptable to God, So it is not either/or, but both aspects at play here!
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
2 things at play within PST, namely, that while Jesus had to experience in full what the lost sinners will forever while becoming our sin bearer is true, including for a time separation from the Father in His own humanity, He also had to be the perfect law Keeper in order to have his death acceptable to God, So it is not either/or, but both aspects at play here!
I agree. Hence my argument that both Luther (who did not teach either of these two things) and Justin Martyr (who did not teach either of the two things) did not hold to that theory.
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I agree. Hence my argument that both Luther (who did not teach either of these two things) and Justin Martyr (who did not teach either of the two things) did not hold to that theory.
That is what Calvin and Paul held with though!
 

Mr. Davis

Active Member
Site Supporter
I believe that the atonement is only for the elect. I believe this is what Calvin and Paul taught. Mennosota said, in another forum, that a "general atonement" is efficacious. He is a Calvinist, but maybe only a 4 pointer. I disagree with him. What do others think?
 
Top