Decline and debate of Penal Substitution Theory

[Iconoclast]

I see you think that is "funny", @Iconoclast .Haven't r nowlearned to use your big boy words yet I see...

I can but my posts keep being censored by unknown persons who will not identify themselves or be responsible for their actions.
So the funny will have to do for now.

 

[JonC]

I can but my posts keep being censored by unknown persons who will not identify themselves or be responsible for their actions.
So the funny will have to do for now.

The BB rules caution members against flaming. On the politics section the misuse of "smiley's" is specifically mentioned.

The reason that "disagree" and "dislike" were removed was that some members used them in a juvenile way to harass other members. DO NOT keep on using "smiley's" in this way. Did you not even consider why those other things were removed????

As for as censoring your posts....I don't know what you are talking about and I do not care. Report the censored posts and the staff can deal with it.

EDIT: Not questioning your integrity, but I have looked through your posts back to 4 Feb. There was one post edited on that day, but it was by you. I may have missed something, so PM me with the posts you believe censored and I'll check for you.

 

[Iconoclast]

Squire deleted 2 of my posts last week on the creed thread

 

[Iconoclast]

He did not give his name..

 

[percho]

I am aware that for some past theories are present doctrine. Where some think of the Theory of Oenal Substitution and the Theory of Evolution others consider them as plainly evident doctrine.

It does not matter.

I am looking at causes folks are leaving the teaching or doctrine or theory of Penal Substitution.

Does not the word, doctrine, have the connotation of absolute truth, therefore they just desire to drop the word, theory? Or they wanting to drop, penal substitution? The theory of Narnia.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

No. Isaiah 53:6 is an example of God causing the iniquity of us all to fall upon Christ. Isaiah 53 demonstrates penal substitution - NOT Penal Substitution Theory.

Penal Substitution Theory goes beyond Christ bearing our sins to our sins being judicially transferred (in a legal sense) to Christ's account and Christ being treated by God as if Christ Himself were guilty of our sins resulting in this "sin debt" being paid. That is the difference.

There is no such thing as 'Penal Substitution Theory.' There is the Doctrine of Penal Substitution, and your understanding falls short of it. A 'doctrine,' by the way, means a teaching; it does not denote whether it is right or wrong. But to say, "my view is a doctrine, and your view is a mere theory, is just another example of tendentiousness.
Isaiah 53:6. 'And the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all' That is a transfer of sins from us to Christ. Was our iniquity transferred to Christ legally or illegally? Christ is our 'surety' (Hebrews 7:22). This is a legal term, with legal sanctions (Proverbs 6:1-5 etc.). Christ willingly became legally responsible for our sins and paid for them in full.

That said, I know several people who strongly believe the Theory of Evolution. They do not see it as a theory either. What makes it a theory is not the data but how the data is put together. The same is true of the Theory of Penal Substitution Atonement. Many who hold the Theory cannot distinguish between the data (Scripture) and how the data is put together. They cannot see their own reasoning present in the Theory so they hold it as fact.

That is why I try to extend grace to friends who hold either theory as fact. They lean on their own understanding to the extent they can't even separate their interpretation of the "data" from the "data" itself. You can't tell some evolutionists that adaptation is not evolution. They simply can not see it. The same is true with some who hold to the Theory of Penal Substitution Atonement.

The emogee is getting overworked. Science has laws and theories; theology has doctrines. Doctrines may be true or false. If you are trying to prove part of the Doctrine of Penal Substitution to be false, you are making a wretched job of it. All you are doing is coming across as smug and condescending.

 

[JonC]

There is no such thing as 'Penal Substitution Theory.' There is the Doctrine of Penal Substitution, and your understanding falls short of it. A 'doctrine,' by the way, means a teaching; it does not denote whether it is right or wrong. But to say, "my view is a doctrine, and your view is a mere theory, is just another example of tendentiousness.
Isaiah 53:6. 'And the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all' That is a transfer of sins from us to Christ. Was our iniquity transferred to Christ legally or illegally? Christ is our 'surety' (Hebrews 7:22). This is a legal term, with legal sanctions (Proverbs 6:1-5 etc.). Christ willingly became legally responsible for our sins and paid for them in full.

The emogee is getting overworked. Science has laws and theories; theology has doctrines. Doctrines may be true or false. If you are trying to prove part of the Doctrine of Penal Substitution to be false, you are making a wretched job of it. All you are doing is coming across as smug and condescending.

I know the argument very well.

"There is no such thing as the Theory of Evolution because the data proves the fact of evolution."

Like I said, some cannot recognize the presence of reasoning in interpreting the data.

Some types of people will defend their theories with a cult-like mentality. They cannot allow dialogue but instead put their fingers in their ears and shout the traditions in which they have been indoctrinated to try and drown out anything that does not support their view. They do not allow other conversations to take place because they know, at some level, their doctrine may not stand except it be theory. So they insist evolution be taught alone and as fact.

This is the crack that ultimately leads the thinking away from the cult. These few objective "thinkers" may still affirm evolution, but the recognize the theoretical and are able to dialogue because they have escaped the cult-like dogma in favor of objectivity.

 

[The Biblicist]

I know the argument very well.

"There is no such thing as the Theory of Evolution because the data proves the fact of evolution."

Like I said, some cannot recognize the presence of reasoning in interpreting the data.

Some types of people will defend their theories with a cult-like mentality. They cannot allow dialogue but instead put their fingers in their ears and shout the traditions in which they have been indoctrinated to try and drown out anything that does not support their view. They do not allow other conversations to take place because they know, at some level, their doctrine may not stand except it be theory. So they insist evolution be taught alone and as fact.

This is the crack that ultimately leads the thinking away from the cult. These few objective "thinkers" may still affirm evolution, but the recognize the theoretical and are able to dialogue because they have escaped the cult-like dogma in favor of objectivity.

I believe you have stated you do believe in "substitutionary" atonement - correct?
If so, then you are merely challenging if the death of Christ was "penal" in its substitutinary capacity - correct? You have changed so many times since this debate began that I cannot keep track of what you really do believe.

 

[JonC]

Does not the word, doctrine, have the connotation of absolute truth, therefore they just desire to drop the word, theory? Or they wanting to drop, penal substitution? The theory of Narnia.

I think they want to ignore that their position incorporates interpretation (and therefore reason) and is a systematically derived theory.

That said, there are also false doctrines (false teachings). I do not deny that some teach the Theory as fact, just like some teach my eschatological view as fact when it is in truth theory (human reasoning is, as Spurgeon noted, prone to fault).

So I'm good with Penal Substitution Doctrine, Ransom Doctrine, Recapitulation Doctrine, Moral Influence Doctrine, Evolution Doctrine, Big Bang Doctrine, etc. because these theories are also teachings.

 

[JonC]

I believe you have stated you do believe in "substitutionary" atonement - correct?
If so, then you are merely challenging if the death of Christ was "penal" in its substitutinary capacity - correct? You have changed so many times since this debate began that I cannot keep track of what you really do believe.

Actually, what I was talking about is the reasons we are seeing more challenges against Penal Substitution Theory from within evangelical baptists.

My personal view has not changed (I think you are blending what I have argued against with what I actually believe). That is, however, a topic for another thread.

Do you think that the direction of some Christian fiction (like C.S. Lewis and Ted Dekker) had any impact on younger Christians not accepting Penal Substitution Theory? I believed it at the onset because that was what we were taught. But the Christian Fiction we read enforced the traditional views of our church (I was SBC and back then we had the "Baptist Book Store").

Or do you think that the popularity of these fictions are maybe a result of these shifts?

I think that it may be both. But I've seen how the Left Behind series influenced the belief of younger Christians in our church. So I suspect that the Christian Fiction can also have an effect on how the younger generation sees the Atonement.

 

[The Biblicist]

Actually, what I was talking about is the reasons we are seeing more challenges against Penal Substitution Theory from within evangelical baptists.

My personal view has not changed (I think you are blending what I have argued against with what I actually believe). That is, however, a topic for another thread.

Do you think that the direction of some Christian fiction (like C.S. Lewis and Ted Dekker) had any impact on younger Christians not accepting Penal Substitution Theory? I believed it at the onset because that was what we were taught. But the Christian Fiction we read enforced the traditional views of our church (I was SBC and back then we had the "Baptist Book Store").

Or do you think that the popularity of these fictions are maybe a result of these shifts?

I think that it may be both. But I've seen how the Left Behind series influenced the belief of younger Christians in our church. So I suspect that the Christian Fiction can also have an effect on how the younger generation sees the Atonement.

I don't really know what impact these stories have had on the younger generation's view of penal substitutionary atonement and I really don't know how anyone can really give any definitive answer to that question. I know my view is based solely upon the scriptures. John the Baptist explicitly identifes Christ with the sacrificial lamb for sins (Jn. 1:29) and thus identifies him with the Levitical atonement that uses the lamb "for sin". Any High Priest that would dare enter the holy of holies without blood would meet instant death and so the blood did appease God's wrath against sin.

I should have said that you have always been consistent in your rejection of Penal Substitutionary but you have changed in many instances with regard to certain views of scripture. I can remember our early debate in the very first thread and dealing with Isaiah 53 and some of the language we debated each other over, especially Isaiah 53:10.

However, if this thread is dealing with the impact of Christian fiction upon the younger generation, I will bow out as I have no idea how that question can even be ascertained.

 

[JonC]

I don't really know what impact these stories have had on the younger generation's view of penal substitutionary atonement and I really don't know how anyone can really give any definitive answer to that question. I know my view is based solely upon the scriptures. John the Baptist explicitly identifes Christ with the sacrificial lamb for sins (Jn. 1:29) and thus identifies him with the Levitical atonement that uses the lamb "for sin". Any High Priest that would dare enter the holy of holies without blood would meet instant death and so the blood did appease God's wrath against sin.

I should have said that you have always been consistent in your rejection of Penal Substitutionary but you have changed in many instances with regard to certain views of scripture. I can remember our early debate in the very first thread and dealing with Isaiah 53 and some of the language we debated each other over, especially Isaiah 53:10.

However, if this thread is dealing with the impact of Christian fiction upon the younger generation, I will bow out as I have no idea how that question can even be ascertained.

I have made some concessions in regard to the language I use. For example, when dealing with some they've intermixed "representative" with "substitute". I've done the same.

I have told you before that I respect your ability to defend your views (which is rare here). I get aggravated, but I do respect that. I believe that you can also see that any discussion here is fruitless because the ones who cannot defend their views will simply chime in repetitiously. When I use words like "substitute" I mean in a representative sense (not so that we wouldn't).

I've also allowed my explanations to be less specific and more general to whatever conversation was taking place. If the issue was not "substitute vs representative" then I'd allow either to express my view as I did not think the distinction spoke to the matter at hand.

It was sloppy of me, but I don't think a good conversation could have taken place. For that we would have to limit ourselves. Often we bombarded each other with posts, rather than posting once and waiting for a reply.

That is why in the past I've typically limited myself to debating (serious debates) via email with a few well studied people. We take turns (sometimes waiting a week for a well thought out answer). Here we simply shoot from the hip, scatter gun our opinions, claim victory, and move on.

Thank you for "bowing out". I hope this answered your question, but I really want to look at the reasons people are moving away from what has been traditional to baptists. I think this needs to be done because they are moving away from one thing TO another.

Edit: And for background - I was reading Dekker's last two books in the Circle Trilogy (the additions to the trilogy....which became four books and now are six). They are OK.....kinda like the Dean Koontz of the Christian world (boring at times, silly at times, but the story moves along OK).

 

[The Biblicist]

I have made some concessions in regard to the language I use. For example, when dealing with some they've intermixed "representative" with "substitute". I've done the same.

I have told you before that I respect your ability to defend your views (which is rare here). I get aggravated, but I do respect that. I believe that you can also see that any discussion here is fruitless because the ones who cannot defend their views will simply chime in repetitiously. When I use words like "substitute" I mean in a representative sense (not so that we wouldn't).

I've also allowed my explanations to be less specific and more general to whatever conversation was taking place. If the issue was not "substitute vs representative" then I'd allow either to express my view as I did not think the distinction spoke to the matter at hand.

It was sloppy of me, but I don't think a good conversation could have taken place. For that we would have to limit ourselves. Often we bombarded each other with posts, rather than posting once and waiting for a reply.

That is why in the past I've typically limited myself to debating (serious debates) via email with a few well studied people. We take turns (sometimes waiting a week for a well thought out answer). Here we simply shoot from the hip, scatter gun our opinions, claim victory, and move on.

Thank you for "bowing out". I hope this answered your question, but I really want to look at the reasons people are moving away from what has been traditional to baptists. I think this needs to be done because they are moving away from one thing TO another.

Thanks for the explanation. I will take up the issue between "substitute" and "representative" in another thread.

 

[37818]

the legal transfer of sin,

". . . made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; . . ." 2 Corinthians 5:21.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I know the argument very well.

"There is no such thing as the Theory of Evolution because the data proves the fact of evolution."

I don't think you know the argument at all. Do you know how science classifies 'laws' and 'theories'? It does not have to do with one of them being 'fact.'
I am no scientist whatsoever, and am open to contradiction from a real scientist, but my understanding is this. A law has to have a way in which it can be disproved.
The Law of Abiogenesis, aka Pasteur's Law states that life can only come about from pre-existing life. Anyone can disprove it simply by creating life from inanimate matter. So far, no one has been able to do this. Nevertheless, most scientists believe it to be false.
The Theory of Evolution has no way in which it can be disproved. One can disprove certain claims, but there is no clear way in which anyone can disprove it totally. Therefore it remains a theory even though most scientist believe it to be true.

 

[JonC]

". . . made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; . . ." 2 Corinthians 5:21.

Exactly.

Does this mean God literally made Christ (God) to be evil (which is what sin os ontologically - ir is "an immoral act").

No Christian believes that. Scripture teaches that God look laid our iniquity on Christ and He bore our sin. All legitimate theories of atonement teach this.

Within Penal Substitution Theory men like John Gill, John Wesley, Calvin, C.H. Spurgeon J.I. Packer and Sproul taught this means that God imputed sin to Christ (rather than Christ literally becoming sin). I think that is an acceptable trans look ation. A few here (I believe to include you) argued otherwise.

 

[JonC]

If you are trying to prove part of the Doctrine of Penal Substitution to be false, you are making a wretched job of it. All you are doing is coming across as smug and condescending.

That is an asinine comment Martin. I am not trying to prove or disprove the Theory of Penal Substitution Atonement. Perhaps if you had even bothered to read the OP before going into a defence of your tradition you would have realized this and saved us all a lot of words.

 

[JonC]

This thread was not against Penal Substitution Theory.

This thread was not opposed to Penal Substitution Theory.

This thread was an effort to explore reasons why the Theory is being challenged within a tradition that once broadly (almost universally) accepted the Theory as a part of their theology.

Unfortunately there are some who prefer to hijack any thread possible to forward an agenda.

As this thread has been hijacked it will be closed at the request of the author of the OP.

@The Biblicist has appropriately started another thread where Penal Substitution Theory can be debated.

A Biblical Based view of Penal Substitutionary Atonement

I have started another thread to discuss reasons people are abandoning the theory.

PSA and the Impact of Christian Fiction

If anyone wants to start another thread from the ideas brought up here, please feel free to do so. Please title the thread appropriately to the subject. Please read the OP before replying.