Does the Text of 1 John Demand Penal Substitution Theory ? 2

I agree. The biblical doctrine of Penal Substitution - that Jesus bore our sin, became a curse for us, died that we might in Him live - is in the Bible and throughout history.

The Theory of Penal Substitution- that God poured His wrath upon Christ in our stead - is not.

 

No. I'm just saying that his theory also has wrath in view (as does Aquinas take on his theory). That said, I do like Martin Luther's explanation that Christ's death outweighed the sin and wrath against us (Satisfaction Theory). But I lean more towards those aspects of penal substitution that are in Scripture within the general context of Christus Victor.

 

Here is a difference in how we’ve been looking at the issue.

The Theory of Penal Substitution views sin as creating a debt that must be paid. God’s justice demands that the debt be paid, otherwise forgiveness is impossible (because justice would not be satisfied). Our sin debt was paid by Christ as God poured out the wrath due us onto His Son at the Cross.

But this is an accounting type of retributive justice. It assumes things about sin and justice that do not exist (biblically). It looks at the atonement almost as a monetary transaction. Jim owes Mike $50. Mike forgives the debt. That means Mike assumes the $50 penalty himself.

Scripture presents sin in a much different light. It is an offense, or a rebellion (an action) against God. If Jim punches Mike in the nose, Mike does not have to punch himself in the nose in order to forgive Jim. Mike can forgive Jim without compensation or recompense. Justice does not demand that Mike punch someone for the offense. But before Mike forgives Jim he may want to make sure Jim has changed his ways (otherwise Jim will keep on punching people).

Penal Substitution Theory assumes that biblical penal substitution occurs within a context that it has failed to prove. That is the difference between the biblical doctrine of penal substitution and the Theory of Penal Substitution. The doctrine does not present God as having to satisfy justice by pouring His wrath on someone before He can forgive. Instead, the doctrine of penal substitution presents God as forgiving when (and only when) true repentance is present.

The Theory of Penal Substitution rejects the biblical doctrine of penal substitution.

 

Yes. Absolutely. Sin is dealt with.

Christ does not prevent us from being subject to the wages of sin (we physically die) but He delivers from that death (just as He was delivered). The wages of sin are death but the gift of God is eternal life through Christ Jesus. We are responsible for the things that we do in this lifetime, but we have an advocate in Christ. The Father judges no one, but all judgment is given to the Son. The Judgement, therefore, is Christ-centered. Those “in Christ” are raised to life. Those not “in Christ” are raised to condemnation. They will experience the “second death” as death and Hades are cast into the Lake of Fire.

 

Yes, I think that word is where Origen went wrong (and it was the primary theory for centuries). But Origen did not come up with his view in a vacuum.

There are a few peer-reviewed articles about the topic -I don't have any now, but perhaps can find some around (if so I'll get it to you). I remember one was from DTS, but I can't remember the journals the others were published (I collected articles for awhile). Anyway, the point was that the language of "ransom" was not unique to Origen. It had been used to present mankind as being "ransomed" in a general sense without one to receive payment (one I believe correct in this case), and it's been used in the sense Christ ransomed us from the principles of sin and death. As far as I know, until the Reformation it had not been suggested Christ ransomed us from God.

 

@The Archangel ,

I'm sorry. I looked but can't find my library of articles. Most were digital or scanned and I've gone through a few computers. They are somewhere on a hard drive, some in a notebook.....somewhere.

I found this article, but it's not one I was thinking of: "The Evolution of the Doctrine of the Atonement in the Medieval Church” in McMaster Journal of Theology & Ministry, 2007, vol 9.

Additionally, Gregory of Nazianzus held a “ransom theory” but he rejected that there was a ransom payment (personally, I believe Gregory anticipates the “moral influence theory”)

De recta in Deum fide (around 300 AD) called the suggestion God paid a ransom to the Devil “a great folly and a blasphemy”.

So there were some variants.

 

Here are two passages that prove your theory wrong, without damaging the doctrine of penal substitution that is in the Bible:

Proverbs 17:15
15 He who justifies the wicked and he who condemns the righteous, Both of them alike are an abomination to the LORD.

Romans 3:21-26
21 But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets,
22 even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction;
23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
24 being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus;
25 whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed;
26 for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

 

@Martin Marprelate typically references a book which quotes the ECF's out of context. Normally he offers a quote from
Dialogue with Trypho, never engaging the context of the writing or the places where it calls his theory into question. I wouldn't bother exploring the context (I've presented the entire chapter, but he clings to snip taken out of context).

 

Yea....the "rest of the story" kind of changes things a bit....doesn't it.

 

Not answering for @The Archangel , but testing my guesswork.

I'd say his position considers that the blood of Christ represents His blood shed as He bore God's wrath on the Cross for us. My reasoning is that I believe he views the OT sacrificial primarily in the killing of the animal (the shedding of blood).

My answer several years ago would have been that God's justice required death, and that Christ's death paid that debt. But I would have been dealing with a theoretical "spiritual death" having been accomplished by an abandonment on the Cross (a substitute for the "second death" people will experience).

(Again, not speaking for anyone here, that's just what I would suspect the Theory to suggest).

 

And this thread grew like Topsy. But, It's still closed.