Featured It is not theory. So what and how should . . . be called?

Who said anything about studying the Church Father's?

I'm talking about how John Calvin developed Penal Substitution.

Just because Calvin came up with it doesn't make it wrong. He was a good theologian.

But the criteria is Scriprure and that is where Calvin failed. He tried to reform the RCC position, and perhaps it worked for him. But in the end he articulated an Atonement theory based on his judicial philosophy.

I do not need to read defenses for Penal Substitution because I held it and defended it most of my life.

I also know that you cannot produce even one person prior to John Calvin who taught that God punished Jesus instead of us.

What you will do is post page after page of Christians who taught that Jesus died for our sins, that by His stripes we were healed, that it was God's will to put Him to grief and a bunch of other things we all believe.

But let's play your game .

Reply with one quote (not a page) from one person before the Reformation stating that God punished Jesus instead of punishing us.

NOTE!!!! - NOT a quote and then you explaining what somebody meant. An actual quote.

 

On this point it is more than a disagreement. You are simply wrong.

I don't mean in your interpretation (I believe you are wrong there, but that is a disagreement).

You are wrong because what you believe IS a theory. That theory may be correct, but it is a theory nonetheless and your post proves this.

You theorize that God transferred our sins from us and placed them on Christ.

That is NOT what Scripture states, and thar is the reason Penal Substitution will always be a theory even if it is correct. It exceeds Scripture.

Prior to and apart from Penal Substitution Christians believed that the Lord laid our iniquity upon Him, that He bore our sins bodily on the cross.

 

I think you may have misunderstood my point.

For a moment set aside which view of the Atonement is correct.

What you hold is a theory because it is not actually what Scripture states.

Penal Substitution has nothing to do with Ezekiel 18:4 (which is not, by definition of the text, substitution).

Our disagreement is that I believe the text itself accurately describes the Atonement while you believe a theory about that text is superior.

 

No, that is a false statement (this is actually an example of "intellectual dishonesty" as discussed on another thread....not dishonesty, mind you, but you are changing standards within your defense).

The difference between Christian theories and doctrines systematically derived from Scripture is the former (Christian theories) expands on what is not there but may be true while the latter topically compiles what is there to form doctrine.

That said, if you read the Bible and cannot find that God is One, Jesus is God, and the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God then you do hold the doctrine of the Trinity as a theory.


We all hold Christian theories. This is most prominent, across the board, in eschatology.

But we have to be distinguish between our understanding of Scripture, our theories, and God's Word.

It appears you may be having difficulty in this area. The reason is you keep posting verses along with terms unrelated to the actual text you quote.

Have you ever wondered why, given the detail in God's Word, God never saw fit to include penal substitution in the actual text of Scripture but instead left it hidden for almost 2000 years awaiting the Reformation?

 

I get the theory. My point is not that it is wrong (I believe it is wrong) but the reasons it is a theory.

Grudem rightly pointed out that nobody believed in what we call penal substitution until the Reformation. And he rightly pointed out that tge elements compiled by John Calvin were there before the Reformation.

I disagree with Grudem that the theory has any merit.

One "evidence" I think of is the fact that so many here see penal substitution clearly, throughout Scripture, while nobody before the Reformation did. That does not prove the theory itself wrong, but it is an interesting fact.

You see what is obvious to you, however it was foreign to Chriatianity and Chrustian scholars for over 1500 years.

Again, that doesn't make your theory incorrect.

BUT it does bring up the question as to why you (and so many) see it as a natural reading while for most of Christian history the idea was absent.

 

Christ experiencing the wages of sin, which is death, and that for us, is not a theory. I agree.

It becomes theoretical when we introduce theories about it (like substitution, God punishing Jesus, this being forgiveness itself, etc.).

But on Scripture itself, yes - we do agree.

 

Christ experiencing the wages of sin, which is death, and that for us, is not a theory. I agree.

It becomes theoretical when we introduce theories about it (like substitution, God punishing Jesus, this being forgiveness itself, etc.).

But on Scripture itself, yes - we do agree.

 

No. The Word of God itself ("what is written", the actual text of Scripture).

I believe that the Atonement is a foundation doctrine. It is a doctrine that we actually build upon. I also believe that foundation doctrines must be in the text of Scripture.

Penal Substitution is not in the text (in "what is written"). It is a product, as Wayne Grudem noted, of 1,500 years of theological development.

So what we have is the text of Scripture versus a theory about what is contained in the text.

I believe "what is written" is accurate and complete. You hold that a theory about what is written in the text of Scripture is the proper understanding.

We will never agree because our standards are different.

John Calvin's contribution to theology was nor Calvinism as we know it but the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement upo which Calvinism as we know it was built. I believe Calvin was wrong.