Debt vs. Penal Substitution

[JonC]

I love conflict.

No you don't. .

 

[Yeshua1]

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.

actually, the Pst was derived form the scriptures, as the Isaiah 53 was pretty explicit in that vein, and paul really spoke that way in Romans and in Galatians .
That view has been the prominent view held by Reformed and Calvinist Baptists, and one of the main persons to really start the church questioning it has been NT Wright, as he called into questioned if we even understood Paul at all!

 

[Yeshua1]

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

Paul taught it in romans and Galatians, so the reformers did not invent it, but rediscovered it!

 

[JonC]

actually, the Pst was derived form the scriptures, as the Isaiah 53 was pretty explicit in that vein, and paul really spoke that way in Romans and in Galatians .
That view has been the prominent view held by Reformed and Calvinist Baptists, and one of the main persons to really start the church questioning it has been NT Wright, as he called into questioned if we even understood Paul at all!

Yes, the Theory of Penal Substitution was derived from Scripture. And the theory that God paid a ransom to Satan was derived from 1 Timothy. All of the theories were derived from Scripture (otherwise I doubt Christians would hold them).

If you think that the Theory of Penal Substitution was not called into question until NT Wright then I suspect that you have two issues. First, you elevate the influence that N.T. Wright has outside of the Anglican Church. But second, and more importantly, you ignore the fact that from it's inception people (and Christian theologies, like Anabaptistic theology) have question the extent to which the Theory accurately reflects Scripture.

Today I think that people like Weaver have a louder voice than Wright on the nature of the Atonement. But I don't keep up with the Anglicans (we tend to know what is more around us, I suppose), so I don't know which is more vocal on a national front.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

actually, the Pst was derived form the scriptures, as the Isaiah 53 was pretty explicit in that vein, and Paul really spoke that way in Romans and in Galatians .

Agreed.

That view has been the prominent view held by Reformed and Calvinist Baptists, and one of the main persons to really start the church questioning it has been NT Wright, as he called into questioned if we even understood Paul at all!

The revolt against Penal Substitution started long before Wright. Spurgeon inveighed against what he called 'the bloodless neology' of the liberals in the Downgrade Controversy towards the end of the 19th Century.[/QUOTE]

 

[Yeshua1]

Yes, the Theory of Penal Substitution was derived from Scripture. And the theory that God paid a ransom to Satan was derived from 1 Timothy. All of the theories were derived from Scripture (otherwise I doubt Christians would hold them).

If you think that the Theory of Penal Substitution was not called into question until NT Wright then I suspect that you have two issues. First, you elevate the influence that N.T. Wright has outside of the Anglican Church. But second, and more importantly, you ignore the fact that from it's inception people (and Christian theologies, like Anabaptistic theology) have question the extent to which the Theory accurately reflects Scripture.

Today I think that people like Weaver have a louder voice than Wright on the nature of the Atonement. But I don't keep up with the Anglicans (we tend to know what is more around us, I suppose), so I don't know which is more vocal on a national front.

I do not think that all saw it as the pst view, but do see it as being the prominent and main viewpoint expressed and held by the reformed and the Calvinist Baptists, and do see it as being the one best detailed and laid out for us in the scriptures themselves!
And it does seem that Wright has been the main figure to get that viewpoint questioned in recent years, as those against it like him seem to equate Jesus bearing the wrath of god as God somehow child abusing Him!

 

[Yeshua1]

Agreed.

The revolt against Penal Substitution started long before Wright. Spurgeon inveighed against what he called 'the bloodless neology' of the liberals in the Downgrade Controversy towards the end of the 19th Century.

[/QUOTE]
True, as even at the time of the Apostles some started to deny the atonement of Jesus as a blood offering to appease and propagate the very wrath of God, but still see NT Wright as the main focal point for modern day people against that view!

 

[JonC]

The revolt against Penal Substitution started long before Wright. Spurgeon inveighed against what he called 'the bloodless neology' of the liberals in the Downgrade Controversy towards the end of the 19th Century.

People often try to shape Scripture to their worldview. I think this is true with those who reject that it is by the blood of Christ shed that we are saved. I mentioned Weaver earlier. He would fall into this category.

Just as some advocates of the Theory of Penal Substitution cannot fathom the necessity of Christ's shed blood in opposing views, some who oppose the Theory do so because they cannot understand how human violance could fit into the divine will (so their idea of the Cross is less the precious blood shed and more the evil of men overcome).

 

[Yeshua1]

People often try to shape Scripture to their worldview. I think this is true with those who reject that it is by the blood of Christ shed that we are saved. I mentioned Weaver earlier. He would fall into this category.

Just as some advocates of the Theory of Penal Substitution cannot fathom the necessity of Christ's shed blood in opposing views, some who oppose the Theory do so because they cannot understand how human violance could fit into the divine will (so their idea of the Cross is less the precious blood shed and more the evil of men overcome).

Many who are against Pst used the reasoning that God was somehow cruel to Jesus, was child abusing Him, even though he agreed to it!

 

[JonC]

I do not think that all saw it as the pst view, but do see it as being the prominent and main viewpoint expressed and held by the reformed and the Calvinist Baptists, and do see it as being the one best detailed and laid out for us in the scriptures themselves!
And it does seem that Wright has been the main figure to get that viewpoint questioned in recent years, as those against it like him seem to equate Jesus bearing the wrath of god as God somehow child abusing Him!

Indeed. It is the primary view of Protestantism (not only Calvinistic Baptists, but Baptists in general...and Presbyterians and Methodists).

Perhaps you see N.T. Wright as the main figure because he was so vocal on another issue within his own group...Reformed Evangelicals (Wright is Reformed, speaks as holding Penal Substitution Theory, but his work on Justification has caused rifts). I am neither a Calvinist or an Anglican. While I can appreciate Wright's observations his conclusions hold no sway in my little world.

Many who are against Pst used the reasoning that God was somehow cruel to Jesus, was child abusing Him, even though he agreed to it!

There are many reasons to oppose the Theory. I think that one is a bit shallow (e.g., God is not cruel, yet the condemned will suffer in Hell).

 

[Yeshua1]

Indeed. It is the primary view of Protestantism (not only Calvinistic Baptists, but Baptists in general...and Presbyterians and Methodists).

Perhaps you see N.T. Wright as the main figure because he was so vocal on another issue within his own group...Reformed Evangelicals (Wright is Reformed, speaks as holding Penal Substitution Theory, but his work on Justification has caused rifts). I am neither a Calvinist or an Anglican. While I can appreciate Wright's observations his conclusions hold no sway in my little world.

There are many reasons to oppose the Theory. I think that one is a bit shallow (e.g., God is not cruel, yet the condemned will suffer in Hell).

There are many who are against the Pst who have brought up the fact of child abuse if Jesus was forced to endure the wrath of God, that it was not fair to torture Him for something that he did not so...
The glory of the cross is that Jesus agreed to take on and endure that wrath and satisfy the very wrath of God due to us for being sinners...

 

[JonC]

[

There are many who are against the Pst who have brought up the fact of child abuse if Jesus was forced to endure the wrath of God, that it was not fair to torture Him for something that he did not so...
The glory of the cross is that Jesus agreed to take on and endure that wrath and satisfy the very wrath of God due to us for being sinners...

Indeed. Some do. Weaver voiced exactly that thing.

But that does not mean all (or even most) opposed to the Theory do so for the same reason.

I know many atheists who oppose my view because they don't believe in God. That does not mean all who oppose my view do so because they deny the existence of God.

 

[Yeshua1]

[

Indeed. Some do. Weaver voiced exactly that thing.

But that does not mean all (or even most) opposed to the Theory do so for the same reason.

I know many atheists who oppose my view because they don't believe in God. That does not mean all who oppose my view do so because they deny the existence of God.

What other main reason though other than abusing Jesus, not be fair to punish Him do those against Pst assert?

 

[JonC]

What other main reason though other than abusing Jesus, not be fair to punish Him do those against Pst assert?

Your premise is misguided.

No one, to my knowledge, is arguing fairness on this forum.

The Theory of Penal Substitution makes perfect sense to me. It is clear, and extraordinary simple when presented alongside other doctrines (such as the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Hypostatic Union, etc.).

The question is not its fairness but its accuracy as a representation of the meaning of that precious blood shed on our behalf. Those who hold to the Theory believe it accurate. Those who reject the Theory do so because they believe Scripture teaches something else.

I believe the Theory to be a shallow and superficial representation of the Cross that people adopt because of its simplicity. I believe the Theory an easy one to accept because it requires nothing on the part of those who accept it. I believe the Theory, while derived from Scripture, far more dependent on man. I believe those who hold to the Theory forfeit much of the depth both Scripture and the Cross offer because the Theory colors so much of their perspective on other issues. I believe some are even blinded to the fact the Theory is a theory and instead equate it to Scripture or something authored by Paul (the Apostle, not Simon....although Paul Simon is an excellent writer).

Fairness has nothing to do with it.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

The Theory of Penal Substitution

You are defining it as a theory, and Y1 is falling into the trap, but it is in fact the Doctrine of Penal Substitution.

Spurgeon inveighed against what he called 'the bloodless neology' of the liberals in the Downgrade Controversy towards the end of the 19th Century.

Just as some advocates of the Theory of Penal Substitution cannot fathom the necessity of Christ's shed blood in opposing views

Just in case anybody believes that Spurgeon did not firmly believe in Penal Substitution:

'God cannot look where there is sin with any pleasure, and though as far as Jesus is personally concerned, he is the Father's beloved Son in whom he is well pleased, yet when he saw sin laid upon his Son, he made that Son cry, "My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?" It was not possible that Jesus should enjoy the light of his Father's presence while he was made sin for us.; consequently he went through a horror of great darkness, the root and source of which was the withdrawing of his Father's conscious presence. More than that, not only was light withdrawn, but positive sorrow was inflicted. God must punish sin, and though the sin was not Christ's by his actual doing of it, yet it was laid upon him, and therefore he was made a curse for us.....God only knows the griefs to which the Son of God was put when the Lord made to meet upon him the iniquity of us all. To crown all these there came death itself. Death is the punishment of sin, and whatever it may mean......in the sentence, "In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die," Christ felt' [Met. Tab. Pulpit, vol. 12, page 316]

 

[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!

Sorry to stray. This is just about the only "theological" topic that I've much interest.

I tend to side more with Abelard on this topic (in a limited way, at least). I agree with Abelard that Anselm tended to distort God's character (in much the same way as those who hold to the Theory of Penal Substitution do now). But I don't advocate the Moral Influence Theory as a complete theory.

Abelard insisted that it is (1) by the faith in Christ that God's love is increased in us and (2) it is by virtue of that faith that God in Christ united our nature to Himself and (3) by suffering in that same nature (our nature) God has demonstrated to us that supreme love (which we share in Christ). It is not very hard to get a sense of Moral Influence Theory here.

BUT the concept of justice that Abelard is writing from is a Justinian concept. What makes us righteous is not the exercise of punishment (retributive justice) but rather the presence of God’s love in us. Justice, in this view, is God rendering to man what is genuinely due them. We are slaves to sin and death, but by God’s love we are freed from that bondage.

Abelard will continue to explain that our our redemption is that supreme love of God abiding in us - that same love of God demonstrated through the suffering of Christ (not just the Cross, but incarnation through the grave) that not only frees us from the bondage of sin but gains for us liberty as sons of God. It is God's love that liberates us - NOT because of the exercise of retributive punishment (Penal Substitution Theory) but because of the presence of this supreme love imputed to us, abiding IN us.

Also, it it relevant to remember the first time in history simple forgiveness came into question was in the eleventh century with Anselm’s Cur Deus homo.

Consider too that while Anselm did view Christ as suffering punishment in our place, this was NOT as a condition whereby God cancels our penal debt.

Anselm worked off of the medieval understanding of honor. Through mankind God's honor was lost. Christ became man and ultimately restored to God that honor. This would grow into the Theory of Penal Substitution but it would take centuries, a Reformation, and a lawyer who would become a theologian in Geneva.

 

[JonC]

You are defining it as a theory, and Y1 is falling into the trap, but it is in fact the Doctrine of Penal Substitution.


Just in case anybody believes that Spurgeon did not firmly believe in Penal Substitution:

'God cannot look where there is sin with any pleasure, and though as far as Jesus is personally concerned, he is the Father's beloved Son in whom he is well pleased, yet when he saw sin laid upon his Son, he made that Son cry, "My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?" It was not possible that Jesus should enjoy the light of his Father's presence while he was made sin for us.; consequently he went through a horror of great darkness, the root and source of which was the withdrawing of his Father's conscious presence. More than that, not only was light withdrawn, but positive sorrow was inflicted. God must punish sin, and though the sin was not Christ's by his actual doing of it, yet it was laid upon him, and therefore he was made a curse for us.....God only knows the griefs to which the Son of God was put when the Lord made to meet upon him the iniquity of us all. To crown all these there came death itself. Death is the punishment of sin, and whatever it may mean......in the sentence, "In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die," Christ felt' [Met. Tab. Pulpit, vol. 12, page 316]

It is a doctrine (as opposed to a theory) to the indoctrinated, I suppose.

But to most of the world (perhaps most importantly to most Christians in the world not only historically but today) it is a theory.

Here is a very short list of Atonement theories:

Moral Influence Theory
Ransom Theory
Satisfaction Theory
Substitution Theory
Penal Substitution Theory
Government Theory
Recapitulation Theory
Scapegoat Theory
Ontological Substitution Theory

And the list probably goes on (especially if you consider the "in-between" theories.).

I doubt (I hope) that no one questions Spurgeon's belief in the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement. That's like questioning Sproul's Calvinism . But I think John Wesley was probably the most outspoken for the Theory.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

It is a doctrine (as opposed to a theory) to the indoctrinated, I suppose.

It is as much a 'theory' as the 'theory' of the Trinity.

 

[JonC]

It is as much a 'theory' as the 'theory' of the Trinity.

Depends on just how far one goes into their ideas of the Trinity.

Another difference is that all Orthodox Christianity affirms the Trinity while a minority affirms the Theory of Penal Substitution.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

No you don't. .

Ohhhh yes I really do.