Debt vs. Penal Substitution

[Brooksntea]

Hey again all!

I've starting looking into some church history books lately. I have some downloaded as epubs. Anyway, in looking into an epub by Anselm it said this:

"In Why God Became Man, Anselm tries to answer the question of the incarnation of God in the form of Jesus Christ, concluding that neither men nor God owed anything to the Devil, and that our only debt was to God. Christ died in our place because there was no way we could pay the debt ourselves. Anselm's theory is highly popular, though not the only one -- Abelard, for example, violently disagreed. It is called "Penal substitution" because Christ was substituted in our place and paid our penalty. Anselm was equally radical in his emphasis on human reason. You will notice that this writing is unusual in not containing a single Scripture reference."

So that seems weird. I'm not a theological historian but I think Abelard was a "bad guy" from what I read and said some bad things. But I've heard from church (Baptists) about "penal substitution" (didn't R.C. Sproul talk about it?) and that Christ was substituted in our place. I've also heard that "Christ paid our debt" from same sources.

Now if Anselm and Abelard were as much against one another as it seems, and that their standings on this topic were as heated as it seems, how is it we are being taught both now-adays at the same time?

Or am I reading the above wrong and that the grammar of the paragraph would read Anselm advocating both debt and penal substitution ideas?

Thanks!

 

[Yeshua1]

Hey again all!

I've starting looking into some church history books lately. I have some downloaded as epubs. Anyway, in looking into an epub by Anselm it said this:

"In Why God Became Man, Anselm tries to answer the question of the incarnation of God in the form of Jesus Christ, concluding that neither men nor God owed anything to the Devil, and that our only debt was to God. Christ died in our place because there was no way we could pay the debt ourselves. Anselm's theory is highly popular, though not the only one -- Abelard, for example, violently disagreed. It is called "Penal substitution" because Christ was substituted in our place and paid our penalty. Anselm was equally radical in his emphasis on human reason. You will notice that this writing is unusual in not containing a single Scripture reference."

So that seems weird. I'm not a theological historian but I think Abelard was a "bad guy" from what I read and said some bad things. But I've heard from church (Baptists) about "penal substitution" (didn't R.C. Sproul talk about it?) and that Christ was substituted in our place. I've also heard that "Christ paid our debt" from same sources.

Now if Anselm and Abelard were as much against one another as it seems, and that their standings on this topic were as heated as it seems, how is it we are being taught both now-adays at the same time?

Or am I reading the above wrong and that the grammar of the paragraph would read Anselm advocating both debt and penal substitution ideas?

Thanks!

The theory on the Atonement of the Cross of Christ indeed has more than one common viewpoint, but to Baptists and reformed alike, the chosen one as being the prominent way to view it has been as penal substitution!

 

[TCassidy]

Please. Not again. This topic has been beaten to death on this forum already.

 

[37818]

What is the disagreement? This is what I seem to understand:

Anselm makes the argument that there is a dept do to man's sin. A debt owed to God. Man cannot pay this debt. Only God incarnate can pay said debt.

Abelard rejects this notion of debt to be paid. And that God being incarnate was not the need. And argues that it is forgiveness by means of Jesus' suffering as an act of love.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Now if Anselm and Abelard were as much against one another as it seems, and that their standings on this topic were as heated as it seems, how is it we are being taught both now-adays at the same time?

Or am I reading the above wrong and that the grammar of the paragraph would read Anselm advocating both debt and penal substitution ideas?

Historical theology is very interesting, but we must finally take our understanding from Scripture alone, certainly not from medieval Roman Catholics.
Both Abelard's and Anslem's views fall short of the truth. 'He Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree' (1 Peter 2:24). The word 'tree' rather than 'cross' draws our attention to Deuteronomy 21:23 and thence to Galatians 3:10-14. Christ has borne for us God curse against sin.

 

[Yeshua1]

Please. Not again. This topic has been beaten to death on this forum already.

There are still many here who cannot grasp that the main biblical viewpoint of it is the Pst one though!

 

[Yeshua1]

Historical theology is very interesting, but we must finally take our understanding from Scripture alone, certainly not from medieval Roman Catholics.
Both Abelard's and Anslem's views fall short of the truth. 'He Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree' (1 Peter 2:24). The word 'tree' rather than 'cross' draws our attention to Deuteronomy 21:23 and thence to Galatians 3:10-14. Christ has borne for us God curse against sin.

God wrath was directed towards Jesus , as He was our sin bearer while on that Cross...

 

[HankD]

Indeed.

 

[The Biblicist]

What is the disagreement? This is what I seem to understand:

Anselm makes the argument that there is a dept do to man's sin. A debt owed to God. Man cannot pay this debt. Only God incarnate can pay said debt.

Abelard rejects this notion of debt to be paid. And that God being incarnate was not the need. And argues that it is forgiveness by means of Jesus' suffering as an act of love.

Take a look at the Greek term translated "it is finished" by Christ on the cross. Ask if this term was used to the payment of a bill in full. Read the language of Isaiah 53. The bible says "the wages" of sin is death and it is a violation of God's Law and law breaking always results in legal PENALTIES as the consequence of law breaking. Read 2 Cor. 5:21. Read Romans 5:12-21. To say there are not scriptures that clearly teach penal substitution is quite an exaggeration. Look at the typology of the lamb and the typology of laying hands on the head of that lamb. Substitution is clearly taught throughout the scriptures and those who deny it have to resort to nit-picking rationalization.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Take a look at the Greek term translated "it is finished" by Christ on the cross. Ask if this term was used to the payment of a bill in full. Read the language of Isaiah 53. The bible says "the wages" of sin is death and it is a violation of God's Law and law breaking always results in legal PENALTIES as the consequence of law breaking. Read 2 Cor. 5:21. Read Romans 5:12-21. To say there are not scriptures that clearly teach penal substitution is quite an exaggeration. Look at the typology of the lamb and the typology of laying hands on the head of that lamb. Substitution is clearly taught throughout the scriptures and those who deny it have to resort to nit-picking rationalization.

Yep!
The word teleo,translated ‘finished’ in John 19:30, appears quite a few times in the New Testament and has some very interesting meanings :-

Matt 11:1, A.V. ‘…..When Jesus had made an end of commanding his twelve disciples…..’

Matt 17:24. “Does your Teacher not pay the temple tax?”

Luke 2:39. ‘So when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord…..’

Luke 18:31. ‘…..And all the things that are written by the prophets concerning the Son of Man will be accomplished.’

So what was made an end of at the cross? Our sins, the guilt of them and their very memory in the mind of God (Jer 31:34).

What was paid? The price of our redemption (2). ‘Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us’ (Gal 3:13).

What was performed? All the righteous requirements of the law.

What was accomplished? All the work that the Father had given Christ to do (John 17:4).

 

[37818]

Yep!
The word teleo,translated ‘finished’ in John 19:30, appears quite a few times in the New Testament and has some very interesting meanings :-

Matt 11:1, A.V. ‘…..When Jesus had made an end of commanding his twelve disciples…..’

Matt 17:24. “Does your Teacher not pay the temple tax?”

Luke 2:39. ‘So when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord…..’

Luke 18:31. ‘…..And all the things that are written by the prophets concerning the Son of Man will be accomplished.’

So what was made an end of at the cross? Our sins, the guilt of them and their very memory in the mind of God (Jer 31:34).

What was paid? The price of our redemption (2). ‘Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us’ (Gal 3:13).

What was performed? All the righteous requirements of the law.

What was accomplished? All the work that the Father had given Christ to do (John 17:4).

Yes. But grammatically only twice as used in John 19:28 and John 19:30.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Yes. But grammatically only twice as used in John 19:28 and John 19:30.

You mean, I assume, that the word tetelestai only appears in those two places. That is correct, but tetelestai is the Third Person singular, Perfect, Indicative Passive of the Greek word teleo. That word has the meanings I listed above. So tetelestai can mean:
"It is finished,"
"It is paid,"
"It has been accomplished" or
"It has been made an end of."

Ancient bills of lading dating from Roman times have been found with the word tetelestai written across them, just as we might write, 'Paid in Full.' Read Colossians 2:13-14. Tetelestai is stamped on the 'handwriting of requiremets' which are nailed to the cross.

 

[JonC]

Please. Not again. This topic has been beaten to death on this forum already.

You rang?

 

[JonC]

Hey again all!

I've starting looking into some church history books lately. I have some downloaded as epubs. Anyway, in looking into an epub by Anselm it said this:

"In Why God Became Man, Anselm tries to answer the question of the incarnation of God in the form of Jesus Christ, concluding that neither men nor God owed anything to the Devil, and that our only debt was to God. Christ died in our place because there was no way we could pay the debt ourselves. Anselm's theory is highly popular, though not the only one -- Abelard, for example, violently disagreed. It is called "Penal substitution" because Christ was substituted in our place and paid our penalty. Anselm was equally radical in his emphasis on human reason. You will notice that this writing is unusual in not containing a single Scripture reference."

So that seems weird. I'm not a theological historian but I think Abelard was a "bad guy" from what I read and said some bad things. But I've heard from church (Baptists) about "penal substitution" (didn't R.C. Sproul talk about it?) and that Christ was substituted in our place. I've also heard that "Christ paid our debt" from same sources.

Now if Anselm and Abelard were as much against one another as it seems, and that their standings on this topic were as heated as it seems, how is it we are being taught both now-adays at the same time?

Or am I reading the above wrong and that the grammar of the paragraph would read Anselm advocating both debt and penal substitution ideas?

Thanks!

Anselm predates the Theory of Penal Substitution. But I think what he did was similar to what we see in some doctrines developed during the Reformation period.

Anselm rightly took issue with the most popular (at that time) understanding that Christ's death amounted to a ransom paid to Satan. While this isn't how the "ransom" was always viewed as some held Christ a ransom paid on our behalf in general (some as "paid" to sin and death, others simply as the price of our freedom from sin and death) Anselm was addressing a fairly unbiblical view.

But his solution magnifies one aspect over what Scripture actually teaches. Anselm's theory would grow in context of a Roman-type (rather than Jewish) sence of justice as merit would replace the medieval"honor" system where Christ died in our place to restore God's honor mankind had robbed. It ends up being twisted into the Catholic model (almost....if not exactly...a divine penance system complete with a treasury of merit upon which to draw).

The Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement was created as an attempt to reform the Catholic idea of Atonement, and just like Anselm it failed by creating a neo-orthodoxy rather than going back to Scripture.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

You rang?

More like bellowed.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Anselm predates the Theory of Penal Substitution. But I think what he did was similar to what we see in some doctrines developed during the Reformation period.

Anselm rightly took issue with the most popular (at that time) understanding that Christ's death amounted to a ransom paid to Satan. While this isn't how the "ransom" was always viewed as some held Christ a ransom paid on our behalf in general (some as "paid" to sin and death, others simply as the price of our freedom from sin and death) Anselm was addressing a fairly unbiblical view.

But his solution magnifies one aspect over what Scripture actually teaches. Anselm's theory would grow in context of a Roman-type (rather than Jewish) sence of justice as merit would replace the medieval"honor" system where Christ died in our place to restore God's honor mankind had robbed. It ends up being twisted into the Catholic model (almost....if not exactly...a divine penance system complete with a treasury of merit upon which to draw).

The Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement was created as an attempt to reform the Catholic idea of Atonement, and just like Anselm it failed by creating a neo-orthodoxy rather than going back to Scripture.

Give this man a Starbucks in a Christmas red cup

 

[JonC]

More like bellowed.

Yep. (But the numerous times this topic comes up demonstrates that some are, in fact, still interested in the topic. I suspect some simply don't want the theory questioned so they'd rather take it off the table as new fundamental "truth" to be accepted unconditionally).

Plus....if we didn't talk about topics that have been beaten to death this forum wouldn't exist.

Years ago I introduced a new topic about cats using toilets only to be proven wrong. It had already been discussed.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Anselm predates the Theory of Penal Substitution. But I think what he did was similar to what we see in some doctrines developed during the Reformation period.

Anselm rightly took issue with the most popular (at that time) understanding that Christ's death amounted to a ransom paid to Satan. While this isn't how the "ransom" was always viewed as some held Christ a ransom paid on our behalf in general (some as "paid" to sin and death, others simply as the price of our freedom from sin and death) Anselm was addressing a fairly unbiblical view.

But his solution magnifies one aspect over what Scripture actually teaches. Anselm's theory would grow in context of a Roman-type (rather than Jewish) sence of justice as merit would replace the medieval"honor" system where Christ died in our place to restore God's honor mankind had robbed. It ends up being twisted into the Catholic model (almost....if not exactly...a divine penance system complete with a treasury of merit upon which to draw).

The Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement was created as an attempt to reform the Catholic idea of Atonement, and just like Anselm it failed by creating a neo-orthodoxy rather than going back to Scripture.

As I've shown any number of times (and am quite prepared to do again) the theory of Penal Substitution is rooted absolutely in Scripture and goes right back to the ECFs.

Here is the Biblical basis for it. The Theological and Biblical Basis of Penal Substitution

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Yep. (But the numerous times this topic comes up demonstrates that some are, in fact, still interested in the topic. I suspect some simply don't want the theory questioned so they'd rather take it off the table as new fundamental "truth" to be accepted unconditionally).

Plus....if we didn't talk about topics that have been beaten to death this forum wouldn't exist.

Years ago I introduced a new topic about cats using toilets only to be proven wrong. It had already been discussed.

I love conflict.

 

[JonC]

As I've shown any number of times (and am quite prepared to do again) the theory of Penal Substitution is rooted absolutely in Scripture and goes right back to the ECFs.

Here is the Biblical basis for it. The Theological and Biblical Basis of Penal Substitution

That is why I believe the topic remains a relevant discussion.

While you believe you have proven your point (and while authors like Steve Jeffery and Andrew Sach see their inferences as obvious "proof") others disagree and offer points that they feel evidence error on your part. What I mean, brother, is that as much as you believe you have proven your point I and others believe we have proven ours. All we can do at this juncture is have Christian discussions over our differences, how we view the issues, interpretations, Scriptures, etc.

The Theory of Penal Substitution has always been (and, I hope will always be) a minority position among Christians. BUT the Theory of Penal Substitution IS (and, I fear, will always be) a majority position within Evangelical Christianity and Protestantism (the group of Christians to which I belong). At minimum this tells us that the ideas proposed by the Theory are not as obvious (or as obsolete....depending on which side one falls on) as many might suggest. There is much room for debate.

The problem that I see is that some, even given the fact that honest Christian scholars exist on both sides, believe the Theory of Penal Substitution is beyond question. They see the Theory as a clear teaching of Scripture rather than a product of theology formulated through great effort, study, and time devoted to God's Word. And I'd apply this problem to all of the theories. They are theories, and not all Christians will latch on or accept them.

Where does this leave people like you and I (who strongly hold views regarding the topic, and who have devoted much time in prayerful study only to end up as theological opponents when it comes to the issue of the Theory of Penal Substitution)?

Well, @Martin Marprelate , I can only speak for myself. Most of my friends, my brothers in Christ, believe in the Theory of Penal Substitution. I love them. We pray together, praise together, worship together, and live life together. While I believe the Theory to be superficial and in opposition to what Scripture teaches (and I believe it poses a very real danger to the Christian by spiritualizing far too much), I am not opposed to Christians who have adopted the Theory of Penal Substitution. I believe that people can (and hopefully will) discuss the issues within the faith as brothers rather than outside of the faith as adversaries.

I understand the "biblical" basis for the Theory of Penal Substitution (I studied the Theory at a graduate level, held it, and even taught the Theory for years). I disagree with the Theory on a deeper level than your article (which I've read, and believe is truly well written) explores. The Theory of Penal Substitution is simply wrong (in my view) at the start because its presuppositions fail the test of Scripture.