An Alternate View (to the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement

[JonC]

@JonC . My final thoughts on this to you specifically would be this. You are probably reading guys like Belousek, out of Ohio Northern, a Mennonite. I would only suggest that you are not quite where those guys are, which is why your argument looks strange to those of us who have looked into these matters in some detail. The reason I say that is simply because it is easier to refute them than you because they have moved further away from the concepts we are familiar with and thus their positions are identifiable, more so than yours. Your positions are very hard to differentiate from penal substitution because you are still using the same terms and verses and claiming them as true, which is what I think confuses people.

But you are heading in their direction. Regarding the atonement, because we are completely passive in it, mere observers and recipients of it's benefits, there is not a lot of explicit information given to us that is essential that we embrace for the purpose of being saved. Christ died for us according to the scripture, but exactly what does that mean? If I embrace Christ as my Lord and Savior and have wrong theology regarding the atonement am I deceiving myself? In light of that I would simply say this. The litmus test I would use to evaluate those who don't like penal substitution would be "was it truly essential that Christ die? And what would be our situation if he had not?" If you answer those two questions and find that it would not truly and organically (or ontologically) have been necessary that Christ die you are not a Christian. And if you read many of the arguments made by the modern opponents of penal substitution you find that this in indeed the case they are trying to make.

In other words, say you believe that the whole atonement was Christ defeating Satan and destroying him, and you believe that the power Satan had and the hold he had over man was because of the sin of man, then I might have a different understanding of the precise theology of the atonement yet still consider you as an actual Christian. Or, if you would say that Christ's death satisfied the offense to God's sense of justice and holiness and that he was of such an overwhelming worth as it were in the Father's view, that anyone who joined in union with Christ would be saved - because they were viewed as "in Christ" and He was their advocate, coming with his own blood - well that also I could accept as a sufficiently orthodox view of the matter even though it may not describe penal substitution as I would desire. What I think you have to have is Christ in some way "handling" the situation and that situation has got to include our individual sin, not just our status as mankind or as a member of the race and it has to be in a decisive and essential way rather that as an example to us or as a symbol.

And I find that the modern things I read fall short here and it is far more serious than the way the Early Church Fathers might has done or Anselm, or Thomas Aquinas - none of which gave any evidence of picking at the work of Christ as being our only hope of individual salvation. And so it's up to you to decide when you read these guys to decipher what it is they are trying to do. John Owen I think does a good job of explaining this regarding the Socinians of his day and honestly I would encourage you to re read this because I see some of the same philosophy in the modern refutations of the atonement. What they do is try to devaluate the worth of the work of Christ on the cross as being pivotal to our salvation - leaving us with a responsibility of following a set of ethics and behavior which they then supply. (And I challenge anyone who doubts me on this to read their other writings and see if they agree with the directions they head in those areas.)

I appreciate your thoughts, but no, I have not been reading guys out of anywhere. I have been reading Scripture.

I do not care about orthodoxy to a specific group of people. When I use orthodox I mean in terms of Christianity. Orthodox does not mean correct.

The fact is that PSA stands alone.

The classic positions held that because of the cross we have the confidence in Christ that although we will be forsaken to suffer the same punishment as Christ (not a crucifixion but the powers of Satan) that God will deliver us through it just as Christ was delivered.

PSA cannot believe that. Why? Because that would mean that Jesus did not suffer God's punishment, Jesus did not die instead of us, all that hocus pocus about sins being transferred here and there would be nonsense.

The theorists say that the early Christians were just confused and their beliefs due to persecution. So it took sixteen hundred years to fix it. Hogwash.

 

[DaveXR650]

The classic positions held that because of the cross we have the confidence in Christ that although we will be forsaken to suffer the same punishment as Christ (not a crucifixion but the powers of Satan) that God will deliver us through it just as Christ was delivered.

But they held that the cross did something in addition to serving as an illustration. We believe the very same thing in regards to the resurrection in that the resurrection is proof to us that God was satisfied with the sacrifice of Christ on our behalf and thus we have evidence that we also will be delivered. But just as these other theories are incomplete in that that don't have Christ's death as actually doing anything in itself, neither would ours if we, as some modernists do, only emphasized the resurrection and left Christ's death itself as being either a mistake, a victory of Satan, or just a tragic event with no direct accomplishment in itself.

That's why I said earlier that Christ as Victor for instance, can work if one understood that Christ undertook a work for us that freed us from a bondage under Satan that was due to our own sin as well as our sinfulness as collectively being part of humanity. You have at least a real and objective thing done on our behalf and not just a setting up of an example or illustration of a truth - important as that is. Yet those who believed that Christ as Victor only referred to a cosmic battle between the forces of evil, with no understanding of why we as men (and individuals) were under Satan's power did indeed have a seriously deficient theology on the atonement.

In the statement you make above at best you leave it to speculation as to whether even if Christ was so delivered, what does that have to do with us. How could this be to our benefit? And thus you and we also start using phrases like "he died for us, or he died on our behalf, or he died for our sins according to the scriptures". And then you are on your way to penal substitution. Is it merely and only transactional regarding our sins as if they were entities separate from us? No, but then no serious reading of any reformed writer suggests this. Much is made of our estrangement, our personal guilt, and our offensiveness to God. Not to mention our uncleanness and unholiness by our very being and nature. So what you are doing is taking their efforts to explain the atonement and the making a false caricature of what they believe about sin and man in his natural state.

The early Christians were indeed confused in many areas. Just read the fathers and you see. And I am sure we are wrong in many areas. God is gracious or we are all undone. Be careful what you call "Hogwash".

 

[JonC]

But they held that the cross did something in addition to serving as an illustration. We believe the very same thing in regards to the resurrection in that the resurrection is proof to us that God was satisfied with the sacrifice of Christ on our behalf and thus we have evidence that we also will be delivered. But just as these other theories are incomplete in that that don't have Christ's death as actually doing anything in itself, neither would ours if we, as some modernists do, only emphasized the resurrection and left Christ's death itself as being either a mistake, a victory of Satan, or just a tragic event with no direct accomplishment in itself.

That's why I said earlier that Christ as Victor for instance, can work if one understood that Christ undertook a work for us that freed us from a bondage under Satan that was due to our own sin as well as our sinfulness as collectively being part of humanity. You have at least a real and objective thing done on our behalf and not just a setting up of an example or illustration of a truth - important as that is. Yet those who believed that Christ as Victor only referred to a cosmic battle between the forces of evil, with no understanding of why we as men (and individuals) were under Satan's power did indeed have a seriously deficient theology on the atonement.

In the statement you make above at best you leave it to speculation as to whether even if Christ was so delivered, what does that have to do with us. How could this be to our benefit? And thus you and we also start using phrases like "he died for us, or he died on our behalf, or he died for our sins according to the scriptures". And then you are on your way to penal substitution. Is it merely and only transactional regarding our sins as if they were entities separate from us? No, but then no serious reading of any reformed writer suggests this. Much is made of our estrangement, our personal guilt, and our offensiveness to God. Not to mention our uncleanness and unholiness by our very being and nature. So what you are doing is taking their efforts to explain the atonement and the making a false caricature of what they believe about sin and man in his natural state.

The early Christians were indeed confused in many areas. Just read the fathers and you see. And I am sure we are wrong in many areas. God is gracious or we are all undone. Be careful what you call "Hogwash".

They did, but not really if you look at it.

What do they believe the cross accomplished? They believe the Cross was God punishing our sins laid in Jesus. But sins bring laid on Jesus is, in their theory, an allegory.

You stole a ball. Over 2,000 years ago God punished "you stealing a ball" on Jesus. This is allegory as sins cannot literally be transferred (they are not things). Instead God puts that theft on Jesus' account.

The cross does not, per PSA, actually accomplish anything.

It is a16th century French legal philosophy (the one Calvin held). It was an attempt to take Roman law as Divine Justice. The ONLY thing the cross does in PSA is clear the ledger. God obeyed what that judicial philosophy requires. It clears God, not man. Men would have been cleared when the debts in their column were erased and written in Jesus' column.

And even this change in the ledger has no effect on man. They cannot be punished, but they are still (in reality) guilty and wicked.

It is hogwash. In truth, it is satanic. But most who hold PSA do so lightly. They simoly accept what they were told without seriously considering the theory (it is not significant to their belief). The SBC is like this. They gave a resolution affirming PSA but what they affirmed was not PSA (it affirmed that Jesus died for our dins...a truth we all believe).

The danger is discussions like this one. It forces people into making a choice between Scripture and theory. Without this it is just an error lightly held and never tested.

 

[atpollard]

I was recently asked to consider Galatians 3:13 [as evidence that we and Christ exchanged curses and blessings]. So I took a closer look at Galatians 3 (the whole chapter for context). Look at this part:

Galatians 3:10-14 [ESV]
10 For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, "Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them." 11 Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for "The righteous shall live by faith." 12 But the law is not of faith, rather "The one who does them shall live by them." 13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us--for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree"-- 14 so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith.

(By all means, read the rest of the chapter for the surrounding context).

The point being HAMMERED in Galatians 3 is the contrast between the LAW given to Moses and the PROMISE given to Abraham.

The LAW does not negate the PROMISE (which came first).
The PROMISE was given to Abraham ... for CHRIST and put on hold until Christ arrived.
Death comes from the LAW ... it is a CURSE designed to reveal our need for the CHRIST. The LAW is a CURSE because we cannot obey it, so it holds no real promise of RIGHTEOUSNESS (only failure and condemnation).
It is only IN CHRIST that we obtain the PROMISE given to Abraham and Christ.

Reading the whole chapter, I suspect that it was not the curse on us for disobeying the Law that was placed on Christ, it was the Curse OF the Law. Jesus took the Law (do not ...) into Himself and nailed IT (the Law) to the cross with His flesh. As it says ...

Galatians 3:23 [ESV] Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed.

In Christ, we are dead to the LAW and the LAW is dead to us. Christ "redeemed us from the curse of the law" [literally] so that we who are baptized IN CHRIST are in the "blessings of Abraham" ... a PROMISE that predates the LAW.

YMMV
(all I ask is your consideration of the TEXT and your patience enduring my "folly" as I seek to understand what is actually written.)

 

[DaveXR650]

The cross does not, per PSA, actually accomplish anything.

That may be your opinion of PSA but if that is true then how do you account for the argument used by PSA advocates that claim for instance "all the sins of some" are forgiven and how if universal atonement was true then universal salvation would have to be true. I don't mean to go there now but just to show that your premise is false - PSA does actually accomplish something and those who you accuse of bringing in this idea believed it did so so you don't really have an option to claim otherwise.

You stole a ball. Over 2,000 years ago God punished "you stealing a ball" on Jesus. This is allegory as sins cannot literally be transferred (they are not things). Instead God puts that theft on Jesus' account.

This again, is false. While you may not believe this is possible almost all of Christendom that believes in some effectiveness of the atonement believe that our sin was taken care of at a specific point in time. You can tell this is true by the arguments over whether this actually occurred at the time of the cross, at the time a person believes or at the beginning when God declared it as going to happen. Obviously, I admit that this isn't settled or we wouldn't have all these discussions. Still, claiming that if done in time it must be an allegory is a false premise.

It is a16th century French legal philosophy (the one Calvin held). It was an attempt to take Roman law as Divine Justice. The ONLY thing the cross does in PSA is clear the ledger. God obeyed what that judicial philosophy requires. It clears God, not man. Men would have been cleared when the debts in their column were erased and written in Jesus' column.

Tying this to French legal philosophy must be "in" but I am not always informed, I guess. In a sense I guess you could say it only clears the ledger but is that not a big deal? Remember, most of these same guys insisted it cleared the ledger for past, present and future sins which leads the way to our understanding of the security of our salvation and also opens the door to being made a new creation. In a sense it clears God in that as part of God's devised plan for our redemption he can then be just and still forgive sins - which was always his desire. I'm surprised you have not come right out and said that it is ridiculous to claim that sins can be put on someone else but then you would be aligning with the old Socinians (who are still around) and going against the fact that you still say "Christ died for our sins".

And even this change in the ledger has no effect on man. They cannot be punished, but they are still (in reality) guilty and wicked.

This is really rich. In a sense this is true. Christ justifies the ungodly who believe. And a reckoned or declared righteousness is what precedes any practical righteousness we could possibly have. And even that would be totally dependent upon the grace of God and the Holy Spirit working in us. I'm glad you brought this up because when I see these attacks on PSA they usually, when you really get down to it, involve a belief that with their system you do righteous things and improve your own situation. Christianity becomes mostly a system of ethics which they are willing to step in and lead us in the right paths, usually involving a deconstruction of traditional values and a heavy move toward some types of social justice and liberation theology. That's why I urge those reading this to read the guys currently proposing this stuff. You will find what I am saying is true.

 

[JonC]

That may be your opinion of PSA but if that is true then how do you account for the argument used by PSA advocates that claim for instance "all the sins of some" are forgiven and how if universal atonement was true then universal salvation would have to be true. I don't mean to go there now but just to show that your premise is false - PSA does actually accomplish something and those who you accuse of bringing in this idea believed it did so so you don't really have an option to claim otherwise.

This again, is false. While you may not believe this is possible almost all of Christendom that believes in some effectiveness of the atonement believe that our sin was taken care of at a specific point in time. You can tell this is true by the arguments over whether this actually occurred at the time of the cross, at the time a person believes or at the beginning when God declared it as going to happen. Obviously, I admit that this isn't settled or we wouldn't have all these discussions. Still, claiming that if done in time it must be an allegory is a false premise.

Tying this to French legal philosophy must be "in" but I am not always informed, I guess. In a sense I guess you could say it only clears the ledger but is that not a big deal? Remember, most of these same guys insisted it cleared the ledger for past, present and future sins which leads the way to our understanding of the security of our salvation and also opens the door to being made a new creation. In a sense it clears God in that as part of God's devised plan for our redemption he can then be just and still forgive sins - which was always his desire. I'm surprised you have not come right out and said that it is ridiculous to claim that sins can be put on someone else but then you would be aligning with the old Socinians (who are still around) and going against the fact that you still say "Christ died for our sins".

This is really rich. In a sense this is true. Christ justifies the ungodly who believe. And a reckoned or declared righteousness is what precedes any practical righteousness we could possibly have. And even that would be totally dependent upon the grace of God and the Holy Spirit working in us. I'm glad you brought this up because when I see these attacks on PSA they usually, when you really get down to it, involve a belief that with their system you do righteous things and improve your own situation. Christianity becomes mostly a system of ethics which they are willing to step in and lead us in the right paths, usually involving a deconstruction of traditional values and a heavy move toward some types of social justice and liberation theology. That's why I urge those reading this to read the guys currently proposing this stuff. You will find what I am saying is true.

The PSA argument about universal atonement is based on PSA being true.

If PSA is not true than Christ died for the sins of mankind (none excluded) without leading to universal salvation.

What you are doing is putting classical Christian beliefs, one by one, into PSA to say it does not work. That method is faulty.

 

[DaveXR650]

@atpollard.
I think Jesus had a high view of the Law which is why he said it was in effect until every jot and tittle was fulfilled. And he said he came to fulfill the Law. My understanding is that the Law is good in itself as it is the revealed will of God and if it were not good then David in Psalms 119 would be speaking foolishly and Paul in Romans 7 would be wrong. The law is excellent and that is why most Puritan era writers were big on the law as a rule of life even for believers. That would include Robert Traill who wrote the famous "Justification Vindicated" and later free grace guys like Horatious Bonar and J. C. Ryle.

But as it says in Romans, and as you know, the problem is with us. The law had a sanction against disobedience that leaves us with no remedy. As God's revealed will it is beautiful and good but a curse to us when we honestly understand our failure to keep it. This is scriptural and somewhat before the rise of French legal thought. Keep that in mind when you read modern commentaries and such because there is a modern tendency to get really nervous in evangelical circles when keeping the law is mentioned as moving to legalism and we definitely live in a time of practical antinomianism.

And of course I would leave room for an interpretation of keeping the law in our dispensation or under the new covenant (whichever you prefer), as referring to the law of Christ and not just the 10 commandments as stated in Exodus. And this is strictly for believers, who are not relying in any way on the law as a means or even as an assistance to salvation.

 

[DaveXR650]

The PSA argument about universal atonement is based on PSA being true.

That of course should be self evident. It would be absurd to put forth a PSA argument if one did not believe it to be true.

If PSA is not true than Christ died for the sins of mankind (none excluded) without leading to universal salvation.

No, if PSA is not true then you have to start over and propose something else. This is exactly what you have not been able to do since the OP. I answer every point you make and you dance around the issues without providing an alternative to PSA.

What you are doing is putting classical Christian beliefs, one by one, into PSA to say it does not work. That method is faulty.

No. All I am doing is putting classical Christian beliefs to the test and showing why if we are honest, they would (and did in fact) lead to some form of PSA. There has to be in Christian theology, some theological explanation of what happened on the cross. It cannot be left as an example, or as a training for Christ, important as that truly is. Something happened to our sin and in light of all the scriptures in Old and New Testament, regarding sin, sacrifice, and the role of the Law, I just think that penal substitution explains it best. I'm not alone in this, obviously, and you, like all the others, fail in you attempts to refute PSA.

 

[JonC]

That of course should be self evident. It would be absurd to put forth a PSA argument if one did not believe it to be true.

No, if PSA is not true then you have to start over and propose something else. This is exactly what you have not been able to do since the OP. I answer every point you make and you dance around the issues without providing an alternative to PSA.

No. All I am doing is putting classical Christian beliefs to the test and showing why if we are honest, they would (and did in fact) lead to some form of PSA. There has to be in Christian theology, some theological explanation of what happened on the cross. It cannot be left as an example, or as a training for Christ, important as that truly is. Something happened to our sin and in light of all the scriptures in Old and New Testament, regarding sin, sacrifice, and the role of the Law, I just think that penal substitution explains it best. I'm not alone in this, obviously, and you, like all the others, fail in you attempts to refute PSA.

It should not be self-evident.

Say you believe total depravity is false. You look at Calvinism's unconditional election but ignore total depravity. Of course it would not make sence and you could "disprove" it to your peers.


You are saying universal atonement would equate to universal salvation because you ignore the actual theology that believes universal atonement.


God laid our iniquity on Christ. You are acting like this is God taking our sins from us and putting them on Christ.

Happy this ti what God lays on us.

Does God laying Christ's righteousness on you (clothing you in a robe of righteousness) mean that God takes Jesus' righteousness away from Him and puts it on you?

The argument from classic theology is that Christ bore our sin as we will bear His righteousness. He died for the dins of mankind reconciling God to mankind. In the end the saved abd the lost will be raised because of the cross znd judged in accordance to Christ. Those who are recreated in His image are not guilty and live. They are at that time righteous (conformed into Christ's image). But the wicked are based to everlasting condemnation. This condemnation is they rejected the Light. The reason they rejected the Light is they remained in their sins, they rejected the Light because their deeds are evil.


Traditional Christianity did not view divine righteousness under that 16th century philosophy. They tended to view justice under a Hebrew mindset.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

We see this with Chrustus Victor (the thrm I described above). Penal Substitution theorists will say that they agree with Christus Victor but it is incomplete without Penal Substitution. BUT to add Penal Substitution they have to make Christus Victor something it is not.

This is exactly right. The Christus Victor theory is correct as far as it goes. Who believes in Christus Loser? But it cannot explain how God can be just in justifying sinners. It is incomplete without the Doctrine of Penal Substitution. So the Biblical position is to agree that Christ did rise victorious from the tomb; that He did conquer Satan; but that He did so by bearing our sins and the curse attached to them in His own body on the cross Gal. 3:10-13; 1 Peter 2:24) and paying the price in full (Isaiah 53:5).
Paul writes that the doctrine of the cross is 'a stumbling-block to Jews, and foolishness to Gentiles' (1 Cor.1:23), and so it is. Religious folk like the Jews and the Moslems refuse to believe that God could treat His Messiah or prophet so. 'But to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.'

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I appreciate your thoughts, but no, I have not been reading guys out of anywhere. I have been reading Scripture.

This is not entirely true, is it? Not so log ago on this forum, you mentioned a string of 'guys' who turned out to be Mennonites, and even Menno Simon himself, despite his shakiness on the Trinity.

 

[JonC]

This is exactly right. The Christus Victor theory is correct as far as it goes. Who believes in Christus Loser? But it cannot explain how God can be just in justifying sinners. It is incomplete without the Doctrine of Penal Substitution. So the Biblical position is to agree that Christ did rise victorious from the tomb; that He did conquer Satan; but that He did so by bearing our sins and the curse attached to them in His own body on the cross Gal. 3:10-13; 1 Peter 2:24) and paying the price in full (Isaiah 53:5).
Paul writes that the doctrine of the cross is 'a stumbling-block to Jews, and foolishness to Gentiles' (1 Cor.1:23), and so it is. Religious folk like the Jews and the Moslems refuse to believe that God could treat His Messiah or prophet so. 'But to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.'

This, @DaveXR650 , is what I was talking about.

Penal Substitution theorists want to be in agreement with other positions. They use multi-faceted diamond as an example. BUT they have to redefine other positions in order to agree with them.

Take Christus Victor that @Martin Marprelate brought up. He redefines the position to simply mean that Christ achieved victory (as opposed to loosing against Satan).

But that is dishonest. Christus Victor contains more than Christ achieved victory (it includes the "how", by Christ suffering thr punishment of Satan as a representative of the human race, suffering the same consequences that we will all suffer, and then being judged righteous by God and glorified).

When we compare views we need to do so in an honest way. Dishonesty may earn cheers from the echo chamber but it ultimately foolishness that accomplishes nothing.

 

[JonC]

This is not entirely true, is it? Not so log ago on this forum, you mentioned a string of 'guys' who turned out to be Mennonites, and even Menno Simon himself, despite his shakiness on the Trinity.

No, my comment is correct.

I have read Anabaotist theologians. Also Reformed theologians. I have also read Calvin's Institutes of the Christian religion a couple if times. I have read Stott's commentary on Romans several times, and everything from John Owen. I have read most of John Piper's books.

By I have not been reading those guys I mean within the last eight years. My books are still in the attic. I have not bothered to unpack them.


But yes, in the past I have read some of those writings. But not since I was a Calvinist. When I realized how far Calvinism had carried people away from Scripture I kinda abandoned reading those theologies.

 

[JonC]

Paul writes that the doctrine of the cross is 'a stumbling-block to Jews, and foolishness to Gentiles' (1 Cor.1:23), and so it is. Religious folk like the Jews and the Moslems refuse to believe that God could treat His Messiah or prophet so. 'But to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.'

I agree that the doctrine is a stumbling block to many. That is why we get these theories, to include yours.

I disagree the reason is they could not believe their Messiah would suffer. Instead I believe it more likely that they could not understand God's righteousness apart from the Law, that one must be born of the Spirit.

I believe this for two reasons.

One is history. We have their writings explaining that this is what they believed. This is why various sects existed.

The other is John 3.

 

[DaveXR650]

You are saying universal atonement would equate to universal salvation because you ignore the actual theology that believes universal atonement.

All I was try to do here was show that your charge that PSA actually accomplishes nothing (my quote of you in post 25) is incorrect.

God laid our iniquity on Christ. You are acting like this is God taking our sins from us and putting them on Christ.

You mean like "and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all"? Yeah.

Does God laying Christ's righteousness on you (clothing you in a robe of righteousness) mean that God takes Jesus' righteousness away from Him and puts it on you?

I tend to think God imputes Christ's righteousness to us. I am aware that not all believers agree with that.

The argument from classic theology is that Christ bore our sin as we will bear His righteousness. He died for the dins of mankind reconciling God to mankind. In the end the saved abd the lost will be raised because of the cross znd judged in accordance to Christ. Those who are recreated in His image are not guilty and live. They are at that time righteous (conformed into Christ's image). But the wicked are based to everlasting condemnation. This condemnation is they rejected the Light. The reason they rejected the Light is they remained in their sins, they rejected the Light because their deeds are evil.

When you say "classic theology" I'm not sure I know what you mean as a source. Does Christ as Victor say that? Or is this different than what you say in post 32? I'm just asking. It is common, I don't know how I would label it, but as I saw in Torrance's book on the Atonement and seems expressed in a similar way among non-Calvinist Baptists, something like this: Christ died for the sins of all mankind and can be said to have done so in the sense that potentially, if every single person would come to Christ by faith every single person would be saved. Torrance went further, saying that Christ has indeed covered all the sins of all mankind and all could be saved except for the fact that some will still, inexplicably, reject Christ. At any rate Torrance was not against penal substitution and of course non-Calvinist baptists aren't either, which is why I mentioned the part about universal verses particular atonement. That was an argument used by Owen against Arminians, both of whom believed in penal substitution.

 

[JonC]

All I was try to do here was show that your charge that PSA actually accomplishes nothing (my quote of you in post 25) is incorrect.

You mean like "and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all"? Yeah.

I tend to think God imputes Christ's righteousness to us. I am aware that not all believers agree with that.

When you say "classic theology" I'm not sure I know what you mean as a source. Does Christ as Victor say that? Or is this different than what you say in post 32? I'm just asking. It is common, I don't know how I would label it, but as I saw in Torrance's book on the Atonement and seems expressed in a similar way among non-Calvinist Baptists, something like this: Christ died for the sins of all mankind and can be said to have done so in the sense that potentially, if every single person would come to Christ by faith every single person would be saved. Torrance went further, saying that Christ has indeed covered all the sins of all mankind and all could be saved except for the fact that some will still, inexplicably, reject Christ. At any rate Torrance was not against penal substitution and of course non-Calvinist baptists aren't either, which is why I mentioned the part about universal verses particular atonement. That was an argument used by Owen against Arminians, both of whom believed in penal substitution.

Sorry. When I say "Classic theology" I mean the general views prior to the 11th century AD. Yes, Christius Victor says that.

The difference, from what I can tell, is who's punishment Jesus was suffering (God's ounishment for our sins or Satan's as the wages of our sins) and the overall effect (individual forgiveness or the reconciliation of man).

I do agree that if PSA is true then Limited Atonement has to be true (you pointed this out with mentioning if Chriat died for all then that woukd be universalism under PSA). Those, under this theory, that Christ died for are those who are saved.


I mentioned God laying Jesus' righteousness on us to find out your opinion. Do you believe this took Jesus's righteousness from Him? It seems you would have to if you believe God laying our sins on Jesus means He took them away from us.

 

[Alan Dale Gross]

We see Christ, who was made for a little while lower than the angels, because of His suffering death crowned with glory and honor, so that by the grace of God He might taste death for everyone.

I can see one reason why anyone would choose to deny "the faith once delivered to the saints", by attempting to substitute something else in the place of Psalm 89:38;

"But Thou hast Cast Off and Abhorred,
Thou hast been Wroth with Thine Anointed" (KJV),

or in other words, "Thou hast been Full of Wrath with Thine Annointed" (as in many other translations).

That one reason to abandon 'Penal Substitutionary Atonement', anything that strikes at an 'Atonement', all of the Doctrines of Grace, and all those Doctrines associated with The Eternal Covenant of Grace, as well as;
16. The Original State and Fall of Man, rendering Mankind lost in Total Depravity, where "GOD Saw that the wickedness of man was great in the Earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only Evil continually", since their beginning in Genesis,
17. The Doctrine of Sin, as described previously,
18. Human Responsibility, as helpless lawbreakers,
19. The Free Agency of Man, where their 'soul Liberty' is bound by man's Nature,
20. The Doctrine of Election, as being Unconditional,
21. The Doctrine of the Atonement, in any resemblance of Bible Teaching,
22. The Outward and Inward Calls, as General and Ineffective vs Specific and Effective
23. The New Birth, in that a lost soul must be Born from Above, 24. The Doctrine of Conversion, where the same Power that Raised Jesus from the Dead was Required to bring a lost soul from Blindness and Darkness to the Light of Jesus as The Savior,
25. Repentance and Faith, as Twin Doctrine, both Granted by God as Gifts from God,
26. The Doctrine of Justification, where Jesus did not die for the Justification of lost people who go to Hell, etc.,
27. The Doctrine of Sanctification,
28. The Three Tenses of Salvation,
29. The Perseverance and Preservation of the Saved, etc., etc., etc.

And what could be a reason to give up the Plain Written and Revealed Teachings of God in the Bible, wholesale, with utterly reckless abandon?

Answer: A want.
Someone wanting to tell an 8-word savage lie is all it amounts to.

"I want to tell lost people,
'Jesus died to make Salvation possible for anyone", or "everyone", the way the version quoted chooses to lie about it.

That's it.

As monstrous a lie as that is, and the Eternally Fatal Errors that go along with it, the warped idea of thinking that dispelling of Christianity to adopt Paganism is anything but an unmitigated catastrophe isn't going to go without severe censure from our Sovereign Creator God.

It was fitting for Him, in bringing many sons to glory, to perfect the originator of their salvation through sufferings. Both He who sanctifies and those who are sanctified are all from one Father; for this reason He is not ashamed to call them brothers , saying, “I will proclaim Your name to My brothers, in the midst of the assembly I will sing Your praise.” ;“I will put My trust in Him.” ;“Behold, I and the children whom God has given Me.”

Notice who it is that God says Jesus Sanctified Himself for and was Made Perfect through His Sufferings for, in that verse, and also when compared with;

John17:16, 17, 19; "They are not of the World, even as I Am not of the World.

17; "Sanctify them through Thy Truth: Thy Word is Truth..",

19; "And for their sakes I Sanctify Myself,
that they also might be Sanctified through the Truth."

'All' can be 'many', but 'many' can't be 'all' and restricts
the Teaching of the Atonement to exactly what the Bible says it does, when it says God would bring "many sons to Glory".

Hebrews goes into this further and indeed He makes propitiation for the sins of his people, by his own blood. And in that area I think you come face to face with the concept of penal substitution.

True. Unless it's a misconceived or hijacked 'Penal Substitution',
like those below.

Hebrews goes into this further and indeed He makes propitiation for the sins of his people, by his own blood.

Right. The wages of sin is death. Why will we die? We're sinners.

Why did Jesus die? Jesus bore the punishment due for the guilt of all the sins of all of His people.

Penal Substitution Theory does not just believe that Jesus bore our sins, that God laid our iniquities on Him. It holds that God transferred our sins from us and put them on Him.

I'm sorry if there are some individuals or a large number of people who have rushed to judgment and taken this stance without proper consideration.

If we escape the wrath to come then that wrath is propitiated. This does not mean wrath experienced.

It does for the Propitiator.

 

[JonC]

I can see one reason why anyone would choose to deny "the faith once delivered to the saints", by attempting to substitute something else in the place of Psalm 89:38;

"But Thou hast Cast Off and Abhorred,
Thou hast been Wroth with Thine Anointed" (KJV),

or in other words, "Thou hast been Full of Wrath with Thine Annointed" (as in many other translations).

That one reason to abandon 'Penal Substitutionary Atonement', anything that strikes at an 'Atonement', all of the Doctrines of Grace, and all those Doctrines associated with The Eternal Covenant of Grace, as well as;
16. The Original State and Fall of Man, rendering Mankind lost in Total Depravity, where "GOD Saw that the wickedness of man was great in the Earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only Evil continually", since their beginning in Genesis,
17. The Doctrine of Sin, as described previously,
18. Human Responsibility, as helpless lawbreakers,
19. The Free Agency of Man, where their 'soul Liberty' is bound by man's Nature,
20. The Doctrine of Election, as being Unconditional,
21. The Doctrine of the Atonement, in any resemblance of Bible Teaching,
22. The Outward and Inward Calls, as General and Ineffective vs Specific and Effective
23. The New Birth, in that a lost soul must be Born from Above, 24. The Doctrine of Conversion, where the same Power that Raised Jesus from the Dead was Required to bring a lost soul from Blindness and Darkness to the Light of Jesus as The Savior,
25. Repentance and Faith, as Twin Doctrine, both Granted by God as Gifts from God,
26. The Doctrine of Justification, where Jesus did not die for the Justification of lost people who go to Hell, etc.,
27. The Doctrine of Sanctification,
28. The Three Tenses of Salvation,
29. The Perseverance and Preservation of the Saved, etc., etc., etc.

And what could be a reason to give up the Plain Written and Revealed Teachings of God in the Bible, wholesale, with utterly reckless abandon?

Answer: A want.
Someone wanting to tell an 8-word savage lie is all it amounts to.

"I want to tell lost people,
'Jesus died to make Salvation possible for anyone", or "everyone", the way the version quoted chooses to lie about it.

That's it.

As monstrous a lie as that is, and the Eternally Fatal Errors that go along with it, the warped idea of thinking that dispelling of Christianity to adopt Paganism is anything but an unmitigated catastrophe isn't going to go without severe censure from our Sovereign Creator God.



Notice who it is that God says Jesus Sanctified Himself for and was Made Perfect through His Sufferings for, in that verse, and also when compared with;

John17:16, 17, 19; "They are not of the World, even as I Am not of the World.

17; "Sanctify them through Thy Truth: Thy Word is Truth..",

19; "And for their sakes I Sanctify Myself,
that they also might be Sanctified through the Truth."

'All' can be 'many', but 'many' can't be 'all' and restricts
the Teaching of the Atonement to exactly what the Bible says it does, when it says God would bring "many sons to Glory".


True. Unless it's a misconceived or hijacked 'Penal Substitution',
like those below.


Right. The wages of sin is death. Why will we die? We're sinners.

Why did Jesus die? Jesus bore the punishment due for the guilt of all the sins of all of His people.


I'm sorry if there are some individuals or a large number of people who have rushed to judgment and taken this stance without proper consideration.


It does for the Propitiator.

I can see several reasons men deny the "faith once delivered". They simply cannot reconcile "what is written" with their own understanding

That is why nobody hete can find an error in what I have posted with Scripture as the standard. They can only say "but we follow men who tell us the Bible really teaches....". abd post tgeir writings.

I do not follow those men.

As far as Penal Substitution Theory goes, I do not believe divine sovereignty follows Legal Humanism. I do not even bieve that philosophy is just. Roman Law divorced from Roman government simply falls flat.


You do mention a good point. Either God's wrath is propitiated or Jesus suffered that wrath. The propitiation is by definition not a substitute. It propitiates.

You also bring up a good point with how Penal Substitution theorists misuse God's Word. You are right, they will quote parts of passages like Psalm 89 but ignore important pasts before (like the reason God's wrath was against the nation of Israel).

They have chosen to abandon the faith once delivered. And it is sad.

 

[DaveXR650]

This, @DaveXR650 , is what I was talking about.

Penal Substitution theorists want to be in agreement with other positions. They use multi-faceted diamond as an example. BUT they have to redefine other positions in order to agree with them.

Take Christus Victor that @Martin Marprelate brought up. He redefines the position to simply mean that Christ achieved victory (as opposed to loosing against Satan).

@JonC
I can't speak for anyone else but you are correct in my case because I so greatly respect the early church fathers that I am really reluctant to fault them and yes, I read them with extreme prejudice in that I am constantly trying to find common ground wherever possible. But I do find that not only, as a young friend of mine once said who was studying them for the first time and remarked "they look rather Catholic", but their theology is all over the place on a lot of issues. So in my case, and I only speak for myself, I will go out of my way to find common ground simply because I respect them so much.

As for Christus Victor, I don't find the same explanations everywhere. Maybe it is because the later version of it from the 1930's is modified from that of the early church fathers. This seems to be the case as even with PSA as I know of Calvinists who will say that Christ's death was sufficient to cover the sins of all people yet others will say no, each sin of each elect person was atoned for and no more. In addition to that, within the realm of penal substitution there is a range of understanding on exactly how this works in other aspects too. This should not surprise us. People writing on these things hundreds of years away from each other, without either party knowing the background or context of the person writing, and with the fact always in mind that though the attempts to explain these things may be honest - they are not inspired or infallible, it is a miracle that the arguments are as coherent as they are.

But relating to our discussions here I must say that I am a lot more comfortable with early church writers who didn't seem to get to discussions in detail as to how God saves us because they had other pressing issues and many had limited access to scripture - as opposed to you who actually refute penal substitution after having access to good explanations of it. In those cases, right or wrong, I look at other writings of those folks and if I find suspect theology in other areas I use that to understand where they are coming from and what they are really trying to do. And in many cases what I find is what I feared - that in reality they are liberal in theology and attempting to erode people's trust in their beliefs and help them deconstruct their system of belief.

And this is why I constantly press you to find out who you are reading. I do not accept your private interpretations of scripture as having much authority and so I ask for references even though that is ridiculed by some on this site. That does not mean I don't value your opinions but I value them only as opinions.

 

[JonC]

@JonC
I can't speak for anyone else but you are correct in my case because I so greatly respect the early church fathers that I am really reluctant to fault them and yes, I read them with extreme prejudice in that I am constantly trying to find common ground wherever possible. But I do find that not only, as a young friend of mine once said who was studying them for the first time and remarked "they look rather Catholic", but their theology is all over the place on a lot of issues. So in my case, and I only speak for myself, I will go out of my way to find common ground simply because I respect them so much.

As for Christus Victor, I don't find the same explanations everywhere. Maybe it is because the later version of it from the 1930's is modified from that of the early church fathers. This seems to be the case as even with PSA as I know of Calvinists who will say that Christ's death was sufficient to cover the sins of all people yet others will say no, each sin of each elect person was atoned for and no more. In addition to that, within the realm of penal substitution there is a range of understanding on exactly how this works in other aspects too. This should not surprise us. People writing on these things hundreds of years away from each other, without either party knowing the background or context of the person writing, and with the fact always in mind that though the attempts to explain these things may be honest - they are not inspired or infallible, it is a miracle that the arguments are as coherent as they are.

But relating to our discussions here I must say that I am a lot more comfortable with early church writers who didn't seem to get to discussions in detail as to how God saves us because they had other pressing issues and many had limited access to scripture - as opposed to you who actually refute penal substitution after having access to good explanations of it. In those cases, right or wrong, I look at other writings of those folks and if I find suspect theology in other areas I use that to understand where they are coming from and what they are really trying to do. And in many cases what I find is what I feared - that in reality they are liberal in theology and attempting to erode people's trust in their beliefs and help them deconstruct their system of belief.

And this is why I constantly press you to find out who you are reading. I do not accept your private interpretations of scripture as having much authority and so I ask for references even though that is ridiculed by some on this site. That does not mean I don't value your opinions but I value them only as opinions.

Ahhhh.... I get your question now. I thought you were asking what I have been reading recently or where I got my understanding.

Sorry for misunderstanding you.

Ok...you asked so I will tell you (the whole story).

Background - I graduated from college with a BS in religion (Christianity, a SBC affiliated university). For grad school I went to seminary and studied theology (for my masters). Afterwards I taught theology in several churches, taught adults studies, and preached. I partnered with a seminary at one church (we were both Calvinists).

Event - I was asked to preach at a SBC church on the Atonement. My sermon was about the Cross, about Jesus suffering the punishment for our sins in our place. It went well. Monday morning I woke up with a convincing tion - out if the blue, mind you - that I had taught and been teaching a theory rather than God's Word (leaning on my understanding rather than every word that comes forth from God).

What I did - I bought dry erase boards and put them in my office. I wrote down the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement and over the next few days the passages that corresponded with the theory. Then I erased every passage that did not state that theory (that could only be held if specific assumptions were made). I was left with the Theory and no passages.

The crisis - I am a biblicist. I believe that we have to test doctrine using God's Word as a standard. I had to make a choice between God's Word and Penal Substitution Theory (which included Calvinism as if the theory is wrong Calvinism does not stand). It was not a difficult decision to abandon the theory.

The difficulty- The hard part was trying to read Scripture without reading in to Scripture. I knew the theory was wrong, but I was kinda adrift as there was not an understanding I could automatically plug in (O could go to another "camp" and see what their theologians said So over the next year I read the Bible as a narrative catching myself every time I would read what was not there.

The conclusion - As I read the Bible without assuming the theory correct I came to realize it made perfect sense as written. But I do not believe we are to simply trust our understanding. A new belief is typically a wrong belief. I was more comfortable with my belief because it was God's words (Jesus woukd make me stand even if there were mistakes). But I needed to see if my belief was in isolation.

Testing Time - I am not new to the faith or Christian history. I knew that the Early Church held a view of the Atonement that stood in opposition to Penal Substitution Theory. They used the same phrases because they had the same Scripture. I, along with most Calvinists back then, assumed that the Early Christians simoly had not worked out the truth. They were the persecuted church for part of their existence.

But I thought, what if the Early Church was right? I read the writings of the Early Church, again without assuming Penal Substitution Theory, and found that I agreed with their belief of the Cross. So my belief passed the test of Scripture and was not in isolation.

Other writings- I knew that Anabaptist theologians a couple of centuries ago (and during the Reformation) held my view. I knew some contemporary Anabaptist sects held my view. But I have not read their works.

I was curious about the reason Calvin thought that rhe Atonement was centered on justice (Aquinas first suggested this, but Calvin was not the biggest Aquinas fan). I knew Calvin developed his theory by working off of Anselm (I had read Calvin's Institutes walking through his theory when I was a Calvinist). What I read was Calvin's commentaries about justice before he became a Reformer.

I realized that Calvin simply understood divine justice through the philosophy he had adopted as a law student. That philosophy later failed in France because it was unjust. But it lived on in Calvin's theory.

Now- All of that was quite awhile back. It took me awhile to get over having taught Penal Substitution Theory as if it were anything but a theory, as if it were actually in God's Word. It still bothers me as I coukd have introduced others to this error, but it has also strengthened my faith. I know that I was at the point if being carried away from the faith by Calvinism and God drew me back to His Word. When I see oeople who are Calvinists like I was I try to point them to God's Word. BUT I know I coukd not have convinced myself. It takes God. When I see people who are where I was headed I believe they have been carried away from the faith (which would mean they were necer really one of us to begin with).


I hope that answers your questions.