Penal Substitution & the ECFs

[Yeshua1]

I believe Penal Substitution Theory is the theory articulated during the Reformation period. As far as I know this is the traditional understanding. I relate the need to rework history to accompany an earlier origin to postmodernism.

Insofar as elements of the Atonement, I believe both penal and substitution are both implied and stated in Scripture. But they don't form Penal Substitution Atonement. That theory is formed by how these elements come together (and under what context they are combined) to form an explanation of the Atonement.

So yes, I do believe each theory of Atonement to be different as I believe it is not the elements (Scripture) but how they are interpreted and the conclusions that establish the theories.

How about you?

Do you see a difference between the view Christ died to pay our "sin debt" so we can be forgiven and the view Christ died as the conclusion of the Incarnation to experience that aspect of human existence and reverse what Adam had done (Irenaeus)?


Or do all of these seem to be the same view, perhaps only worded differently?

Martin already established though some of the ECF big shots held and taught it, maybe not fully fleshed out as by Calvin, but did hold to it!
Pst was indeed held and taught way before the reformation, its just the Reformers fully fleshed it out for us from the scriptures!

 

[JonC]

Martin already established though some of the ECF big shots held and taught it, maybe not fully fleshed out as by Calvin, but did hold to it!
Pst was indeed held and taught way before the reformation, its just the Reformers fully fleshed it out for us from the scriptures!

No. @Martin Marprelate has simply danced around the issue, avoiding a true discussion of what the ECF's actually wrote like the plague.

On one hand he acknowledged that these ideas were articulated during a latter period, but on another he "discovered" the Theory at every turn.

It is dishonest (and I believe immoral) to represent the beliefs of the ECF's in any way except how they are recorded and explained by the ECF's themselves.

The conclusions matter. We can't look at steps in their conclusions (a little penal here, a touch of substitution there) to decontextualize what they actually presented as their belief on the Atonement. To do so is simply dishonest.

There is no need to sacrifice integrity on a meaningless alter. Just because the Theory did not exist until articulated at a late date does not make it wrong (other things do that).

Believe it or not, there is a difference between carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide. Sure, the same things are in both, but it would be foolish to think them identical.

 

[JonC]

Good luck with that!

Keep it comin' Love, that's the way I like it (I'll be your boogie man). I betcha didn't know that.

Do you feel alright?

 

[37818]

I believe Penal Substitution Theory is the theory articulated during the Reformation period. As far as I know this is the traditional understanding. I relate the need to rework history to accompany an earlier origin to postmodernism.

Insofar as elements of the Atonement, I believe both penal and substitution are both implied and stated in Scripture. But they don't form Penal Substitution Atonement. That theory is formed by how these elements come together (and under what context they are combined) to form an explanation of the Atonement.

So yes, I do believe each theory of Atonement to be different as I believe it is not the elements (Scripture) but how they are interpreted and the conclusions that establish the theories.

How about you?

Do you see a difference between the view Christ died to pay our "sin debt" so we can be forgiven and the view Christ died as the conclusion of the Incarnation to experience that aspect of human existence and reverse what Adam had done (Irenaeus)?


Or do all of these seem to be the same view, perhaps only worded differently?

I have only known Christ who bore my sin in my place according to the holy scriptures. And having already completed that (John 19:28), that was followed by His victory over death. Over the death of His soul, the over the death of His body, His bodily resurrection in immortality.

 

[JonC]

I have only known Christ who bore my sin in my place according to the holy scriptures. And having already completed that (John 19:28), that was followed by His victory over death. Over the death of His soul, the over the death of His body, His bodily resurrection in immortality.

So you don't have an opinion on Penal Substitution Theory or the theories held by the ECFs (the OP)?

Which is fine. The only aspect of eternal significance on this thread is how people treat each other. The ECFs have been gone a long time.

 

[Yeshua1]

No. @Martin Marprelate has simply danced around the issue, avoiding a true discussion of what the ECF's actually wrote like the plague.

On one hand he acknowledged that these ideas were articulated during a latter period, but on another he "discovered" the Theory at every turn.

It is dishonest (and I believe immoral) to represent the beliefs of the ECF's in any way except how they are recorded and explained by the ECF's themselves.

The conclusions matter. We can't look at steps in their conclusions (a little penal here, a touch of substitution there) to decontextualize what they actually presented as their belief on the Atonement. To do so is simply dishonest.

There is no need to sacrifice integrity on a meaningless alter. Just because the Theory did not exist until articulated at a late date does not make it wrong (other things do that).

Believe it or not, there is a difference between carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide. Sure, the same things are in both, but it would be foolish to think them identical.

His point, which is indeed valid though, was that while the exact terminology used by Calvin and others was used used by some of the ECF, they did indeed hold to a looser form of it, just as while trinity was not formalized until later on, if they were told what is meant by that, would have fully agreed!

 

[JonC]

His point, which is indeed valid though, was that while the exact terminology used by Calvin and others was used used by some of the ECF, they did indeed hold to a looser form of it, just as while trinity was not formalized until later on, if they were told what is meant by that, would have fully agreed!

No. His point is not valid at all. Think about. In reality his claims are foolish.

Penal Substitution Theory is based on Scripture. We should not be surprised to find aspects throughout the writings of the Early Church.

The only way these things prove his point is if Penal Substitution Theory is completely humanistic. If that is the case then the elements present are important not of biblical truth but of common philosophy.

It was a poorly thought out idea which is beneath @Martin Marprelate 's intelligence. That does not mean that the Theory is false.

 

[Yeshua1]

No. His point is not valid at all. Think about. In reality his claims are foolish.

Penal Substitution Theory is based on Scripture. We should not be surprised to find aspects throughout the writings of the Early Church.

The only way these things prove his point is if Penal Substitution Theory is completely humanistic. If that is the case then the elements present are important not of biblical truth but of common philosophy.

It was a poorly thought out idea which is beneath @Martin Marprelate 's intelligence. That does not mean that the Theory is false.

His point was proven though, as the concept of the Pst was right there in Pauline Justification, and was seen and held by some Ecf, and Calvin and others rediscovered it, and fleshed it fully out!

 

[JonC]

His point was proven though, as the concept of the Pst was right there in Pauline Justification, and was seen and held by some Ecf, and Calvin and others rediscovered it, and fleshed it fully out!

No. His point was not proven.

Irenaeus interpreted the penal and substitutionary elements as what? Recipitulation. That theory is complete (@Martin Marprelate thought it a theological mess because he missed how the theory was constructed - those aspects of the Atonement were used by Irenaeus as a part of his theory - not stand alone statements).

Same with Origen, Martyr, and Aquinas.

They all hold on to some aspects included in the Penal Substitution Theory, but they use those elements for different conclusions.

 

[Yeshua1]

No. His point was not proven.

Irenaeus interpreted the penal and substitutionary elements as what? Recipitulation. That theory is complete (@Martin Marprelate thought it a theological mess because he could not grasp how the theory was constructed).

Same with Origen, Martyr, and Aquinas.

They all hold on to some aspects included in the Penal Substitution Theory, but they use those elements for different conclusions.

The basic gist of the PST is there, but each one had a different take on what it really meant and was applied...

 

[37818]

So you don't have an opinion on Penal Substitution Theory or the theories held by the ECFs (the OP)?

Which is fine. The only aspect of eternal significance on this thread is how people treat each other. The ECFs have been gone a long time.

My opinion is holy scripture only teaches penal subsitution and it is a doctrine of Christ and not ,theory. Now what I need to understand is how it cannot be penal substitution. I do not see how it cannot be.

 

[Yeshua1]

My opinion is holy scripture only teaches penal subsitution and it is a doctrine of Christ and not ,theory. Now what I need to understand is how it cannot be penal substitution. I do not see how it cannot be.

God has due wrath towards any breaking of His own law, sin must be judged and punished, so unless Jesus bears that wrath and dies for us, we still have to take it ourselves!

 

[JonC]

My opinion is holy scripture only teaches penal subsitution and it is a doctrine of Christ and not ,theory. Now what I need to understand is how it cannot be penal substitution. I do not see how it cannot be.

Read the works of the Early Church. There are several theories that present God as laying our sins on Christ, Christ "becoming sin", Christ dying for us, etc., without it being Penal Substitution Theory.

Origen, for example, believed that Christ "became sin" in order to pay a ransom to the Devil. He viewed Satan as holding us captive and Christ, through His suffering and death, as liberating us.

Other views of Ransom theory existed as well (some paying a Ransom to "sin and death"; others simply as bearing our sins as a ransom.

Irenaeus believed Christ, from Incarceration to Cross, bore our sins 8n His flesh - became a curse for us ( "His flesh for ours"). But this was a recipitulation - not to pay a "sin debt" but to undo what Adam had done by "rewalking" Adam's path.

Anselm believed Christ bore our sins (became sin for us) to restore to God the honor robbed when Adam sinned.

 

[JonC]

The basic gist of the PST is there, but each one had a different take on what it really meant and was applied...

The elements are there - but the philosophy is different. Origen looked to a purchase. Irenaeus looked to Recipitulation. Martyr looked to a freeing of the human race. Anselm to restoring honor. Abelard to an example. Aquinas to merit. Luther to a satisfaction. Calvin to a sin debt.

What makes Penal Substitution Theory is not the elements but what is done to and with the elements (the articulation and context).

No one, prior to Calvin, looked at the Atonement as God punishing (for sin) Christ to pay our "sin debt" so He could forgive men. That (not Scripture, not the elements, but the philosophy) is what distinguishes Penal Substitution Theory.

Advocates of the Theory would be better served defending it on the basis of Scripture instead of making fools of themselves rewriting history.

 

[JonC]

My opinion is holy scripture only teaches penal subsitution and it is a doctrine of Christ and not ,theory. Now what I need to understand is how it cannot be penal substitution. I do not see how it cannot be.

I need to add this as well, brother.

The reason it is called "the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement" has nothing to do with Scripture. The Theory views and interprets the work of Christ within a specific context (it is not just a matter of focusing on one element of Scripture as primary).

Penal Substitution Theory places our redemption as an issue of God satisfying the demands of divine justice. This in itself is a presupposition (not that God's justice is satisfied in redemption- all hold God as just and justifier, but in that this is HOW we are redeemed).

Then you have to add to this a specific philosophy of justice - retributive justice - AND attribute this to be divine.

Beyond this you have to develop a sense of justice that is satisfied when one person is punished for another. Then you have to take it to the point that one can justly be punished for another's sin.

Scripture itself does not provide this context. Even if the OT system prescribed by God fit this philosophical idea of justice (it doesnt) you would have to prove this is God's design for His justice rather than a witness against mans. You would ultimately have to prove that our redemption is the righteousness of God manifested through the law.

The reason Penal Substitution Theory will always be a theory is not only because it is a minority view within Christianity. The reason is it is based on the theoretical rather than Scripture itself because of the context it assumes.

This does not make the theory wrong, but it means it can never be proven correct.

 

[37818]

Read the works of the Early Church. There are several theories that present God as laying our sins on Christ, Christ "becoming sin", Christ dying for us, etc., without it being Penal Substitution Theory.

Origen, for example, believed that Christ "became sin" in order to pay a ransom to the Devil. He viewed Satan as holding us captive and Christ, through His suffering and death, as liberating us.

Other views of Ransom theory existed as well (some paying a Ransom to "sin and death"; others simply as bearing our sins as a ransom.

Irenaeus believed Christ, from Incarceration to Cross, bore our sins 8n His flesh - became a curse for us ( "His flesh for ours"). But this was a recipitulation - not to pay a "sin debt" but to undo what Adam had done by "rewalking" Adam's path.

Anselm believed Christ bore our sins (became sin for us) to restore to God the honor robbed when Adam sinned.

In other words, you yourself cannot actually refute penal substitution. That Christ took our penalty for our sin in our place.

 

[JonC]

In other words, you yourself cannot actually refute penal substitution. That Christ took our penalty for our sin in our place.

No, that is silly. Many have refuted Penal Substitution Theory (I have as well). But Christians don't reject Christ dying for our sins (there is a penalty in view, and a substitutionary element...but the Theory is not present in Scripture).

Here is one example from C. S. Lewis.

When Scripture says that Christ died 'for' us,a I think the word is usually ὑπέρ (on behalf of), not ἀντί (instead of). I think the ideas of sacrifice, Ransom, Championship (over Death), Substitution, etc., are all images to suggest the reality (not otherwise comprehensible to us) of the Atonement. To fix on any one of them as if it contained and limited the truth like a scientific definition would in my opinion be a mistake.

Or, as @Martin Marprelate noted elsewhere (Ironically) Aslan is not a tame lion.

It is the advocates of the Theory who are responsible to prove the context (the philosophy) provided. Your suggestion is a logical fallacy (e.g., you cannot prove aliens from a distant galaxy did not help the Egyptians build the Pyramids.... but that is not evidence they did - it is not up to you to prove the negative).

What YOU are saying is that you are able to provide Scripture upon which we all agree and YOU are able to make claims.....BUT YOU are unable to prove your presuppositions and the philosophical ideologies through which you contextualize Scripture to make your claims.

 

[37818]

No, that is silly. Many have refuted Penal Substitution Theory (I have as well). But Christians don't reject Christ dying for our sins (there is a penalty in view, and a substitutionary element...but the Theory is not present in Scripture).

Here is one example from C. S. Lewis.

When Scripture says that Christ died 'for' us,a I think the word is usually ὑπέρ (on behalf of), not ἀντί (instead of). I think the ideas of sacrifice, Ransom, Championship (over Death), Substitution, etc., are all images to suggest the reality (not otherwise comprehensible to us) of the Atonement. To fix on any one of them as if it contained and limited the truth like a scientific definition would in my opinion be a mistake.

Or, as @Martin Marprelate noted elsewhere (Ironically) Aslan is not a tame lion.

It is the advocates of the Theory who are responsible to prove the context (the philosophy) provided. Your suggestion is a logical fallacy (e.g., you cannot prove aliens from a distant galaxy did not help the Egyptians build the Pyramids.... but that is not evidence they did - it is not up to you to prove the negative).

What YOU are saying is that you are able to provide Scripture upon which we all agree and YOU are able to make claims.....BUT YOU are unable to prove your presuppositions and the philosophical ideologies through which you contextualize Scripture to make your claims.

Penal substitution is that Christ had placed upon Him our sins and that in our place He suffered and died. This is not theory. Mere denial is not refutation.

 

[JonC]

I can evidence, however, that God will not condemn the righteous.

I can evidence God will not abandon His Holy One.

I can evidence that, while God's wrath is turned against the wicked, He will for and restore them if they will turn from their ways and obey Him.

I can evidence that redemption is the righteousness of God manifested apart from the law.

I can evidence that God can set aside His wrath and be merciful to men who repent.

I can evidence that God viewed Christ on the cross as righteous and obedient.

I can evidence all of this through Scripture (literally, what the verse state). Penal Substitution Theory also affirms these passages, but not without qualifications and creating an alternate and liberal meaning (e.g., God will not abandon Christ, but Christ remained God when God abandoned Him, God cannot condemn the Righteous so He considered Jesus to be unrighteous....etc.).

 

[JonC]

Penal substitution is that Christ had placed upon Him our sins and that in our place He suffered and died. This is not theory. Mere denial is not refutation.

It is up to you to prove your theory - not to me to disprove it. Penal Substitution Theory states that God punished Jesus for our sins (this is why it 8s called "penal") instead of punishing us (this is where the idea of "substitution" comes from).

Penal Substitution (when placed together) is a theory because it assumes things that cannot be proven by Scripture itself. If that truth is just beyond your grasp, I understand. It seems to be more of a problem on this thread than I would have thought. But then again, our churches have struggled with biblical literacy for some time now.

I have refuted it....over and over again. If you cannot see this then perhaps this is the same issue you are having with Scripture. You can't distinguish between what is written and what you'd suppose.