In support of Penal Substitutionary Atonement

[Van]

I must have missed it.

Where one or more of our experts explained if PSA says Jesus propitiated God or Jesus provided the means of propitiation?

 

[JonC]

I don't mind Jon bringing up a subject like this because if I get interested it causes me to dig a little for information in order to be somewhat informed. But in this area, because I don't have any Greek, when I get to the level of papers done by what look like seminary level folks I am quickly in over my head and frankly, find this subject a little disconcerting.
Martin just put this up and I'll get a copy of that book because it keeps coming up in my looking around the web.
I have been reading B.B Warfield on this and find it helpful because he sheds some light on the current (for him at the time) things that were going on. I did not realize that this has become an issue nowadays. I guess I'm a little sheltered but I had always sort of assumed that looking at Christ's shed blood as the means for our salvation was a given in orthodox Christian minds.

Ok....this bothers me. The reason is not that I believe these writers are authority figures (they are not). So whether they held my view or Penal Substitution Theory does not matter. Penal Substitution Theory being a newer view does not make it wrong and the Classic view being an older view does not make it right.

In fact, I disagree with Gregory's view.

What bothers me is that you guys are claiming (and Pierced for Our Transgressions claims) that Gregory (among others) held Penal Substitution because he uses the same Scripture when it comes to the Cross while COMPLETELY IGNORING Gregory's actual context. It's like a bunch of people patting themselves on the back for discovering Muslims believe in God too without recognizing theirs is another god.

Here is the context Gregory provided (what came before the quote @Martin Marprelate (and this book you so eagerly want to read) extracted (I POINT THIS OUT BECAUSE IT IS THE SAME TYPE IF THING THROUGHOUT THE BOOK AND @Martin Marprelate 's CLAIMS):

If you will, PLEASE explain to me exactly how this is the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement:

"When the enemy saw the power, he recognized Christ as a bargain which offered him more than he had. For this reason he chose him as the random for those he had shut up in death's prison."

The issue is historical theology. According to Pierced for Our Transgressions the Ransom Theory, Moral Influence Theory, Government Theory, Recapitulation, Ontological Substitution, the Substitution Theory, Satisfaction Theory, Roman Catholic theology of the Cross, the Orthodox combination of Ransom and Moral Influence Theories, ....ALL THEORIES....are really Penal Substitution.

That is nonsense. And it is a discredit to Penal Substitution Theory because it makes it meaningless .

 

[DaveXR650]

If you will, PLEASE explain to me exactly how this is the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement:

"When the enemy saw the power, he recognized Christ as a bargain which offered him more than he had. For this reason he chose him as the random for those he had shut up in death's prison."

I don't think that quote is penal substitution. But was this from Gregory also? You put it up on the other thread. I'm sorry if I'm getting these quotes mixed up.

But as I said, He was in His own Person representing us. For we were the forsaken and despised before, but now by the Sufferings of Him Who could not suffer, we were taken up and saved. Similarly, He makes His own our folly and our transgressions; and says what follows in the Psalm, for it is very evident that the Twenty-first Psalm refers to Christ.

Now that to me looks a lot closer.

 

[DaveXR650]

I mean, why does this matter all that much? He may be wrong but I look at B.B. Warfield's take on it:
"This is as much as to say as that not only is the doctrine of the sacrificial death of Christ embodied in Christianity as an essential element of the system, but in a very real sense it constitutes Christianity. This is what differentiates Christianity from other religions."

 

[JonC]

I don't think that quote is penal substitution. But was this from Gregory also? You put it up on the other thread. I'm sorry if I'm getting these quotes mixed up.

Now that to me looks a lot closer.

Yes, that was from Gregory. He held a Random view.

My complaint is people pick out things that can sound like Penal Substitution Theory (but are in reality common to every view) and ignore (remove) anything that contradicts Penal Substitution Theory to claim those people held Penal Substitution.

It is simply wrong.

I do not agree with Gregory, but I also do not want to loose what he believed as it is important to history. Too many people today are seeking to erase any history that they find problematic. We can't (well...shouldn't...apparently we can) do that.

It is the same with every early church source in Pierced for Our Transgressions. Recapitulation? No, Penal Substitution Theory. Ontological Substitution? No, Penal Substitution Theory. Moral Influence Theory? No, Penal Substitution Theory. Ransom Theory? No, Penal Substitution Theory.

It is an interesting book, and the arguments made for Penal Substitution Theory are OK. But it is extremely dishonest with history.

 

[MrW]

There are no alternatives. He carried my sins in His own body on the tree. I am crucified with Him, and having therefore died, the penalty of death for sin is paid in full.

 

[Piper]

I don't mind Jon bringing up a subject like this because if I get interested it causes me to dig a little for information in order to be somewhat informed. But in this area, because I don't have any Greek, when I get to the level of papers done by what look like seminary level folks I am quickly in over my head and frankly, find this subject a little disconcerting.
Martin just put this up and I'll get a copy of that book because it keeps coming up in my looking around the web.
I have been reading B.B Warfield on this and find it helpful because he sheds some light on the current (for him at the time) things that were going on. I did not realize that this has become an issue nowadays. I guess I'm a little sheltered but I had always sort of assumed that looking at Christ's shed blood as the means for our salvation was a given in orthodox Christian minds.

Not any more. N.T. Wright, an able Apologist, has been presenting a new meaning for "Justification by Faith" in the past 15 years. And it has gained traction among evangelicals. John Piper wrote a book called "The Future of Justification" and showed how erroneous Wright was. The similarity here is, when I read the book, I got in over my head. I felt like I was lost. But I stuck with it, re-read several chapters, and finally felt like I got it.

Don't give up.

 

[Piper]

Martin just put this up and I'll get a copy of that book because it keeps coming up in my looking around the web.

Sinclair Ferguson is one of the most clear, biblically well versed theologians of our day.

Here he is doing a message on the Father of Puritans. I listened and it is fantastic.

The Father of Puritanism

 

[JonC]

There are no alternatives. He carried my sins in His own body on the tree. I am crucified with Him, and having therefore died, the penalty of death for sin is paid in full.

There are alternatives.

For example, Ontological Substitution, Ransom Theory, and Moral Influence Theory (among others) teach that He is the Lamb who takes away the sins of the World, that God laid our iniquities on Him, that He bore our sins bodily, and by His stripes we are healed.

 

[MrW]

All those are attempts at different names, but they are all still the same thing.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

??? You know that I read it. You and I did used the book a few years ago.

The issue I have is the authors viewed earlier Christians who said that Christ died for our sins, took upon Himself our curse and the like as proof they held Penal Substitution yet made the decision not to include their teachings (FROM THE SAME TEXT) that contradicted Penal Substitution Theory (like Satan imitating the "Ransom", redemption being through solidarity as Christ shared in humanity and humanity shared in Christ (His divinity), Christ dying for the human race to unify man (lost and saved) in a new type of humanity, Christ's death being a repetition of what all men will suffer because of sin, and so on.

It was, because of that, a very dishonest book.

It was like your claim that Gregory believed the Penal Substitution Theory by ignoring the context Gregory provided:


"When the enemy (Satan) saw the power, he recognized Christ as a bargain which offered him more than he had. For this reason he (Satan) chose him (Christ) as the random for those he (Satan) had shut up in death's prison."


That you believe Gregory's position is Penal Substitution highlights the problem.

We are stewards of history. Those men cannot speak to us except through what they have already written. It is not for us to remove sections of their words and place in our own context. That is not only dishonest towards history it is also dangerous as it replaces history with mythology.



That said, let's look again at Gregory's statement and you tell us exactly how he held Penal Substitution Theory:

"When the enemy saw the power, he recognized Christ as a bargain which offered him more than he had. For this reason he chose him as the random for those he (Satan) had shut up in death's prison."

You yourself have quoted a sentence out of context, and, worse yet, have not given even the book, much less chapter and verse to show where you took it from. It is unfair and dishonest of you to criticize either me or anyone else for what you habitually do yourself.
The idea of 'ransom' is perfectly biblical and does not contradict Penal Substitution. The idea that the ransom was paid to Satan, if that is what he meant - I can't really tell without seeing the context - is obviously wrong. But the quotation I gave showed that Gregory did indeed have a belief in penal substitution. Have another look at it; it's there. My own studies of ECFs, limited though they are, have taught me that they often contradict themselves. It is you that keeps on wanting to talk about the ECFs when it is clear that many of them held the most basic errors.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

A few more commendations for the book;

8. The doctrine of penal substitution is often maligned and misunderstood today. Pierced for our Transgressionsis the perfect antidote. The authors defend the doctrine with sparkling clarity and winsome logic. I thank God for this work in which penal substitution is biblically grounded, theologically articulated and historically vindicated. No one could object that the authors fail to consider alternative views. Every objection to penal substitution is considered and refuted. In this book, we are summoned again to the heart of the Gospel.
Thomas Schreiner

9. A person's attitude to the cross tells you much about his theology as a whole, as it is on Calvary that we see the divine response to the human predicament. Thus the perennial attempts throughout church history to relativize and even to deny the propitiatory and substitutionary nature of Christ's sacrifice should not simply be understood as peripheral discussions; they indicate a constant tendency to revise the very essence of the Christian faith to conform to wider cultural mores and shibboleths. It is thus a great pleasure to recommend a book such as this, which seeks to defend a biblical, orthodox understanding of the atonement and to reinforce the non-negotiable centrality of God's wrath against sin and his merciful grace towards humanity. Careful readers will find much here taht will enable them to articulate with clarity and conviction this important doctrine.
Carl Trueman

10. Atonement is the central doctrine of the Christian faith, and penal substitution is the heart of the doctrine. It is wonderful to have a whole book on penal substitution.
Roger Nicole (died 2010)

 

[DaveXR650]

Sinclair Ferguson is one of the most clear, biblically well versed theologians of our day.

Here he is doing a message on the Father of Puritans. I listened and it is fantastic.

The Father of Puritanism

Thanks for that. I will be watching that. I also like Ferguson and really enjoyed his series on the Marrow Men.

 

[JonC]

You yourself have quoted a sentence out of context, and, worse yet, have not given even the book, much less chapter and verse to show where you took it from. It is unfair and dishonest of you to criticize either me or anyone else for what you habitually do yourself.
The idea of 'ransom' is perfectly biblical and does not contradict Penal Substitution. The idea that the ransom was paid to Satan, if that is what he meant - I can't really tell without seeing the context - is obviously wrong. But the quotation I gave showed that Gregory did indeed have a belief in penal substitution. Have another look at it; it's there. My own studies of ECFs, limited though they are, have taught me that they often contradict themselves. It is you that keeps on wanting to talk about the ECFs when it is clear that many of them held the most basic errors.

I haven't quoted a sentence that I know of our of context. You are welcome to provide me with the information. Unlike you, I welcome correction.

That said, you are doing it again. You say Penal Substitution Theory agrees with Ransom. You are, obviously, taking the word "Ransom" out of context for your purposes just like you did with Gregory's words. You need to stop. Treat the words of others with more care.

My context was Ransom Theory (capital "R").

Penal Substitution Theory does not agree that Satan authored Christ's suffering and death. Specifically, Penal Substitution Theory does not agree with Gregory's Ransom Theory even though you believe it is Penal Substitution Theory (that Satan arranged a random, that he desired Jesus because he saw the miracles so he traded mankind for Jesus not realizing Jesus would have victory).

If you honestly believe that is comparable in any way with the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement then you have no understanding of the doctrine you claim to hold.

 

[Alan Gross]

Humanity is depraved, to such an extent that we are spiritually dead and incapable of atoning for sin in any way (Ephesians 2:1).

We cannot understand the work of Christ unless we understand what happened in our Lord’s crucifixion.

The prophet tells us that God laid on the Suffering Servant (Christ) our iniquity (Isa 53:6)—our sin was transferred to Him in the atonement. He was pierced and crushed for our iniquities, “cut off out of the land of the living . . . for the transgression of my people” (Isa 53:4-5, Isa 53:8). In other words, Christ endured the punishment His people deserve in their place.

If we trust in Him alone for salvation, we need not fear eternal death, for Jesus bore our sin on the cross so that we will not receive everlasting judgment (Isa 53:10; John 3:16).

Ultimately the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement is one of several theories because it is not actually stated in Scripture. It is a relatively new theory.

Are we saying the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement is new because the term changed from propitiation, Particular Redemption, Limited Atonement, etc.?

Isaiah was a long time before Clemens Romanus and it sure seems like they taught what was defined in the O.P. first few posts.

And those scriptures, like Matthew 1:21, are not in the Bible, or the name?

"And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins."

Of course, if there is bias ag(sorry caps)AINST THOSE OLDER TERMS, THEN IT IS GOING TO BE HARD TO EXCEPT THE SAME THING UNDER A NEW NAME.

The Cause of God and Truth by John Gill, D.D.
Part IV
Section 1—Clemens Romanus. A.D. 69. Clement, as he believed there was a certain number of elect persons, which has been proved in the preceding chapter, so he plainly intimates, that these are the persons for whom Christ shed his blood; for having observed, that all the elect of God are made perfect in love, he adds, "Without love nothing is well-pleasing to God; in love the Lord assumed us to himself; because of the love which Christ our Lord hath towards us, to aima autou adwken uper hmwn , he hath given his blood for us, his flesh for our flesh, and his soul for our souls." The sense of which is manifestly this, that the persons for whose sake Christ assumed human nature, and shed his precious blood, are the elect of God, and such who have a special and peculiar share in the love of Christ.

 

[JonC]

Are we saying the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement is new because the term changed from propitiation, Particular Redemption, Limited Atonement, etc.?

Isaiah was a long time before Clemens Romanus and it sure seems like they taught what was defined in the O.P. first few posts.

And those scriptures, like Matthew 1:21, are not in the Bible, or the name?

"And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins."

Of course, if there is bias ag(sorry caps)AINST THOSE OLDER TERMS, THEN IT IS GOING TO BE HARD TO EXCEPT THE SAME THING UNDER A NEW NAME.

The Cause of God and Truth by John Gill, D.D.
Part IV
Section 1—Clemens Romanus. A.D. 69. Clement, as he believed there was a certain number of elect persons, which has been proved in the preceding chapter, so he plainly intimates, that these are the persons for whom Christ shed his blood; for having observed, that all the elect of God are made perfect in love, he adds, "Without love nothing is well-pleasing to God; in love the Lord assumed us to himself; because of the love Christ our Lord hath towards us, to aima autou adwken uper hmwn , he hath given his blood for us, his flesh for our flesh, and his soul for our souls." The sense of which is manifestly this, that the persons for whose sake Christ assumed human nature, and shed his precious blood, are the elect of God, and such who have a special and peculiar share in the love of Christ.

I am not. I'm saying that the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement is a newer theory than the theories that came before. It has existed since the 16th century.

That has no bearing on whether it is right or wrong.

Clement of Rome did view Jesus as a guilt offering, Christ as bearing our sins bodily, his flesh for our flesh.

BUT if you read his writings (especially his comments on Corinthians) will find that he did not hold Penal Substitution Theory.

He held what is referred to as Ontological Substitution (or Medical Substitution). It is an important distinction because it is the type of substitution that brought forth the idea of Recapitulation (Recapitulation is an expansion of Medical Substitution).

He also viewed the "elect" as a people who were already saved. We cannot apply his view to Limited Atonement as he held that Christ suffered and died to Ransom the human race.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

BUT if you read his writings (especially his comments on Corinthians) will find that he did not hold Penal Substitution Theory.

Quotation, please.

 

[JonC]

Quotation, please.

"Because of the love that he had for us, Jesus Christ our Lord, in accordance with God’s will, gave his blood for us, and his flesh for our flesh, and his life for our lives.".

"He beareth our sins and suffereth pain on our account, and we esteemed him as one in toil, stricken and afflicted. He was wounded for our sins, and for our transgressions did he suffer infirmity; the chastisement of our peace was upon him, and by his stripes we were healed.”

Remember also that in his commentary he is quoting from the LXX.

[Christ] was hurried by evil men to the cross; which deed was, however, by His power turned to good. In short, while He was suffering, all the world suffered with Him . . .

Adding to this, Justin Martyr's comments are along the lines of Clement of Rome. They support Recapitulation (which, obviously, includes Medical Atonement - His flesh for our flesh, His life for our life.

I'm still waiting on you to explain exactly how Gregory's view - Satan arranging a ransom to accept Christ to release mankind - is Penal Substitution Theory.

You have a very bad habit of reading into people's words.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

"Because of the love that he had for us, Jesus Christ our Lord, in accordance with God’s will, gave his blood for us, and his flesh for our flesh, and his life for our lives.".

"He beareth our sins and suffereth pain on our account, and we esteemed him as one in toil, stricken and afflicted. He was wounded for our sins, and for our transgressions did he suffer infirmity; the chastisement of our peace was upon him, and by his stripes we were healed.”

Yep! That sounds like P.S. to me. It may not fit your theory you keep talking about but it suits me fine.

I'm still waiting on you to explain exactly how Gregory's view - Satan arranging a ransom to accept Christ to release mankind - is Penal Substitution Theory.

I'm still waiting for you to tell me where the words come from. I told you where my quotation came from; it is common courtesy for you to do the same. When you do so, I will comment on them.

You have a very bad habit of reading into people's words.

Funny, I was going to say the same thing about you.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Sinclair Ferguson is one of the most clear, biblically well versed theologians of our day.

Here he is doing a message on the Father of Puritans. I listened and it is fantastic.

The Father of Puritanism

Thanks for posting this. I haven't listened very far yet but it's fascinating. Sinclair Ferguson is indeed a fine Bible teacher and historian.
The only book I have by William Perkins is The Art of Prophesying which is in the Banner of Truth Puritan Paperback series. Apparently it's one of their best sellers because charismatics keep buying it thinking it's about becoming an OT-style prophet. In fact, it's a book on preaching, and a very good one. It's great that so many more of his works are being published.