Debt vs. Penal Substitution

[The Biblicist]

BTW I am not straying from the subject but actually challenging the very historical basis you are basing this study upon. You are making and repeating the unsustainable claim that no other positions were known during this period, when in fact, honesty can only say the Roman Catholic monks selected and preserved no other views between the fourth and sixteenth centuries.

Stop making your absolute statement, and I will stop challenging it.

 

[The Biblicist]

Thank you for accepting my apology. And yes, I'm not saying I was wrong or promising I won't do it again.

Yes, I accepted your apology. However, for the sake of clarity, what if you ten year old boy said to you, Yes I apologized but I am not saying I am wrong or promising I will do it again? Explain to us how you would respond to the nature of his apology? Would you call it an insincere apology at best? Reminds of the little boy told to sit down or else, and he sat down but then told his papa "My body may be sitting down, but I am standing up in my heart."

I just wanted you to know that I did not mean my comments offensive. Whether you accept that as a tactic or a genuine expression that I am sorry my words were taken as offensive...well....that has nothing to do with me.

Reminds me of the Hillary Clinton e-mail violations. The Attorney General refused to prosecute her, not because she did not clearly break the law, but because he believed she did not have that INTENT in her heart. When she lied to the FBI he dismissed due to INTENT. It's now all about INTENT rather than actual offending actions or words.

"Is this not what you expected to see?"....

Yes, sad to say.

 

[JonC]

BTW I am not straying from the subject but actually challenging the very historical basis you are basing this study upon. You are making and repeating the unsustainable claim that no other positions were known during this period, when in fact, honesty can only say the Roman Catholic monks selected and preserved no other views between the fourth and sixteenth centuries.

Stop making your absolute statement, and I will stop challenging it.

Then lets be very clear about my claim so as to provide the best opportunity for your challenge:

My claim is that there is no evidence that anyone prior to the eleventh century held ideas regarding the necessity of God's prosecuting divine retributive justice, by punishing the sins of men, as a condition of his forgiveness. I also contend that there is no evidence that the notion God could not gratuitously forgive was ever assumed in ANY theory of atonement during approximately the first millenia of the Church and until Anselm's Cur Deus Homo.

Prove me wrong (evidence, not conspiracy).

 

[JonC]

Yes, I accepted your apology. However, for the sake of clarity, what if you ten year old boy said to you, Yes I apologized but I am not saying I am wrong or promising I will do it again? Explain to us how you would respond to the nature of his apology? Would you call it an insincere apology at best? Reminds of the little boy told to sit down or else, and he sat down but then told his papa "My body may be sitting down, but I am standing up in my heart."

Sure, it's quite simple.

I chose a lyric because it came to my mind. I am sorry that you took it as an insult because that was not my intent. Does that mean I was in the wrong for posting the lyric? No, of course not. The moral "wrongness" would be if I had posted in order to offend you. This was not the case. Does that make my apology less sincere? Obviously not. I could have been more clear (perhaps by referencing the lyric, perhaps by including more of it, or perhaps by addressing the post differently). But what was said was said, and my apology is that YOU found it offensive (not that I intended it that way, or that it is wrong to post a Pink Floyd lyric on the Baptist Board).

If I had intentionally offended you, then perhaps I could promise to try and not do it again. But since this was an innocent comment (one I'm surprised offended you, and even more surprised we're still discussing) I cannot guarantee it will not happen again. If that lyric offended you then it seems to me that you are very easily offended. I will probably say something in the future that you will find offensive and we will probably be here again. There is nothing either of us can do to prevent it.

But let's take intent out of the picture for a minute (as you suggest). Why did you think that referring to someone as "Sunshine" is offensive?

 

[The Biblicist]

Then lets be very clear about my claim so as to provide the best opportunity for your challenge:

My claim is that there is no evidence that anyone prior to the eleventh century held ideas regarding the necessity of God's prosecuting divine retributive justice, by punishing the sins of men, as a condition of his forgiveness. I also contend that there is no evidence that the notion God could not gratuitously forgive was ever assumed in ANY theory of atonement during approximately the first millenia of the Church and until Anselm's Cur Deus Homo.

Prove me wrong (evidence, not conspiracy).

Saying "there is no evidence" is quite different than saying nothing else existed.

 

[The Biblicist]

Sure, it's quite simple.

I chose a lyric because it came to my mind. I am sorry that you took it as an insult because that was not my intent. Does that mean I was in the wrong for posting the lyric? No, of course not. The moral "wrongness" would be if I had posted in order to offend you. This was not the case. Does that make my apology less sincere? Obviously not. I could have been more clear (perhaps by referencing the lyric, perhaps by including more of it, or perhaps by addressing the post differently). But what was said was said, and my apology is that YOU found it offensive (not that I intended it that way, or that it is wrong to post a Pink Floyd lyric on the Baptist Board).

If I had intentionally offended you, then perhaps I could promise to try and not do it again. But since this was an innocent comment (one I'm surprised offended you, and even more surprised we're still discussing) I cannot guarantee it will not happen again. If that lyric offended you then it seems to me that you are very easily offended. I will probably say something in the future that you will find offensive and we will probably be here again. There is nothing either of us can do to prevent it.

But let's take intent out of the picture for a minute (as you suggest). Why did you think that referring to someone as "Sunshine" is offensive?

If that needs explanation then there is no point in discussing this further.

 

[JonC]

Saying "there is no evidence" is quite different than saying nothing else existed.

I am saying the evidence is enough to prove no one held God could not forgive men except he first punish human sin. I say this not only because of each theory we have but also because of the development of evidenced thought expressed throughout history.

What I am suggesting is along the same lines as claiming no man prior to the twentieth century stood on the moon....and you saying the Catholics destroyed all records of first century Jewish moon landings.

 

[JonC]

If that needs explanation then there is no point in discussing this further.

Duh...There was no need for you to reply after I apologized that my comment offended you. Most Christians (I hope) would have been gracious enough to simply move forward.

 

[agedman]

Upon reading through 4 pages of the discussion I am compelled to remind readers of the following:

1) without the shed blood, there is no forgiveness of sin.

2) our Lord Jesus did not shed all his blood upon the cross.

Forensic science of Roman crucifixion shows that the method was meant to be torturous but not as bloody as one might expect. Rather, the method was meant to prolong the life of the tortured as much as possible that the suffering present to the populace some measure of meaningful restitution for wrongs perpetrated upon it by the one crucified.​

3) there is a basic mistake when the work of shedding of blood is interchanged with the work of the death of our Lord Jesus Christ.

4) penal substitution theory is in fact a theory, not a doctrine.

No one argues that or Lord Jesus suffered meaningfully and with purpose under the leading of the Father.
What is not found in Scripture is that suffering was the extinguishing of God’s wrath. (John 6). Such is not found in OT type, prophecy, nor statements by the Apostles and Other writers of the NT. Rather such placement of wrath is the product of RCC teaching which compels them toward such things as last rites, penitence, purgatory ...​

Christ shed His blood.
Christ was crucified as common death deserving criminals were dispatched under Roman law for non-citizens. Roman citizen were not crucified but were quickly dispatched.
The tree was not new and the tomb borrowed.

What was happening in heaven at the very time of crucifixion?

Friends, it wasn’t wrath! It was victory! Revelation 5.

​

 

[Dave G]

4) penal substitution theory is in fact a theory, not a doctrine.

I have to agree.
If I understand this thread, and the question it poses, correctly:

I have heard, even from friends, that regarding Christ's death on the cross, that He took the believer's place.
I cannot find that idea or statement in all of Scripture.

If this is what is referred to as "Penal Substitution", would someone please show me, if it does indeed exist?
I'll need book, chapter and verse.



Otherwise, I see Christ's death and His blood as having paid our sin debt to God the Father ( Isaiah 53:4-12, Romans 8:3, 2 Corinthians 5:21 ) , and redeeming us from His wrath ( Romans 5:9, 1 Thessalonians 1:10 ).

With due regard to those who are of the other persuasion, "propitiation" means "appeasement", not "stand-in".
Jesus appeased the wrath of God for us, being made sin for us.
We could have never appeased God's wrath, therefore Jesus did not "stand-in" for us.

He did not take our punishment ( to suffer eternity in Hell forever )...
The Lord took our sins upon Himself and suffered the shame of dying on the tree; He did not die in our place on the cross.
To me, that is why the Father turned His back on Him while he was on the cross;
Because Christ became sin for us.
...and God hates sin.

Jesus was bruised for our iniquities, because He was made, in the eyes of God, our iniquity.
If He would have taken our punishment, then He would be in Hell right now.
He would have remained dead...and He didn't.
He would have never have stated that it was finished.

But for a perfect lamb, spotless and without blemish, the sacrifice for sins is once, for all.
Appeasement, my friends...not penal substitution.




I happen to think that "Penal Substitution" is a nice thought that may seem right, but it is not exactly according to Scripture.



Respectfully, this is all I will contribute to this thread.
I wish you all well.

 

[TCassidy]

PUTTING ON ADMINISTRATOR HAT.

Complete derogatory, and demeaning statement.

I agree. JonC's assertion that this quote:

Well, I've got some bad news for you Sunshine. Neither Anselm or Abelard were Baptists.

was just him randomly quoting a song lyric that really didn't apply to The Biblicist is, in my opinion, entirely without merit.

There is a grammatical device in the English language known as a "quotation mark" that is used to indicate when one is quoting another. No such "quotation marks" are evident in the statement.

When this subject was brought up again I stated my opinion with the admonition "Please! Not again." That concern has quickly manifested into exactly the same type of double-speak and theological claptrap as the earlier thread.

Time to end it. Now.

REMOVES ADMINISTRATOR HAT.

 

[JonC]

PUTTING ON ADMINISTRATOR HAT.

I agree. JonC's assertion that this quote:
was just him randomly quoting a song lyric that really didn't apply to The Biblicist is, in my opinion, entirely without merit.

There is a grammatical device in the English language known as a "quotation mark" that is used to indicate when one is quoting another. No such "quotation marks" are evident in the statement.

When this subject was brought up again I stated my opinion with the admonition "Please! Not again." That concern has quickly manifested into exactly the same type of double-speak and theological claptrap as the earlier thread.

Time to end it. Now.

REMOVES ADMINISTRATOR HAT.

[Edited to remove a repeated infraction.]

Yes, in hind site I should have referenced the lyric...but that would have been silly because I was intentionally tossing it in the mix as a vague and unnecessary reference (something you know I do). It's a character flaw, I know. Imagine how my wife feels having been married to me for 30 years.

Is there a derogatory meaning to "sunshine" that I am missing? If so, then please consider my apology extended to the board and let me know. If not, then perhaps you are inferring a motive that does not exist.

Thank you.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

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 nowadays 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!

As I said, I really don't think it's a good idea to take your theology from the medieval Church.
Both Abelard and Anselm were medieval Roman Catholics. I have quotations supporting Penal Substitution up until 'pope' Gregory around 600AD. After that sacramentalism seems to have set in, along with a flight from the Bible. I know very little about Abelard except that he committed fornication with a young lady less than half his age called Heloise. Anselm's book, Cur deus homo? is the first book that tries to delve in detail into the atonement, but as your quotation observes, it is based more on philosophy or 'scholastic theology' rather than the Bible.

Anselm's book does not support Penal Substitution, although it draws somewhat close. In a few words, he says that the Lord Jesus offered satisfaction to God for His outraged honour and majesty, affronted by human sin. The doctrine of Penal Substitution teaches that Christ on the cross gave satisfaction to God's justice. The Bible teaches very clearly that God cannot 'just forgive sin' as has been suggested on this thread. 'He who justifies the wicked, and He who condemns the just; both of them alike are an abomination to the LORD' (Proverbs 17:15; c.f. also Exodus 23:7; Deuteronomy 25:1). Clearly God cannot be an abomination to Himself; He must punish sin, but in His amazing grace and mercy, He has given Himself in the Person of His Son to suffer the death, punishment and curse due to fallen mankind as the penalty for sin. 'He Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree' (1 Peter 2:24). Anselm never got as far as that, and Abelard SFAIK came nowhere near it.

 

[JonC]

I think that we have to keep in mind that our way of viewing things (how we view justice) may not be how it was viewed in the eleventh century. As we transition into the late middle age we can see developing and competing philosophies.

During the so called dark age (the first part of this period) it was accepted that God could simply forgive because He is God. Our sense of justice (in a secular sense) relies more on Aquinas than Scripture. We need to be careful not to read this back into history.

Anselm departed from Abelard and, as history would show, Anselm's ideas of justice would prevail.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I have heard, even from friends, that regarding Christ's death on the cross, that He took the believer's place.
I cannot find that idea or statement in all of Scripture.

If this is what is referred to as "Penal Substitution", would someone please show me, if it does indeed exist?
I'll need book, chapter and verse.

Gosh! For about the third time on this thread, '[Christ] Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree' (1 Peter 2:24). Our sins; the sins of believers! How much clearer do you want it?

 

[JonC]

As I said, I really don't think it's a good idea to take your theology from the medieval Church.
Both Abelard and Anselm were medieval Roman Catholics. I have quotations supporting Penal Substitution up until 'pope' Gregory around 600AD. After that sacramentalism seems to have set in, along with a flight from the Bible. I know very little about Abelard except that he committed fornication with a young lady less than half his age called Heloise. Anselm's book, Cur deus homo? is the first book that tries to delve in detail into the atonement, but as your quotation observes, it is based more on philosophy or 'scholastic theology' rather than the Bible.

Anselm's book does not support Penal Substitution, although it draws somewhat close. In a few words, he says that the Lord Jesus offered satisfaction to God for His outraged honour and majesty, affronted by human sin. The doctrine of Penal Substitution teaches that Christ on the cross gave satisfaction to God's justice. The Bible teaches very clearly that God cannot 'just forgive sin' as has been suggested on this thread. 'He who justifies the wicked, and He who condemns the just; both of them alike are an abomination to the LORD' (Proverbs 17:15; c.f. also Exodus 23:7; Deuteronomy 25:1). Clearly God cannot be an abomination to Himself; He must punish sin, but in His amazing grace and mercy, He has given Himself in the Person of His Son to suffer the death, punishment and curse due to fallen mankind as the penalty for sin. 'He Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree' (1 Peter 2:24). Anselm never got as far as that, and Abelard SFAIK came nowhere near it.

Very good point. We should not take our direction from men. I don't think this is what the OP is doing, but if so then caution must be taken.

I think the OP is looking at the teachings of Anselm and Abelard, and measuring their influences. From that point, I think the exploration important (even vital). We have to learn from history not only not to repeat our mistakes but also to know our own presuppositions.

Gosh! For about the third time on this thread, '[Christ] Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree' (1 Peter 2:24). Our sins; the sins of believers! How much clearer do you want it?

No one is denying that. Both Anselm and Abelard strongly assert that very thing (while remaining theologically opposed).

But...at least you didn't say "sunshine"

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Very good point. We should not take our direction from men. I don't think this is what the OP is doing, but if so then caution must be taken.

I think the OP is looking at the teachings of Anselm and Abelard, and measuring their influences. From that point, I think the exploration important (even vital). We have to learn from history not only not to repeat our mistakes but also to know our own presuppositions.
No one is denying that. Both Anselm and Abelard strongly assert that very thing (while remaining theologically opposed).

But...at least you didn't say "sunshine"

I was replying to Dave Gilbert, not you, [Nope].

 

[Dave G]

Gosh! For about the third time on this thread, '[Christ] Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree' (1 Peter 2:24). Our sins; the sins of believers! How much clearer do you want it?

I think that is as clear as it can get.

Try not to get frustrated with me, friend Martin...I was only typing it out for all to see, why I believe the way I do.
For those that don't, I was simply telling them why.

Peace to you, good sir.

 

[JonC]

I was replying to Dave Gilbert, not you, [Nope].

You fight with the strength of many men, Sir Knight.

 

[agedman]

Gosh! For about the third time on this thread, '[Christ] Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree' (1 Peter 2:24). Our sins; the sins of believers! How much clearer do you want it?

Quoting a portion of a verse can miss the substance of an application.

For example: “God cannot look upon sin” is often used to justify the thinking that God “turned his back on Christ” which is impossible considering the trinity. This was actually the Jews rebuke the prophet’s statement concerning God using a heathen people to conquer them.

​

In part this is the case of your use of 1 Peter 2 which states in context:

21For you have been called for this purpose, since Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example for you to follow in His steps, 22WHO COMMITTED NO SIN, NOR WAS ANY DECEIT FOUND IN HIS MOUTH; 23and while being reviled, He did not revile in return; while suffering, He uttered no threats, but kept entrusting Himself to Him who judges righteously; 24and He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed.25For you were continually straying like sheep, but now you have returned to the Shepherd and Guardian of your souls.​

Leaving out the purpose of the suffering and the importance to the conduct of the believer places the quote out of balance with other verses that state that shed blood both the actual blood and the furniture was what brought forgiveness.

The “bearing our sins in His body” never violated the sanctity and sanctification of our Lord. He “committed no sin...”.