Penal Substitution & the ECFs

[HankD]

Do you believe Penal Substitution Theory includes the idea Jesus paid our "sin debt", and apart from this "sin debt" being paid we couldn't be forgiven?

Yes. The Blood atonement included both payment and punishment as I have indicated in my past posts.

RE: The "sin debt" and payment before we could be forgiven. I don't know that is above my pay grade.

My presumption is that it had to be that way because of Jesus prayer in Gethsemane.

 

[JonC]

Yes. The Blood atonement included both payment and punishment as I have indicated in my past posts.

RE: The "sin debt" and payment before we could be forgiven. I don't know that is above my pay grade.

My presumption is that it had to be that way because of Jesus prayer in Gethsemane.

I think "atonement" itself can imply the concept punishment or wrath.

My entire point, however, is that Scripture itself does not dictate the meaning God punished Jesus to clear our "sin debt". Throughout history people (right or wrongly) believed that we were purchased with the blood of Christ as He bore our sins on the cross without sharing the idea of God punishing Jesus to clear our sin debt.

We cannot assume the ECFs held Penal Substitution Theory simply because they believe Scripture (as they interpreted it differently).

You and I can unite in the affirmation of every passage stated here. We can unite in Christ. But we cannot claim the same understanding in terms of theories of Atonement. Just because I affirm the biblical truths the Theory places out front does not mean I affirm its underlying philosophies.

 

[HankD]

I think "atonement" itself can imply the concept punishment or wrath.

My entire point, however, is that Scripture itself does not dictate the meaning God punished Jesus to clear our "sin debt". Throughout history people (right or wrongly) believed that we were purchased with the blood of Christ as He bore our sins on the cross without sharing the idea of God punishing Jesus to clear our sin debt.

We cannot assume the ECFs held Penal Substitution Theory simply because they believe Scripture (as they interpreted it differently).

You and I can unite in the affirmation of every passage stated here. We can unite in Christ. But we cannot claim the same understanding in terms of theories of Atonement. Just because I affirm the biblical truths the Theory places out front does not mean I affirm its underlying philosophies.

Like I said (or indicated) early on in this discussion which started a while ago this is one of those issues that never seems to end well with some folk just getting ugly.

I think one solution (for instance) would be to agree around the passage :

Revelation 6:17 For the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand?

Those who are in Christ need not fear the wrath of God as He has made propitiation.
Or words to the end that the wrath of God is assuaged or deflected or satisfied by Christ's atonement.

I believe this deals with the wrath of God for sin yet avoids the philosophy of personal punishment of Christ in my place.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

And that is why I believe the claims on this thread (that the ECF's held to Penal Substitution Theory) are offensive and asinine.

I looked at my Berkhof's Systematic Theology today for the first time in a long while, to see what he had to say on this issue.
This is what I read:

2. THE RECAPITULATION THEORY: Irenaeus, who also expresses the idea that the death of Christ satisfied the justice of God and thus liberated man, nevertheless gave great prominence to the recapitulation theory...........' [page 385]

Now I understand that just because almost no one agrees with someone, it doesn't necessarily mean that he's wrong, but.........



......in your case, it does.

I think we've exhausted this topic for a while. I hope you will agree that I am not unsupported in my views and that if they are 'offensive and asinine,' so are those of quite a few eminent theologians. I have a number of sermons to give between now and the new year when my pastor returns, and so unless you write anything particularly egregious, I'm going to take a back seat, except that I want to answer @utilyan on the question of God 'pouring out his wrath.' I may start a thread on that if I have time.

 

[JonC]

Like I said (or indicated) early on in this discussion which started a while ago this is one of those issues that never seems to end well with some folk just getting ugly.

I think one solution (for instance) would be to agree around the passage :

Revelation 6:17 For the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand?

Those who are in Christ need not fear the wrath of God as He has made propitiation.
Or words to the end that the wrath of God is assuaged or deflected or satisfied by Christ's atonement.

I believe this deals with the wrath of God for sin yet avoids the philosophy of personal punishment of Christ in my place.

Yes. We can agree around Revelation 6:17 (and truthfully many other passages as well).

Also, we can gather around Roman's 5:9 "Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God"

So we may disagree as to whether God punished Christ to satisfy justice by paying our "sin debt", but we can agree on what Scripture actually says. We are redeemed by the precious blood of Christ. And that is more than enough to remain United in Him even as we disagree on human reasoning as these theories are formed.

 

[JonC]

@Martin Marprelate ,

Perhaps this is where I should have started (maybe things would have been clearer between the two of us).

I believe that Christ bore our sins, was "made sin for us". I believe we have been justified by the blood of Christ - that we will be saved by Him from the wrath of God.

I believe that our redemption is the righteousness of God manifested apart from the law (that the Law is a witness of God's righteousness). I believe that we are justified by God's grace through Christ, Whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood as a demonstration of His righteousness that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. I believe Christ borne our griefs And carried our sorrows. He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities and chastisement for our peace was upon Him, And by His stripes we are healed. God has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.

I believe that for our sake He made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. I believe Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us.

I believe we were dead in our trespasses and God made us alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross. He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him. I believe that God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. I believe that the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Christ Jesus.

I also believe that the death of Christ satisfied the demands of divine justice.

I believe that the Father wished Christ, for mankind, to take upon Himself the curses of us all knowing that, after He had been crucified, He would raise Him up. The Father caused Christ to suffer these things on our behalf. And Christ willfully submitted His will to the will of the Father.

How is my belief different from the Theory of Penal Substitution?

What more must I believe to be considered affirming Penal Substitution Theory?

OR

Does my beliefs stated here mean to you that we both affirm Penal Substitution Theory?

 

[HankD]

Marvelous Jon.

 

[JonC]

Marvelous Jon.

Thank you, but you can just call me "Jon". I don't insist people use my title on the BB.

 

[HankD]

Thank you, but you can just call me "Jon". I don't insist people use my title on the BB.

 

[Yeshua1]

Do you believe Penal Substitution Theory includes the idea Jesus paid our "sin debt", and apart from this "sin debt" being paid we couldn't be forgiven?

God cannot forgive sinners who have not had their owed sin debt to Him be atoned for!

 

[JonC]

God cannot forgive sinners who have not had their owed sin debt to Him be atoned for!

God set forth Christ - His Son - as a propitiation by His blood. He is the propitiation for our sins and we have been forgiven - the debt that stood against us has been cancelled - through Christ's work If you believed I thought otherwise then you have my apology for my lack of clarity.

Based on my beliefs (stated for @Martin Marprelate in post 46):

How is my belief different from the Theory of Penal Substitution?

What more must I believe to be considered affirming Penal Substitution Theory?

OR

Does my beliefs stated here mean to you that we both affirm Penal Substitution Theory?

Please be specific- provide the Scripture or philosophy you believe lacking - or why you think I affirm the Theory.

 

[Yeshua1]

God set forth Christ - His Son - as a propitiation by His blood. He is the propitiation for our sins and we have been forgiven - the debt that stood against us has been cancelled - through Christ's work If you believed I thought otherwise then you have my apology for my lack of clarity.

Based on my beliefs (stated for @Martin Marprelate in post 46):

How is my belief different from the Theory of Penal Substitution?

What more must I believe to be considered affirming Penal Substitution Theory?

OR

Does my beliefs stated here mean to you that we both affirm Penal Substitution Theory?

Please be specific- provide the Scripture or philosophy you believe lacking - or why you think I affirm the Theory.

Jesus endured in His body the wrath of God towards sins, and received in our place the due penalty of being forsaken by God, and to experience the sense of Hell while upon that Cross...

 

[JonC]

Jesus endured in His body the wrath of God towards sins, and received in our place the due penalty of being forsaken by God, and to experience the sense of Hell while upon that Cross...

Please be specific -

Are you saying there is a philosophy that I must also believe in order for all I have stated (in my last post to @Martin Marprelate ) to be considered penal substitution or is there a verse of Scripture you believe I have overlooked?

Also, if this is true of people today then is it not also true of those who have gone before? Or do you believe in progressive revelation and subjective truth?

 

[Yeshua1]

Please be specific -

Are you saying there is a philosophy that I must also believe in order for all I have stated (in my last post to @Martin Marprelate ) to be considered penal substitution or is there a verse of Scripture you believe I have overlooked?

Also, if this is true of people today then is it not also true of those who have gone before? Or do you believe in progressive revelation and subjective truth?

In believe that both Jesus and paul saw Jesus as the sufferent Servant of Isaiah 53, an that Jesus in the Garden was facing the awful truth that now he would be drinking in full the cup of wrath God has stored up towards sinners, and that he would be experiencing being forsaken by God then!

 

[JonC]

In believe that both Jesus and paul saw Jesus as the sufferent Servant of Isaiah 53, an that Jesus in the Garden was facing the awful truth that now he would be drinking in full the cup of wrath God has stored up towards sinners, and that he would be experiencing being forsaken by God then!

But that is not the question, brother. I'm sure that within each theory people saw things differently.

@Martin Marprelate started this thread and has "evidenced" the ECF's belief in Penal Substitution Theory. Yet the ECF's also had different views as well (Recipitulation, Origen's Ransom Theory).


So I will ask again:

Based on my beliefs (stated for @Martin Marprelate in post 46) - beliefs even more specific than the ECF "proofs" :

How is my belief different from the Theory of Penal Substitution?

What more must I believe to be considered affirming Penal Substitution Theory?

OR

Does my beliefs stated here mean to you that we both affirm Penal Substitution Theory?

 

[HankD]

Jesus endured in His body the wrath of God towards sins, and received in our place the due penalty of being forsaken by God, and to experience the sense of Hell while upon that Cross...

Y This is one of those things for which scripture must be used.
Christians are in disagreement as to the scope of the doctrine of the atonement.

Whatever that scope is - it is covered by the following passage:

1 John 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

God is satisfied with Christ's atonement - believe it - whatever its scope and one is saved.

I have the feeling that we may never know the fullness of it.

 

[Yeshua1]

Y This is one of those things for which scripture must be used.
Christians are in disagreement as to the scope of the doctrine of the atonement.

Whatever that scope is - it is covered by the following passage:

1 John 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

God is satisfied with Christ's atonement - believe it - whatever its scope and one is saved.

I have the feeling that we may never know the fullness of it.

True, but if one does not hold to Pst, why would Jesus even have to die, as he committed no sin in Himself, and just how would the wrath of God towards sin be paid for/satisfied?

 

[Yeshua1]

But that is not the question, brother. I'm sure that within each theory people saw things differently.

@Martin Marprelate started this thread and has "evidenced" the ECF's belief in Penal Substitution Theory. Yet the ECF's also had different views as well (Recipitulation, Origen's Ransom Theory).


So I will ask again:

Based on my beliefs (stated for @Martin Marprelate in post 46) - beliefs even more specific than the ECF "proofs" :

How is my belief different from the Theory of Penal Substitution?

What more must I believe to be considered affirming Penal Substitution Theory?

OR

Does my beliefs stated here mean to you that we both affirm Penal Substitution Theory?

Do you affirm that God has active wrath towards ins/sinners, and that someone must bear that in order to satisfy God in order to permit Him to freely justify the lost who come unto Jesus?

 

[JonC]

Y This is one of those things for which scripture must be used.
Christians are in disagreement as to the scope of the doctrine of the atonement.

Whatever that scope is - it is covered by the following passage:

1 John 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

God is satisfied with Christ's atonement - believe it - whatever its scope and one is saved.

I have the feeling that we may never know the fullness of it.

Very true.

Throughout Christian history people have tried to explain through their understanding (through how they viewed the world, justice, etc.) what God was thinking and the philosophical principles (whether justice, honor, merit, or simply a ransom suffered) behind the work of Christ.

And through all of this Christians have agreed that Christ is the propitiation for the sins of the world. Whether it is Ransom Theory, Christus Victor, Recipitulation, Satisfaction Theory, Moral Influence, or Penal Substitution Theory the Gospel ALWAYS shines through.

My personal belief is that this is true because, unlike our understanding of the workings of the Atonement (which is the human reasoning out of Scripture), the Gospel itself is purely of God.

 

[JonC]

Do you affirm that God has active wrath towards ins/sinners, and that someone must bear that in order to satisfy God in order to permit Him to freely justify the lost who come unto Jesus?

I do not want to hijack @Martin Marprelate 's thread. The question is whether or not my statements, which include more than what has been presented of the ECF's, are enough to classify me has holding to Penal Substitution Theory.

So I will ask again:

Based on my beliefs (stated for @Martin Marprelate in post 46) - beliefs even more specific than the ECF "proofs" :

How is my belief different from the Theory of Penal Substitution?

What more must I believe to be considered affirming Penal Substitution Theory?

OR

Does my beliefs stated here mean to you that we both affirm Penal Substitution Theory?

@Martin Marprelate ,

Perhaps this is where I should have started (maybe things would have been clearer between the two of us).

I believe that Christ bore our sins, was "made sin for us". I believe we have been justified by the blood of Christ - that we will be saved by Him from the wrath of God.

I believe that our redemption is the righteousness of God manifested apart from the law (that the Law is a witness of God's righteousness). I believe that we are justified by God's grace through Christ, Whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood as a demonstration of His righteousness that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. I believe Christ borne our griefs And carried our sorrows. He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities and chastisement for our peace was upon Him, And by His stripes we are healed. God has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.

I believe that for our sake He made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. I believe Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us.

I believe we were dead in our trespasses and God made us alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross. He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him. I believe that God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. I believe that the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Christ Jesus.

I also believe that the death of Christ satisfied the demands of divine justice.

I believe that the Father wished Christ, for mankind, to take upon Himself the curses of us all knowing that, after He had been crucified, He would raise Him up. The Father caused Christ to suffer these things on our behalf. And Christ willfully submitted His will to the will of the Father.

How is my belief different from the Theory of Penal Substitution?

What more must I believe to be considered affirming Penal Substitution Theory?

OR

Does my beliefs stated here mean to you that we both affirm Penal Substitution Theory?

I have started this thread so you can discuss my beliefs without hijacking @Martin Marprelate 's thread:

Back by popular demand - A view of the Atonement