The Case for Penal Substitution

[JonC]

May I ask you from what primary source is the fallen nature described by Christ in John 3:19-20 derived? What is its origin? Is it "passed" down from Adam and thus inherent in all conceived in the womb or is it derived from post birth decisions?

I believe it is derived from sin on the grounds that Jesus states that we are "slaves to sin", "sin is at our door", and we are not to be "mastered by sin".

If you are asking if sin is a genetic issue (as Y1 argued a while back), I'd have to say no. It is a spiritual issue. Our faith is misplaced and we are mastered by sin.

 

[The Biblicist]

I believe it is derived from sin

Why didn't Paul then say "and so sin passed upon all men" if our unregenerate spiritual condition was immediately derived from sin? he does not say sin is passed but death is passed. Adam did not physically die "in the day" he sinned in Genesis 2:17 as the immediate consequence of sin. Cain and Abel were born prior to Adam's physical death but death is stated to be the immediate consequence of sin in Genesis 2:17.

Where is the distinction between "sin" and "law of sin" made in the Genesis 2:17 account or in Paul's account in Romans 5? In both instances the direct and immediate results of that one act of sin is said to be "death" and "so DEATH passed upon all men FOR ALL HAVE SINNED."

Are you not reading into these two texts what is not explicitly stated?

From the actual wording of Paul in a cause and effect relationship the grammatical structure gives sin as the cause and "death" as the immediate consequence and "death" is what is passed rather than a law of sin unless and except if the "law of sin" is indeed a form of death or inclusive in "death" which was passed. In that case it would be a STATE or CONDITION of sin and that is what the rest of Scripture clearly indicates as Job, David, Jeremiah and Jesus describes us as "being evil" as to our condition from the womb.

Again, is it not you that is guilty of reading into these texts what it does not actually say? In contrast we believe "death" includes more than physical death but a present spiritual state or condition of depravity as it is clearly defined in Ephesians 2:1-3 and the immediate consequence in Genesis 2:17 "in the day' he actually sinned rather than just 930 years later.

 

[JonC]

Why didn't Paul then say "and so sin passed upon all men"

Paul did not say that "sin" passed upon all men" because sin is not passed upon all men.

Through Adam sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned. For until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam.

This is my point.

 

[The Biblicist]

Paul did not say that "sin" passed upon all men" because sin is not passed upon all men.

Wrong! He did not say sin was "passed" upon all men because "all men have sinned" (aorist tense completed action) when Adam sinned and by that one act by one man many were "made sinners" as they actually participated in the act as one undivided human nature.

He not only states it as a already completed action (rather than a future action demanded by your view) but the very next verses you quote prove that all men sinned at the point in time when Adam sinned and I let you quote his words:

Through Adam sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned. For until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam.

The absolute proof is that period between Adam and Moses universal death cannot be attributed as the violation of the Mosaic Law nor can it be attributed to the violation of the law of conscience but can only be attributed to the violation of the law stated in Genesis 2:17 thus proving "all men have sinned" when one man sinned because it is "by one man's disobedience many were made sinners."

He continues to affirm that fact by immediately proceeding to repeat over and over and over again "by one man's disobedence many be condemned....many be dead....many be made sinners" while your view repudiates these statements and demands either "by the law of sin many be condemned....etc.) or "by many men's sins many be....."

I would gladly challenge you to an exegetical based study of this passage and lets see which view will stand up to proper exegesis?

 

[Reformed]

The “problem” is not that I believe something that is not in the Bible.

Wrong. I am taking you to task for not being able to make a biblical case for your position. Ergo, if scripture does not teach it then it does not exist.

 

[Reformed1689]

Wrong. I am taking you to task for not being able to make a biblical case for your position. Ergo, if scripture does not teach it then it does not exist.

Exactly

 

[JonC]

Wrong. I am taking you to task for not being able to make a biblical case for your position. Ergo, if scripture does not teach it then it does not exist.

If the TEXT of Scripture does not present it then it should not be a foundation upon which to build doctrine. I stand by this.

We all hold doctrine that is not exactly in Scripture. All Systematic Theology has a human element (that is the nature of Systematic Theology). But I think that we are wrong when we accept a theory as if it were Scripture on such a vital doctrine.

Look at what has been denied here - it has been denied that sin is a power or a principle. Yet there are passages that speak of sin exactly that way (it is a power that "masters" people, "enslaves" people, "awaits at the door"). It was denied that sin is a principle that is contrary to interpersonal relationship (yet Paul uses "sin" in this way in his first epistle to Corinth).

So yes, I do believe that we have to be more careful with doctrine than I think you are allowing here. I also believe that we have to affirm all Scripture, not just passages that suit a favorite theory.

 

[JonC]

Wrong. I am taking you to task for not being able to make a biblical case for your position. Ergo, if scripture does not teach it then it does not exist.

Now I'm taking from your lead with a "PS"

The problem you have is not that I have been unable to make a biblical case for my position. The problem you had was that I will not articulate my position into one overreaching theory and then base the points on Scripture.

What I did was affirm Scripture without saying how it worked together towards an efficient summary of the Atonement. That is because I believe when we do this we miss out on what Scripture is stating.

We are Nelson putting that blind eye to the telescope complaining we cannot see. That is what you did when you were unable to affirm that sin was addressed as a power, or a principle, or had interpersonal ramifications that Scripture place directly at the feet of the Cross.

Have you ever considered that "limited atonement" can also be used to describe the practice of limiting the atonement to one aspect while denying what the Bible says of other elements? I'll wager you haven't.

 

[Reformed1689]

The problem you have is not that I have been unable to make a biblical case for my position. The problem you had was that I will not articulate my position into one overreaching theory and then base the points on Scripture.

For me I have a problem with both actually.

That is because I believe when we do this we miss out on what Scripture is stating.

That makes no sense.

 

[JonC]

That makes no sense.

To paraphrase (very lightly since I don't have the quote in front of me) Spurgeon - there are some "strong willed" people who discover one truth and magnify that truth out of proportion. When they encounter other truths of Scripture it proves beyond their grasp. They are like Nelson holding the telescope to the bad eye complaining he cannot see.

This is what I am saying people do with Penal Substitution Theory. It is evidenced on this thread. You see penal substitution in the atonement, you see Christ bearing our sins and laying down His life as a propitiation for the sins of man. But that is all you see.

You've rejected that sin is a power and a principle (even though I've provided passages that speak of sin as a power and a principle) that the Atonement addressed (even though Scripture affirms that the atonement addressed them). You've denied the interpersonal aspect of sin that is addressed directly by the Atonement.

The reason you give for denying these biblical truths is that they are not what you see to be the "root" issue of sin and the "root" purpose of the Atonement.

That is what I mean (using "you" in a general sense).

 

[Reformed1689]

The reason you give for denying these biblical truths is that they are not what you see to be the "root" issue of sin and the "root" purpose of the Atonement.

Here is the thing. Why was the atonement necessary?

 

[JonC]

Here is the thing. Why was the atonement necessary?

1 John 3:8b The Son of God appeared for this purpose, to destroy the works of the devil.

 

[JonC]

@davidtaylorjr , here is the thing - I do not necessarily reject Penal Substitution. Let's take the basic definitions of these theories.

Here is how @Martin Marprelate defined it (I think from Pierce for Our Transgressions, but am not sure):

“The doctrine of Penal Substitution states that God gave Himself in the Person of His Son to suffer instead of us the death, punishment and curse due to fallen humanity as the penalty for sin”.

I have no issue at all with that definition. That is what I believe. I doubt I believe it the same as you guys because of what you do not believe. As @Reformed stated (and I think you agreed, but I'm not sure) Christus Victor should be rejected because it is a false theory.

The Christus Victory is the view that work of Christ was purposed to break the power of death and Satan; to destroy the work of the Devil.

I really do not have a problem with that theory either. Few would argue against the idea that this is exactly how the Early Church viewed the work of Christ.

So it depends on how far one takes these ideas as to whether or not they become "unbiblical". Do they take one truth at the exclusion of another? Those here do. Do they use one to redefine other truths? Some here do. The ironic part is that only one of those ideas is actually stated in the text of Scripture - and it is the one minimized here as unimportant.

 

[Reformed1689]

@davidtaylorjr , here is the thing - I do not necessarily reject Penal Substitution.

Now I'm really baffled...

 

[JonC]

Now I'm really baffled...

Now???? You started off that way

 

[Reformed1689]

Now???? You started off that way

Because you are all over the place

 

[JonC]

Because you are all over the place

Except I have consistently said that the problem is not penal substitution but the way some who hold the theory limit the atonement.

I have always insisted that Christ bore our sins and that through Him we are delievered from the wrath to come. Bur for over a year I have also borrowed from NetChaplin and said God was not wrathful to Christ as Christ experienced what would be wrath to us.

I know....you're baffled. None of this makes sense to you so all you can do is strike out and put it on me. Yet others I have mentioned share my view (or I share theirs). So you can pretend we all somehow share a delusion or you can accept that the position simply does not make sense to you.

Weigh it against Scripture. If you find it lacking then dismiss it. But if it is true, dismiss it at your own peril because once delievered the responsibility is yours (again, paraphrasing Spurgeon) - point is Scripture speaks of the Cross not only as a propitiation for sin but also as a reconciliation between men, a Kingdom issue, an example, and do much more. Your acceptance or rejection has no bearing on Scripture.

 

[Reformed]

The problem you have is not that I have been unable to make a biblical case for my position. The problem you had was that I will not articulate my position into one overreaching theory and then base the points on Scripture.

No. I am pretty sure I will stick with my opinion that you did not make a biblical case for your position. I went through your thread with a fine tooth comb. I was not looking for areas of agreement because I knew we were not going to agree. All I was looking for was a strong biblical defense for whatever it is you believe and I came away disappointed.

What I did was affirm Scripture without saying how it worked together towards an efficient summary of the Atonement. That is because I believe when we do this we miss out on what Scripture is stating.

Huh? Jon, that makes no sense. If your view of the Atonement is correct it should work together towards an efficient summary of the Atonement. The fact that it does not is evidence of that.

You've rejected that sin is a power and a principle (even though I've provided passages that speak of sin as a power and a principle) that the Atonement addressed (even though Scripture affirms that the atonement addressed them). You've denied the interpersonal aspect of sin that is addressed directly by the Atonement.

What I have done is place sin in its proper context. Sin is disobedience to the law.

1 Corinthians 15:56 The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law;

So, we do see sin as a power but that is because sin is a transgression of the law. Adam was told not to eat (law) but he disobeyed. The result was death.

You want an interpersonal aspect of sin? Sin corrupted mankind's vertical relationship with God (Genesis 3) as well as its horizontal relationship with each other (Genesis 4). While sin is inherent to all humanity through imputation (Romans 5:12), it is also something the individual does. Ergo, we are sinners because of imputation and we are sinners because we sin. Sin indebts us to God (Colossians 2:12-14). Jesus Christ's sacrificial death satisfied our sin debt. It also overcame the power of sin (the law).

Have you ever considered that "limited atonement" can also be used to describe the practice of limiting the atonement to one aspect while denying what the Bible says of other elements? I'll wager you haven't.

Soteriologically speaking, the Atonement does have a limiting aspect. The Atonement expiates sin for the Elect. That is what this thread is about.

 

[JonC]

Soteriologically speaking, the Atonement does have a limiting aspect. The Atonement expiates sin for the Elect. That is what this thread is about.

I agree the scope of the Atonement is soteriologically limited. But I still disagree with excluding Scripture in order to maintain so precise a theory.

 

[Reformed]

I agree the scope of the Atonement is soteriologically limited. But I still disagree with excluding Scripture in order to maintain so precise a theory.

What are you talking about?