THe Biblical Place for Penal Substitution

[DaveXR650]

How could somebody hold PSA and Christis Victor when Christus Victor holds that Christ suffered and died solely under the power of Satan, under Satan's wrath against humanity, with those involved in the crucifixion doing so under his influence?

This is what I posted earlier.

This work of God, with respect unto him is expressed in the scriptures two ways: -- First, it is called the spoiling of him, and unto his power and prey that he had taken. The "strong man armed" was to be bound, and his goods spoiled. The Lord Christ, by his death "destroyed him that had the power of death, that is, the devil." He "led captivity captive, "spoiling principalities and powers, triumphing over them in his cross. So Abraham when he smote the kings, .... and so on. Later he added, "For this cause was the Son of God manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil."

This is indeed Christus Victor. It is what Luther liked to talk about which you had not trouble then attributing to Luther, I guess because at least it didn't sound like PSA.

You hold PSA. Do you also believe that Christ's suffering and death was the culmination of Satan's power, that God allowed this to occur because it was His plan to vindicate Christ?

God used evil men, driven by Satan's influence to actually do the crucifixion and death of Christ. What I am saying is that like Owen did, I can understand the aspects of this being a cosmic battle that Christ won - using the language of Christ as Victor, and then do like advocates of PSA do when they ask - what power did Satan have over us anyway. Then you get into the question of our own sins, Adams' original sin, our coming under Satan's dominion, and so on. And so you have two aspects of this. One would be a cosmic battle which the ECF's were aware of. Another would be a recapitulation, which in the sense of reversing some of what happened at the Fall, is also true; and, you have the sense of our own individual sin, which we begin to understand as a barrier between us and God.

It's the problem of our own individual sin that I think is not fully explained by anything other than PSA. The ECF's in my opinion, were devoted to Christ without question, and anyone who reads them immediately gets the feeling they had a level of oppression and persecution to deal with that we can't imagine - so I think the emphasis was naturally on those following Christ yet who were likely to not be long on this earth. Look in Romans chapter 3 where Paul is laying out our sin problem and our dangerous standing before a holy God. He complains that people in general have no fear of God and enter into debauchery without any worries. He explains in detail our problem with sin, that we are all involved in this sin at some level and we are under God's wrath. The atoning work of Christ is presented here, to those who will either take this as warning and remedy, or those who are already worried that they have no remedy - and tells them of Christs propitiation and substitution for their sin.

The different situations required different ministrations. It would not have been appropriate to preach sinners as a loathsome spider hanging by a thread over an everlasting fire to huddled believers who were probably were going to be martyred and had already lost everything else. But that message is indeed appropriate for those who sin fearlessly, or for those who have already been enlightened as to their sinful condition - yet don't know the remedy.

I was just trying to point out that the Puritan Calvinists that I read at least, seem to have a complete understanding of all these aspects of the atonement and I actually posted what Owen said. He, whether you like it or not, did indeed use other aspects of the atonement. I don't know or care what specific "theories" he subscribed to or whether you accept them as sufficiently defined.

 

[DaveXR650]

I agree. I am unaware of any serious Christian movement that presents God as simply forgiving.

When I say that God forgives sins as opposed to punishing them on Christ - that God can and does actually forgive sins - I was not advocating for simple forgiveness.

In fact, PSA holds something much closer to simple forgiveness than other views.

PSA holds that we are forgiven because Jesus paid our debt of sin in full.

This post is so self contradictory and all over the place that I wouldn't know how to answer. I thought all along it was your main argument that God could indeed outright forgive our sins if he wanted to. If I've missed that I apologize and obviously am not up to conversing with you.

In fact, I insisted very strongly that it is His blood that clesnses us from all iniquity.

There you go. That's close enough for me. I'll leave it to you to take that and then oppose penal substitution.

 

[Ascetic X]

The ECF's in my opinion, were devoted to Christ without question, and anyone who reads them immediately gets the feeling they had a level of oppression and persecution to deal with that we can't imagine - so I think the emphasis was naturally on those following Christ yet who were likely to not be long on this earth. Look in Romans chapter 3 where Paul is laying out our sin problem and our dangerous standing before a holy God. He complains that people in general have no fear of God and enter into debauchery without any worries. He explains in detail our problem with sin, that we are all involved in this sin at some level and we are under God's wrath. The atoning work of Christ is presented here, to those who will either take this as warning and remedy, or those who are already worried that they have no remedy - and tells them of Christs propitiation and substitution for their sin.

The different situations required different ministrations. It would not have been appropriate to preach sinners as a loathsome spider hanging by a thread over an everlasting fire to huddled believers who were probably were going to be martyred and had already lost everything else. But that message is indeed appropriate for those who sin fearlessly, or for those who have already been enlightened as to their sinful condition - yet don't know the remedy.

I do not think that bending the gospel message differently to martyrs makes much sense.

Whether you lost everything and face severe persecution and execution, or you live in a wealthy gated community among fellow believers in a country that grants religious liberty, the message is the same.

All sinners, prior to becoming believers, are loathsome spiders hanging by a slender thread over an everlasting fire. Facing a happy future or a dismal martyrdom does not factor into the grim reality of the sinner’s plight.

However the gospel is good news that negates the bad reality — God so loved the world, Jesus died for everyone, so everyone has the chance to repent and to accept the free gift of eternal life by believing in His sacrifice on the cross in their stead.

 

[JonC]

This is indeed Christus Victor. It is what Luther liked to talk about which you had not trouble then attributing to Luther,....

I already said that Luther held Satisfaction Substitution Atonement (Aquinas) with a lot of Christus Victor elements.

BUT what you provided is not Christus Victor itself.

When I said that I believe "Jesus died for our dins, our sins were laid on Him, by Hus stripes we are healed" do you remember what you said?

You said "that is PSA". Problem is, that is NOT PSA. That is truths that every Christian accepts.

You believe that Jesus is our Substitute and died for us. He is that bridge between us and God. I could then say - by your own method - that you hold Anselm's Substitution Atonement. BUT you do not hold his Substitution Atonement (you do not believe that the problem of sin is that man robs God of His honor).

While Luther obviously did not hold PSA (he held - by his own words - Satisfactory Substitution Atonenent - he did not hold Christus Victor.

That does not mean that Luther (and Owen) rejected parts of Christus Victor they agreed with.

I do not reject parts of PSA I agree with, but that does not mean I hold PSA.

Their mentality is as we all should be - eat the meat and spit out the bones. Each of these positions is a whole doctrine. A fish is its meat AND bones.

PSA is the things I agree with AND disagree with.

Christus Victor is the things Owen and Luther agreed with AND disagreed with.

Sometimes the part we agree with is simply the focus (that is how I am with Recapitulation). I agree with what it says BUT not the focus it, as a doctrine, demands.

 

[JonC]

I thought all along it was your main argument that God could indeed outright forgive our sins if he wanted to. If I've missed that I apologize and obviously am not up to conversing with you.

Apology accepted.

This is far from the first time that you called my belief "simple forgiveness", or "God forgiving us just because He wants to".

And this is far from the first time I have corrected that misunderstanding.

What I said was "forgiveness" is an act of the forgiver, not the one benefitting from that forgiveness. But that one does benefit.

It is impossible for God to forgive sins on the basis that that sin is punished.

So I fid say that PSA holds it is impossible for God to forgive because their judicisl philosophy will not allow it. The best PSA theorists can do is have God punish those sins on Christ instead of us so that we escape that punishment. But that is NOT forgiveness.

Simple forgiveness would be man just apologizing and God forgiving him. Or maybe not even apologizing...God just forgiving. No need for Jesus to have sacrificed Himself, no need for the blood shed for us. That is simple forgiveness.

You confused "actual forgiveness" (which I believe) with "simple simple" (which I never once mentioned).

 

[JonC]

In fact, I insisted very strongly that it is His blood that clesnses us from all iniquity.

That's close enough for me. I'll leave it to you to take that and then oppose penal substitution.

Sure.

I believe that Christ's blood cleanses us from all unrighteousness. This is consistent with the OT sacrifice - the killing of the animal was not what was viewed as covering sin. The animal was killed outside. It was the blood taken in the Temple (or Tabernacle) and sprinkled on the alter that focused on forgiveness.

Likewise, at Passover it was not the lamb slain but the blood applied to the door posts that delivered the Isralites from death.

PSA, however, takes this as a legal transaction with Jesus suffering the punishment for our sins in order to pay a type of sin debt. That misses the entire point of the Atonement

The Cross was not God punishing Jesus but a reconciliation between God and mankind. Forgiveness was not accomplished by God pouring His wrath on Jesus instead of us but instead it is what follows (to use the OT sacrifice imagery) death - the blood, the Life.

 

[JonC]

Sorry ...time to close (way too long).

Please feel free to start another.

I will probably sit it out. It will be the same old thing.

And my appeals for leaning on God's words were dismissed anyway so I probably should sit it out.