Did Jesus die as payment we owe?

JonC said:

Traditional Christianity did not hold that Christ's death was a payment. Ransom Theory (one form of it anyway) held that Christ's death was a ransom but not a payment

Click to expand...

JonC said:

Augustine viewed Christ's death as a ransom but definitely not a payment (he viewed His death as an exchange).

Click to expand...

Of course, in these two instances alone, without mentioning the others, you would need to take the illogical position that a random paid is paid in someway other than a payment, for a random to be somehow different than a payment.

You got me.

When Jesus brought deity into union with humanity in the incarnation, deity was voluntary and gratuitously made subject to the law of God for man.

This was as truly vicarious and substitutionary as His death on the cross.

And it was needed to make us positively righteous.

It is not enough that we be pardoned, forgiven.

That would, of itself, exempt us from Hell; but it would not entitle us to Heaven.

To be entitled to Heaven, we must have the positive and perfect merit of Jesus Christ.

Heb. 10:14;
"For by one offering he hath perfected forever them that are sanctified..."

JonC said:

Sorry. I thought we were talking about the Bible. I completely agree with the passages you post here, but I do not believe that Jesus died as a payment we owed.

Click to expand...

False views deny that sin involves us in objective guilt that requires expiation.
The following Scriptures teach that it does: John 3:36; Rom. 1:18; 2:5,6, 3:19; 6:23; Gal. 3:10; Eph. 5:5,6; Col. 3:5,6; Rev. 20:13.

JonC said:

If Jesus' death was a debt payment then God paid Satan.

Click to expand...

We read: "God sent forth his son to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons" (Gal. 4:4, 5).

It is on the basis of this redemption that we are justified.

Adoption is the climax of justification.

Christ took our place; therefore, when we believe on Him, we take His place as a son.

It is thus that we receive the right to become sons.

Adoption is in order that we may be legal "heirs of God and joint heirs with Jesus Christ" (Rom. 8:17), and that we may have a legal right to the inheritance "incorruptible and undefiled, and fadeth not away, reserved in heaven" for us (1 Pet. 1:4).

When we were justified we were already children of the Devil.

We could not be unborn as such.

Hence we had to be transferred from the Devil's family to God's family by adoption.

We became sons experientially by regeneration; but legally by adoption. Regeneration and adoption are not the same.

"But God who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us . . . hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus" (Eph. 2:4,6).

"But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us" (Rom. 5:8).

But God could not consistently ground our salvation on His love, because love of itself could not consistently overlook our sinfulness.

The justice of God, arising from His holiness, had to be satisfied.

Thus it was necessary that love provide a righteous basis for our salvation.

Rom. 3:25,26 tells in beautiful and striking language how that basis was provided.

Out of love, God sent Christ to die that He might save sinners and remain just.

Christ was a "propitiation."

A propitiation is that which propitiates.

To propitiate is to appease, conciliate.

A beautiful picture of the appeasement and conciliation that takes place in justification is given us in Psa. 85:10- "Mercy and truth are met together; righteousness and peace have kissed each other."

What is the ground of this reconciliation?

The mere love, mercy, or grace of God?

Nay. These must find a ground, a righteous basis, before they can become effective in man's pardon; otherwise mercy would violate truth and the righteousness of God would be set aside.

The ground of this reconciliation is the propitiation or atonement made by Jesus Christ.

The only people who will take issue with this statement are those who deny that Christ rendered a proper, real, full, exact, and absolute satisfaction to retributive justice by suffering in full the penalty of the law that believing sinners deserve to suffer in Hell for their sins.

All of the false views deny that there is in the nature of God any hindrance whatsoever to the pardoning of sinners. The hindrance is supposed to be all on the sinner's part. Christ's suffering was in no sense a satisfaction of any subjective principle in the divine nature.

Thus these views logically deny the holiness and justice of God.

They picture God as being love only.

Retributive wrath against sin is no element of divine nature.

That these views are false in respect to the view of divine nature furnished by them is evident from Rom. 3:25,26.

We are told here that God set forth Jesus Christ not simply as a scenic exhibition of His hatred against sin to serve the exigencies of His government;

nor as an exemplar of unselfish devotion to duty;

nor as a mere manifestation of love through the suffering of the creator with the creature;

nor yet as the means of the subjective purification of human nature;

but as a covering for sin (through expiation) that His justice might not be impugned in the justification of sinful men.

"The Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many" (Matt. 20:28).

"But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who was made unto us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption" (1 Cor. 1:30).

"Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us" (Gal. 3:13).

"God sent forth his Son . . . that he might redeem them that were under the law" (Gal. 4:4,5).

" . . . in whom we have redemption through his blood the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace" (Eph. 1:7).

". . .who gave himself a ransom for all" (1 Tim. 2:6).

". . .who gave himself for us that he might redeem us from all iniquity" (Titus 2:14).

". . . through his own blood, entered in once for all into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption" (Heb. 9:12).

"Ye were redeemed . . . with precious blood . . . even the blood of Christ" (I Pet. 1:18,19).

". . . thou wast slain, and didst redeem unto God with thy blood, men of every tribe, and tongue, and people, and nation" (Rev. 5:9).

In the passages above in which "redeem" or one of its cognates appears we have four Greek words or their cognates: "agorazo," meaning "to acquire at the forum;"

"exagorazo" to acquire out of the forum;"

"lutroo," "to loose by a price;"

and "apolutrosis," "a loosing away."

The Greek words in the passages where "ransom" appears are respectively "lutron," "a price," and "antilutron," "a corresponding price."

The plain meaning of these passages, in the light of the rest of the New Testament, especially Rom. 3:25,26, is that the death of Christ was the price of our deliverance from sin's penalty.

See further Rom. 8: 1,33,34; 10:4. Gal. 3:13 describes exactly how we are redeemed when it tells us that we are redeemed from the curse of the law through Christ who became a curse for us.

He bore the curse we deserve.

He paid the penalty we owed.

For that reason, we go free.

Note that "ransom" in 1 Tim. 2:6 means "a corresponding price."

This means that the price paid by Christ corresponded to the debt we owed.

In other words, Christ suffered the exact equivalent of that which those for whom He died would have suffered in Hell.

If the justice of God demanded that Christ die in order that God might justify sinners, the same justice demanded that He pay the full penalty owed by the sinners.

Justice can forego all the penalty as easily as it can forego the least part of it.

JonC said:

Justin Martyr viewed Christ's death as a type of solidarity with the "human family", but not a payment.

Irenaeus viewed Christ's death as recapturing what was lost in humanity, but not a payment.

Athanasius viewed Christ's death as a reconciliation (of man and God) but not a payment.

I mention those few, but there are many more.

Click to expand...

JonC said:

Scripture is much more important than 16th Century ideas about the Cross.

Click to expand...

Is there a concept of payment in these?

Was Christ's Life and blood a payment?

The price of Christ’s blood to procure salvation?
and buy back sinners who were sold in sin?

Is an offering or sacrifice a payment?

Salvation is said to be a 'commercial-type exchange' of the Sinless Son of God's Life and blood as PAYMENT to purchase sinners back out of the sin market.

See if any of these expressions in bold blue and those underlined
are reminiscent of a PAYMENT being made,
in exchange for a PURCHASED POSSESSION.

Clemens Romanus. A.D. 69 said, "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..."

Barnabas. A.D. 70 said, "that the Son of God being Lord, and who also shall judge the quick and the dead, epathen ina e plege autou zoopoiete emas, suffered that by his stripes he might quicken us;" that he could not suffer ei me dis emas, "but for us;" and that he offered the vessels of the Spirit a sacrifice, uper ton emereron amartion, "for our sins,"but also introduces Christ thus speaking of his sufferings, "I see that I shall thus offer my flesh, uper amartion tou laou tou kainou, for the sins of the new people; meaning a special and peculiar people that should be taken out from among the Gentiles under the New Testament."

Ignatius. A.D. 110 "never makes use of any general expressions when he speaks of the sufferings and death of Christ; but either says, that he suffered, uper emo, di emas, "for us, that we might be saved;" or uper amartion emon, "for our sins;"

Justin Martyr. A.D. 150, calls it "to procure salvation" and in many places of his writings, limits an incarnation, sufferings, death, and sacrifice of Christ, and redemption by him, to certain persons whom he describes by repenting sinners, believers, etc. when he says, 15 that Christ "was born according to the will of God the Father uper ton pisteuonton anthropon, for men that believe;" that is, in order to procure salvation, and obtain eternal redemption for such persons, as he elsewhere explains it;

"having cited Isaiah 33:16, Bread shall be given him; he observes, "that is a prophecy concerning that bread which our Christ hath delivered to us in commemoration of his being embodied; dia tous pisteuontas eis auton, dious kai, pathetos gegone, for the sake of them that believe in him, for whom also he became subject to sufferings." And elsewhere he says, that "the offering of fine flour for the leper, was a figure of the bread of the Eucharist, which Jesus Christ our Lord hath delivered unto us to do in commemoration of his sufferings; which he endured uper ton kathairomenon tas psuchas ape pases ponerias anthropon, for those men whose souls are purified from all iniquity;"

"and this he supposed was done by the blood of Christ; for more than once explaining that text in Genesis 49:11, He washed his garments in wine, and his clothes in the blood of grapes; he says, it "foretold, and manifestly declared the sufferings which Christ should endure, di animatos kathairon tous pisteuontas auto, purifying by his blood them that believe in him." These, he often intimates, share the benefits of, Christ’s blood, sufferings, and death; "as," says he, "the blood of the passover saved them that were in Egypt, so the blood of Christ tous pisteuontas rusetai ek thanatou, delivers from death those that believe."

"In like manner, he asserts, that Christ was an offering or sacrifice, uper panton metanoein boulomenon amartolon, "for all sinners that are willing to repent."

Ecclesia Smyrnensis. A.D. 169 said, "these words manifestly show, in what sense this very ancient church understood those universal phrases, the world, the whole world, and all men, in Scripture, for whom Christ is said to give himself and die, and for whose sins he is said to be a propitiation;"

Irenaeus. A.D. 180 when Christ came he acknowledged no other but him, who was declared from the beginning. He adds, 34 a quo libertatem detulit his qui legitime et prono animo, et toto corde deserviunt ei, "from whom he brought deliverance to them who serve him truly, with a ready mind, and with all their hearts;"

"Wherefore, he (Christ,) is introduced in the gospel weary, who was weary for us, and promising to give his life a ransom, and polton, in the room of many."

Tertullian. A.D. 200. Tertullian is a writer, it must be owned, who expresses himself in somewhat general terms, when he speaks of the incarnation, death and sacrifice of Christ, which are yet capable of being understood in a sense agreeable to the doctrine of particular redemption; as when he says, 42 that "we who believe that God was here on earth, and took upon him the humility of a human habit, ex causa humanae salutis, ‘for the sake of man’s salvation,’ are far from their opinion, who think that God takes no care of anything;"

"You are also to be pitied, with the people, who do not acknowledge Christ, figured in the person of Moses, the advocate with the Father, and the offerer up of his own soul, pro populi salute, ‘for the salvation of the people;’" by which people may very well be understood, the special and peculiar people of God’s elect, of whom the people of Israel was a type and figure.

Again he observes, that the apostle says, that we are reconciled in his body through death; on which he thus descants: "Yea, in that body in which he could die through the flesh, he died, not through the church, plane propter ecclesiam, but verily for the church, by changing body for body, and that which is fleshly for that which is spiritual."

Two testimonies from Hippolitus, bishop of Portua, a disciple of Clement of Alexandria, and a martyr, who is said to flourish about, A.D. 220, are next cited at second hand; the first of which is, that "the God of the universe became man for this purpose; that by suffering in passible (capable of suffering; Ed). flesh, our whole kind, which was sold unto death, might be redeemed;" that is, from death, a corporal death; the general resurrection from the dead being thought to be the fruit of Christ’s sufferings and death. The other is, that "the Son of God, through flesh, naturally weak of himself, wrought out the salvation of the whole;" which may be understood of the salvation of... every one of his people, his sheep, his children, and his chosen,

con't

Origines Alexandrinus. A.D. 230 expressly affirms, that the sufferings and death of Christ are of no use and service to some persons; and that the fruit and effect of them only belong to others, whom he describes; his words are these: "The sufferings of Christ, indeed, confer life on them that believe, but death on them that believe not: for though the Gentiles have salvation and justification by his cross, yet is it destruction and condemnation to the Jews;

Though he sometimes speaks of Christ’s procuring salvation, redemption, and remission of sin, for all men, for the whole world: yet from other passages of his it appears, that he is to be understood of the sufficiency of
the price of Christ’s blood
to procure these things for all men, which is not denied...

Moreover the Bridegroom answers her, and after his words, dum ille pro ejus patitur salute, ‘while he suffers for her salvation,’ the companions answer, until the bridegroom is in bed, and rises from suffering, they will make some ornaments for the bride." And in the same work on these words, Arise, fair one, he thus comments; "Why does he say, arise? Why hasten? I have sustained for thee the rage of tempests; I have received the floods which were due to thee; my soul is made sorrowful unto death for thee."

And in another place, "because he (Christ) took upon him the sins tou laou ton pisteuonton els auton, ‘of the people of those that believe in him,’ he often says, what he does in Psalm 22:1, and 64:5." And elsewhere, speaking of Christ, he says, "This is the live goat sent into the wilderness; and this is the goat which is offered to the Lord a sacrifice to expiate sin; and he hath made a true propitiation in himself, credentibus populis, ‘for the believing people.’" Again, "The Son of God is come, and hath given himself a ransom; that is, he hath delivered himself for enemies, and for them that thirst he hath shed his blood; el haec est credentibus facta redemptio, "and this becomes redemption to them that believe." He interprets that text in Matthew 20:21, "And to give his life a ransom for many," thus, and pollon ton pisteusanton eis auton, "for the many that believed on him."

"To which may be added the following passage, "The true purification was not before, but in the Passover, when Jesus died uper ton agnizomenon, ‘for them that are purified,’ as the Lamb of God, and took away the sin of the world."

Cyprian. A.D. 250 "What can be a greater sin, or what a fouler spot, than to stand against Christ, than to scatter his church? quam ille sanguine suo praeparabit et condidit, ‘which he has prepared and obtained by his own blood?’"

And having in another place mentioned Ezekiel 9:4, where a mark is ordered to be set upon the foreheads of the men that sigh and cry for the abominations of Jerusalem, he makes this observation; "This sign belongs to the passion and blood of Christ; et quisquis in hoc signo invenitur, ‘and whosoever is found with this sign shall be preserved safe and whole?’" which is approved by the testimony of God, saying, And the blood shall be for a sign upon the houses where you are, etc. What preceded in type before the Lamb was slain, is fulfilled in Christ, the truth following after; as there Egypt being smitten, the Jewish people could not escape but by the blood and token of the Lamb; so when the world shall begin to be wasted and smitten, quisquis in sanguine et signo Christi inventus fuerit, solus evadet, "whosoever shall be found in the blood, and with the mark of Christ, shall only escape."

"This grace Christ imparts, this gift of his mercy he gives, by subduing death through the victory of the cross; redimendo credentem pretio sauguinis sui,
‘by redeeming the believer
with the price of his blood;’
by reconciling man to God the Father, and by quickening the dead with the heavenly regeneration."

etc., etc. through to
Hieronymus. A.D. 390.

Alan Gross said:

Jason, I have had a lot to say about this here recently and here are some thoughts from this post: Jesus Christ was a Penal Substitutionary Fidejussor, from Eternity Past.

There are many relevant Bible verses used, down through 3 posts, with many Bible words that God uses to express Jesus dying for our sins, that specifically says his death was payment in our place,

Click to expand...

I agree. JonC is confused.

JonC said:

I think we have to allow room for other views. Traditional Christianity did not hold that Christ's death was a payment. Ransom Theory (one form of it anyway) held that Christ's death was a ransom but not a payment.

Augustine viewed Christ's death as a ransom but definitely not a payment (he viewed His death as an exchange).

Justin Martyr viewed Christ's death as a type of solidarity with the "human family", but not a payment.

Irenaeus viewed Christ's death as recapturing what was lost in humanity, but not a payment.

Athanasius viewed Christ's death as a reconciliation (of man and God) but not a payment.

I mention those few, but there are many more.

The reason I mention them is not that it disproves Christ's death as a payment but it points to the silliness of assuming it is a logical conclusion.

The idea that Christ died as a payment is relatively new to the Christian faith. That does not mean it is wrong. But assuming the great "cloud of witnesses" that came before the Reformation were all illogical is a bit .... well.... illogical.


Is it possible that no Christian understood Christ's death before the 16th Century, that they got the Atonement wrong? Yes. It is possible. But it is not probable.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure what branch of Christianity you are part of that follows this view, but I have studied this in depth in theology classes and exegetical studies while preaching and don't have the time to pick apart your errors.

Alan Gross said:

Of course, in these two instances alone, without mentioning the others, you would need to take the illogical position that a random paid is paid in someway other than a payment, for a random to be somehow different than a payment.

You got me.

Click to expand...

Except Scripture does not say that Jesus paid a debt.

That is the entire issue here.

How is a ransom different from paying a debt? A ransom is not a debt.

Piper said:

I'm not sure what branch of Christianity you are part of that follows this view, but I have studied this in depth in theology classes and exegetical studies while preaching and don't have the time to pick apart your errors.

Click to expand...

I am a Baptist.

I read "don't have time" when discussing on a debate forum to mean "cannot but won't admit it". The reason is you took the time to post

I have also studied this in depth in theological classes and preaching. I cannot believe that you attended seminary but were never exposed to Church history and never studied theologies that oppose Penal Substitution Theory.

In fact, I would say it is impossible. No legitimate theology curriculum would skip over Atonement views prior to the Reformation.

I'm not saying they would teach those views as correct (mine didn't, and I held Penal Substitution through seminary and for years afterwards). But at least you would have had studied them.

So I am calling "foul" on this post.

Alan Gross said:

Is there a concept of payment in these?

Was Christ's Life and blood a payment?

The price of Christ’s blood to procure salvation?
and buy back sinners who were sold in sin?

Is an offering or sacrifice a payment?

Salvation is said to be a 'commercial-type exchange' of the Sinless Son of God's Life and blood as PAYMENT to purchase sinners back out of the sin market.

See if any of these expressions in bold blue and those underlined
are reminiscent of a PAYMENT being made,
in exchange for a PURCHASED POSSESSION.

Clemens Romanus. A.D. 69 said, "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..."

Barnabas. A.D. 70 said, "that the Son of God being Lord, and who also shall judge the quick and the dead, epathen ina e plege autou zoopoiete emas, suffered that by his stripes he might quicken us;" that he could not suffer ei me dis emas, "but for us;" and that he offered the vessels of the Spirit a sacrifice, uper ton emereron amartion, "for our sins,"but also introduces Christ thus speaking of his sufferings, "I see that I shall thus offer my flesh, uper amartion tou laou tou kainou, for the sins of the new people; meaning a special and peculiar people that should be taken out from among the Gentiles under the New Testament."

Ignatius. A.D. 110 "never makes use of any general expressions when he speaks of the sufferings and death of Christ; but either says, that he suffered, uper emo, di emas, "for us, that we might be saved;" or uper amartion emon, "for our sins;"

Justin Martyr. A.D. 150, calls it "to procure salvation" and in many places of his writings, limits an incarnation, sufferings, death, and sacrifice of Christ, and redemption by him, to certain persons whom he describes by repenting sinners, believers, etc. when he says, 15 that Christ "was born according to the will of God the Father uper ton pisteuonton anthropon, for men that believe;" that is, in order to procure salvation, and obtain eternal redemption for such persons, as he elsewhere explains it;

"having cited Isaiah 33:16, Bread shall be given him; he observes, "that is a prophecy concerning that bread which our Christ hath delivered to us in commemoration of his being embodied; dia tous pisteuontas eis auton, dious kai, pathetos gegone, for the sake of them that believe in him, for whom also he became subject to sufferings." And elsewhere he says, that "the offering of fine flour for the leper, was a figure of the bread of the Eucharist, which Jesus Christ our Lord hath delivered unto us to do in commemoration of his sufferings; which he endured uper ton kathairomenon tas psuchas ape pases ponerias anthropon, for those men whose souls are purified from all iniquity;"

"and this he supposed was done by the blood of Christ; for more than once explaining that text in Genesis 49:11, He washed his garments in wine, and his clothes in the blood of grapes; he says, it "foretold, and manifestly declared the sufferings which Christ should endure, di animatos kathairon tous pisteuontas auto, purifying by his blood them that believe in him." These, he often intimates, share the benefits of, Christ’s blood, sufferings, and death; "as," says he, "the blood of the passover saved them that were in Egypt, so the blood of Christ tous pisteuontas rusetai ek thanatou, delivers from death those that believe."

"In like manner, he asserts, that Christ was an offering or sacrifice, uper panton metanoein boulomenon amartolon, "for all sinners that are willing to repent."

Ecclesia Smyrnensis. A.D. 169 said, "these words manifestly show, in what sense this very ancient church understood those universal phrases, the world, the whole world, and all men, in Scripture, for whom Christ is said to give himself and die, and for whose sins he is said to be a propitiation;"

Irenaeus. A.D. 180 when Christ came he acknowledged no other but him, who was declared from the beginning. He adds, 34 a quo libertatem detulit his qui legitime et prono animo, et toto corde deserviunt ei, "from whom he brought deliverance to them who serve him truly, with a ready mind, and with all their hearts;"

"Wherefore, he (Christ,) is introduced in the gospel weary, who was weary for us, and promising to give his life a ransom, and polton, in the room of many."

Tertullian. A.D. 200. Tertullian is a writer, it must be owned, who expresses himself in somewhat general terms, when he speaks of the incarnation, death and sacrifice of Christ, which are yet capable of being understood in a sense agreeable to the doctrine of particular redemption; as when he says, 42 that "we who believe that God was here on earth, and took upon him the humility of a human habit, ex causa humanae salutis, ‘for the sake of man’s salvation,’ are far from their opinion, who think that God takes no care of anything;"

"You are also to be pitied, with the people, who do not acknowledge Christ, figured in the person of Moses, the advocate with the Father, and the offerer up of his own soul, pro populi salute, ‘for the salvation of the people;’" by which people may very well be understood, the special and peculiar people of God’s elect, of whom the people of Israel was a type and figure.

Again he observes, that the apostle says, that we are reconciled in his body through death; on which he thus descants: "Yea, in that body in which he could die through the flesh, he died, not through the church, plane propter ecclesiam, but verily for the church, by changing body for body, and that which is fleshly for that which is spiritual."

Two testimonies from Hippolitus, bishop of Portua, a disciple of Clement of Alexandria, and a martyr, who is said to flourish about, A.D. 220, are next cited at second hand; the first of which is, that "the God of the universe became man for this purpose; that by suffering in passible (capable of suffering; Ed). flesh, our whole kind, which was sold unto death, might be redeemed;" that is, from death, a corporal death; the general resurrection from the dead being thought to be the fruit of Christ’s sufferings and death. The other is, that "the Son of God, through flesh, naturally weak of himself, wrought out the salvation of the whole;" which may be understood of the salvation of... every one of his people, his sheep, his children, and his chosen,

con't

Click to expand...

There is a payment in the sense that we were bought with a price.

The idea is that Christ suffered and died to free us from the bondage of sin and death.

But this is not "paying a debt".

When we discuss the Atonement we have to be very careful to stick with Scripture and "what is written". There is a reason we are to test doctrine against the Bible.

There is a thread of Church doctrine that runs throughout history all the way to the Cross. Why dismiss how Christians viewed the Cross before the 16th Century? Our faith existed much longer.

Alan Gross said:

When Jesus brought deity into union with humanity in the incarnation, deity was voluntary and gratuitously made subject to the law of God for man.

This was as truly vicarious and substitutionary as His death on the cross.

And it was needed to make us positively righteous.

It is not enough that we be pardoned, forgiven.

That would, of itself, exempt us from Hell; but it would not entitle us to Heaven.

To be entitled to Heaven, we must have the positive and perfect merit of Jesus Christ.

Heb. 10:14;
"For by one offering he hath perfected forever them that are sanctified..."



False views deny that sin involves us in objective guilt that requires expiation.
The following Scriptures teach that it does: John 3:36; Rom. 1:18; 2:5,6, 3:19; 6:23; Gal. 3:10; Eph. 5:5,6; Col. 3:5,6; Rev. 20:13.



We read: "God sent forth his son to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons" (Gal. 4:4, 5).

It is on the basis of this redemption that we are justified.

Adoption is the climax of justification.

Christ took our place; therefore, when we believe on Him, we take His place as a son.

It is thus that we receive the right to become sons.

Adoption is in order that we may be legal "heirs of God and joint heirs with Jesus Christ" (Rom. 8:17), and that we may have a legal right to the inheritance "incorruptible and undefiled, and fadeth not away, reserved in heaven" for us (1 Pet. 1:4).

When we were justified we were already children of the Devil.

We could not be unborn as such.

Hence we had to be transferred from the Devil's family to God's family by adoption.

We became sons experientially by regeneration; but legally by adoption. Regeneration and adoption are not the same.

"But God who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us . . . hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus" (Eph. 2:4,6).

"But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us" (Rom. 5:8).

But God could not consistently ground our salvation on His love, because love of itself could not consistently overlook our sinfulness.

The justice of God, arising from His holiness, had to be satisfied.

Thus it was necessary that love provide a righteous basis for our salvation.

Rom. 3:25,26 tells in beautiful and striking language how that basis was provided.

Out of love, God sent Christ to die that He might save sinners and remain just.

Christ was a "propitiation."

A propitiation is that which propitiates.

To propitiate is to appease, conciliate.

A beautiful picture of the appeasement and conciliation that takes place in justification is given us in Psa. 85:10- "Mercy and truth are met together; righteousness and peace have kissed each other."

What is the ground of this reconciliation?

The mere love, mercy, or grace of God?

Nay. These must find a ground, a righteous basis, before they can become effective in man's pardon; otherwise mercy would violate truth and the righteousness of God would be set aside.

The ground of this reconciliation is the propitiation or atonement made by Jesus Christ.

The only people who will take issue with this statement are those who deny that Christ rendered a proper, real, full, exact, and absolute satisfaction to retributive justice by suffering in full the penalty of the law that believing sinners deserve to suffer in Hell for their sins.

All of the false views deny that there is in the nature of God any hindrance whatsoever to the pardoning of sinners. The hindrance is supposed to be all on the sinner's part. Christ's suffering was in no sense a satisfaction of any subjective principle in the divine nature.

Thus these views logically deny the holiness and justice of God.

They picture God as being love only.

Retributive wrath against sin is no element of divine nature.

That these views are false in respect to the view of divine nature furnished by them is evident from Rom. 3:25,26.

We are told here that God set forth Jesus Christ not simply as a scenic exhibition of His hatred against sin to serve the exigencies of His government;

nor as an exemplar of unselfish devotion to duty;

nor as a mere manifestation of love through the suffering of the creator with the creature;

nor yet as the means of the subjective purification of human nature;

but as a covering for sin (through expiation) that His justice might not be impugned in the justification of sinful men.

"The Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many" (Matt. 20:28).

"But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who was made unto us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption" (1 Cor. 1:30).

"Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us" (Gal. 3:13).

"God sent forth his Son . . . that he might redeem them that were under the law" (Gal. 4:4,5).

" . . . in whom we have redemption through his blood the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace" (Eph. 1:7).

". . .who gave himself a ransom for all" (1 Tim. 2:6).

". . .who gave himself for us that he might redeem us from all iniquity" (Titus 2:14).

". . . through his own blood, entered in once for all into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption" (Heb. 9:12).

"Ye were redeemed . . . with precious blood . . . even the blood of Christ" (I Pet. 1:18,19).

". . . thou wast slain, and didst redeem unto God with thy blood, men of every tribe, and tongue, and people, and nation" (Rev. 5:9).

In the passages above in which "redeem" or one of its cognates appears we have four Greek words or their cognates: "agorazo," meaning "to acquire at the forum;"

"exagorazo" to acquire out of the forum;"

"lutroo," "to loose by a price;"

and "apolutrosis," "a loosing away."

The Greek words in the passages where "ransom" appears are respectively "lutron," "a price," and "antilutron," "a corresponding price."

The plain meaning of these passages, in the light of the rest of the New Testament, especially Rom. 3:25,26, is that the death of Christ was the price of our deliverance from sin's penalty.

See further Rom. 8: 1,33,34; 10:4. Gal. 3:13 describes exactly how we are redeemed when it tells us that we are redeemed from the curse of the law through Christ who became a curse for us.

He bore the curse we deserve.

He paid the penalty we owed.

For that reason, we go free.

Note that "ransom" in 1 Tim. 2:6 means "a corresponding price."

This means that the price paid by Christ corresponded to the debt we owed.

In other words, Christ suffered the exact equivalent of that which those for whom He died would have suffered in Hell.

If the justice of God demanded that Christ die in order that God might justify sinners, the same justice demanded that He pay the full penalty owed by the sinners.

Justice can forego all the penalty as easily as it can forego the least part of it.

Click to expand...

You are getting off topic.

I never rejected that we were freed from the bondage of sin and death at a price.

I never rejected that we were purchased with a price.

What I said was, in fact, the opposite.

Where I view Christ as purchasing is with His blood you are rejecting that idea and instead saying that Christ paid our debt with His blood.

Those are not the same.

Were we purchased with the precious blood of Christ or did Jesus pay our debt with His blood?

The bottom line, @Piper , is that Penal Substitution theorists have been around for a little over 600 years, telling Christians that they have gotten the Cross wrong.

Traditional Christianity has been around for two millennia and for the past 600 years have been telling Penal Substitution theorists they have it wrong.

But Penal Substitution theorists and traditional Christianity still exist. Neither has been successful in persuading the other as a whole.

JonC said:

The bottom line, @Piper , is that Penal Substitution theorists have been around for a little over 600 years, telling Christians that they have gotten the Cross wrong.

Traditional Christianity has been around for two millennia and for the past 600 years have been telling Penal Substitution theorists they have it wrong.

But Penal Substitution theorists and traditional Christianity still exist. Neither has been successful in persuading the other as a whole.

Click to expand...

The notion that what we describe as penal substitution to be theory has its beginnings in the 20th century.

JonC said:

For example - by your "logic" you assume soldiers who paid the price for your freedom paid your debt. But it was not a debt at all. It was the cost of your freedom.

Click to expand...

Jon. This analogy still holds. In fact, it is a better example for this reason. This illustration shows that we were under deadly threat of destruction and we were unable ourselves to get out of this because even if we understood the threat we were unable by lack of ability to solve the problem. In freeing us the soldier gives his life and we say he "paid the price". He wasn't actually "buying" anything but it is easily agreed even by you that calling it "paying a price" is OK.

JonC said:

The bottom line, @Piper , is that Penal Substitution theorists have been around for a little over 600 years, telling Christians that they have gotten the Cross wrong.

Traditional Christianity has been around for two millennia and for the past 600 years have been telling Penal Substitution theorists they have it wrong.

But Penal Substitution theorists and traditional Christianity still exist. Neither has been successful in persuading the other as a whole.

Click to expand...

I assume you are referring to traditional Christianity as what the early church fathers taught. I have been reading them and think that they did not develop much theology on anything. But they indeed understood the basic idea of the need for our own personal sins to be forgiven and for this to have been made possible by the blood of Christ. So far I haven't found any reason to go back to them for knowledge because the very early ones read a lot like the Epistles and the later ones basically say to make sure you obey your bishop like you would Christ and participate in the Eucharist. (Without any explanation of why. As if that itself is saving you.)

Your fascination with them may be due to the silliness you see going on in Christianity in our day and in that sense I'm fully in agreement with you but I don't think you will find your answers in the ECF's. Now you put me on to some more contemporary theologians like T. F. Torrance and I have been wading through his book on the atonement for about a month now and I have to tell you - he does not refute the idea of penal substitution. Rather, he does complain that the Reformers have over isolated penal substitution and made the explanation for the atonement involve a strict payment and that only and thus isolated and deemphasized the completeness of the work of Christ and the Father, together, in our atonement. And I think he may have a point there, and if that is what you are saying then you have a point too. But I'm telling you, the analogies of Jesus suffering in our stead, with our sins upon him, taking our place, taking the wrath of God upon himself, and paying a ransom are all scriptural and the fact that the Reformers are the one's who developed that aspect is to their credit and to the extent the early church fathers did not emphasize this is to their detriment.

37818 said:

The notion that what we describe as penal substitution to be theory has its beginnings in the 20th century.

Click to expand...

No, it doesn't.

Historically the different focuses within the "Classic view" of Atonement (Ransom, Moral Influence, Recapitulation, Government) and the different positions under the "Latin view" of Atonement (Satisfaction, Substitution, and Penal Substitution) have been called "theories".

You mistake the word "theory" to mean something negative.

Ransom Theory, Moral Influence Theory, Recapitulation, Government Theory are theories because they focuses on one aspect of the Atonement as primary while Scripture does not offer any aspect as primary.

Satisfaction Theory, Substitution Theory, and Penal Substitution Theory are theories because they are not actually contained in Scripture.

JonC said:

The bottom line, @Piper , is that Penal Substitution theorists have been around for a little over 600 years, telling Christians that they have gotten the Cross wrong.

Traditional Christianity has been around for two millennia and for the past 600 years have been telling Penal Substitution theorists they have it wrong.

But Penal Substitution theorists and traditional Christianity still exist. Neither has been successful in persuading the other as a whole.

Click to expand...

Ridiculous. You twist history, just like dispensationalists.

37818 said:

The notion that what we describe as penal substitution to be theory has its beginnings in the 20th century.

Click to expand...

Truth.

JonC said:

I am a Baptist.

I read "don't have time" when discussing on a debate forum to mean "cannot but won't admit it". The reason is you took the time to post

I have also studied this in depth in theological classes and preaching. I cannot believe that you attended seminary but were never exposed to Church history and never studied theologies that oppose Penal Substitution Theory.

In fact, I would say it is impossible. No legitimate theology curriculum would skip over Atonement views prior to the Reformation.

I'm not saying they would teach those views as correct (mine didn't, and I held Penal Substitution through seminary and for years afterwards). But at least you would have had studied them.

So I am calling "foul" on this post.

Click to expand...

Oh, I have, you are so far in left field, not worth my time.

JonC said:

No, it doesn't.

Historically the different focuses within the "Classic view" of Atonement (Ransom, Moral Influence, Recapitulation, Government) and the different positions under the "Latin view" of Atonement (Satisfaction, Substitution, and Penal Substitution) have been called "theories".

You mistake the word "theory" to mean something negative.

Ransom Theory, Moral Influence Theory, Recapitulation, Government Theory are theories because they focuses on one aspect of the Atonement as primary while Scripture does not offer any aspect as primary.

Satisfaction Theory, Substitution Theory, and Penal Substitution Theory are theories because they are not actually contained in Scripture.

Click to expand...

Christus Victor - Wikipedia

DaveXR650 said:

I assume you are referring to traditional Christianity as what the early church fathers taught. I have been reading them and think that they did not develop much theology on anything. But they indeed understood the basic idea of the need for our own personal sins to be forgiven and for this to have been made possible by the blood of Christ. So far I haven't found any reason to go back to them for knowledge because the very early ones read a lot like the Epistles and the later ones basically say to make sure you obey your bishop like you would Christ and participate in the Eucharist. (Without any explanation of why. As if that itself is saving you.)

Your fascination with them may be due to the silliness you see going on in Christianity in our day and in that sense I'm fully in agreement with you but I don't think you will find your answers in the ECF's. Now you put me on to some more contemporary theologians like T. F. Torrance and I have been wading through his book on the atonement for about a month now and I have to tell you - he does not refute the idea of penal substitution. Rather, he does complain that the Reformers have over isolated penal substitution and made the explanation for the atonement involve a strict payment and that only and thus isolated and deemphasized the completeness of the work of Christ and the Father, together, in our atonement. And I think he may have a point there, and if that is what you are saying then you have a point too. But I'm telling you, the analogies of Jesus suffering in our stead, with our sins upon him, taking our place, taking the wrath of God upon himself, and paying a ransom are all scriptural and the fact that the Reformers are the one's who developed that aspect is to their credit and to the extent the early church fathers did not emphasize this is to their detriment.

Click to expand...

I am referring to traditional Christianity in this context (in the context of Atonement) as the teachings and of the Early Church through the present. I am excluding the Latin Views prior to Penal Substitution because I believe the Catholic Church was a departure from traditional Christianity (but I would include some of the earlier Catholic writers and non-Catholic churches that existed prior to the Reformation).

I said that the newness of Penal Substitution in itself did not make it incorrect.

But you said that you cannot read the Bible without seeing Penal Substitution. We have to ask why those Christians who learned from the Apostles, and those Christians who lived for 1600 years before the Reformers, could not see what you believe is so obvious.

It is not for a lack of scholarship (Irenaeus, Clement, Origen.....to name just three....had a developed theology and defended the faith). And then you have Christian scholars like Cyprian. And later you have Augustine. On down the line you get Zwingli, Luther, Simons.

If Penal Substitution is so obvious then why did it take 1600 years for something so simple to be articulated?