In what sense did Christ die for all sinners?

JonC said:

1. In the 12th century Anselm developed satisfaction theory. He focused on honor as this was important to the ideology of his day. Basically, Adam robbed God of honor and Jesus restored that honor on our behalf.

2. In the 13th century Aquinas reformed Anselms theory and replaced honor with merit. This was a major step towards Penal Substitution Theory. Aquinas wrote extensively about substitution and punishment in his theory of Atonement. Aquinas developed the idea that an innocent person could be punished as a substitute for a guilty person provided both parties are willing. BUT this punishment is not the punishment the guilty person would recieve (it was a satisfaction). It would be unjust to punish an innocent person as if he were guilty, but just to impose a penalty.

3. In the 16th century Aquinas' theory was reformed into the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement. "Penal Substitution" refers to the type of substitution. Here it was reasoned that Aquinas was incorrect because justice is final and objective. The judge cannot forgive, or reduce a penalty, because the crime left a debt to justice that must be paid. Therefore the substitute must be face the full penalty demanded by justice.

If you steal a loaf of bread to feed your daughter then justice demanded that you face the penalty due a thief. Another could, if both parties and the judge agreed, go to jail in your place but somebody had to pay the debt. And this was instead of the other person receiving that penalty (satisfaction was a type of forgiveness, at least in part, as the full payment is not demanded).

This type of substitution is called "penal substitution".

Click to expand...

First of all. I reject this idea that presents penal substitution as developing like you said. The reason being is many seem to find it in scripture, and in the early church fathers. Although not developed and identified as such by name, you are making it seem like the elements were unheard of and this obscures the discussion.

JonC said:

I wrote that Jesus bearing our sins, God laying our sins on Him, is not substitution.

You replied "That makes no sense at all. Christ bearing our sins instead of us bearing our sins is substitution by definition".

Then you argued that "instead of us" is implied. This is an issue. For over fifteen centuries Christians did not see "instead of us" as being implied. You are inferring, making an unwarranted assumptiin.

Click to expand...

This is completely incorrect. What I am talking about is the simple understanding of language. All I am saying is that in English, if someone else bears the sin that I was supposed to bear, then that is indeed substitution. Trying to then make the assertion that this was unheard of for 15 centuries doesn't have any meaning because I'm describing what was always there, in scripture and in the early church writings. And it confuses the issue because no one else seems to be bothered by your particular objection. But you are of course entitled to your opinion.

JonC said:

What historical Christianity taught was that Jesus shared in our state. Jesus bearing our sins meant that He experienced the oppression from the powers of evil as a consequence of sin that we will experience. They believed that He "shared our infirmity" with and alongside us instead of in our stead.

Click to expand...

This is not mutually exclusive. Jesus shared in our state. He identified with us as men. And indeed he experienced the oppression from the powers of evil. He shared our infirmity. And he also experience the wrath of God against sin and received in some sense the punishment of God that was due sin on our behalf and instead of us. There is absolutely no necessity that you have to make one concept exclusive of the other.

JonC said:

This seems to be a strawman smokescreen to detract from what I have posted: " If you can read scripture and cannot see that the wrath of God and condemnation abides on men who don't come to Christ then I don't know what to say."

The reason is I never wrote, said, or thought that God's wrath and condemnation abides on men who don't come to Christ.

You just made that up and attributed it to me.

I was just trying to explain to you what I believe, why I stick to the written Word of God on this issue, the terms used, etc. I was not trying to force you to believe anything. That's between you and God.

Why did you attribute to me things I never said or wrote?

Click to expand...

You know exactly what I mean here. What I am saying is that the wrath of God as an attribute or attitude of God against sin is found throughout scripture. Penal substitution requires that be dealt with and no other theory fully addresses this idea. It is and was always, well understood that God's wrath was upon sin and sinners and that without the shedding of blood was there was no remission of sins. So what I am saying to you is simply this: it is fair to ask the question of you and all who dislike the theory of penal substitution, "what aspect of the atonement addresses the wrath of God if penal substitution is a fallacy". I didn't make anything up and attribute it to you. What I am claiming is that the concept of us being under the wrath of God is real, found throughout scripture and must be dealt with or you don't have a complete theology. You dismiss that aspect or ignore it. If that is not true then now is the time to explain how you handle the wrath of God in your theology of atonement.

JonC said:

This seems to be a strawman smokescreen to detract from what I have posted: " If you can read scripture and cannot see that the wrath of God and condemnation abides on men who don't come to Christ then I don't know what to say."

Click to expand...

Anyone who is against penal substitution needs to explain how they handle this. That is not a strawman unless I have falsely stated that the wrath of God is against sin and sinners in man. If you don't believe I am correct in that say so. If I am, then explain how a man can be right with God who is by nature wrathful regarding sin and how is this addressed in your theology.

One more thing. We have been through these discussion before. You're doing the same thing you did before. Now you are complaining that you are being treated unfairly and falsely. I find you extremely confusing, the reason being that since the first couple of times we got into these discussions I have done a lot of reading too. When I look at other books on the atonement, and even look at Youtube debates and so on, I don't see these arguments you are using. You look at William Lane Craig, who is not a Calvinist, talking about penal substitution, and you see none of the things you are bringing up being brought up. You get on Schreiner's site and get his definition of penal substitution and it's the same story. No one else is worried about this idea that you can say Christ bore our sins but yet you are not allowed to call that substitution.

One thing I will concede and encourage others to consider. You can read Owen, Edwards, and yes Aquinas, which I have been reading, and more modern guys like Torrance (who I think you suggested), and even listen to Martyn Lloyd-Jones - and you do indeed find that the atonement is the type of thing that is so huge in it's implications that we may indeed be wanting to spend years, even in eternity, leaning about and praising God for all the various aspects of it. It probably is the single greatest and most important event in the history of our created world. And, I have been greatly blessed by learning the various aspects of the atonement, some of which are cosmic and some of which make a way for us as individuals to be saved. One is not exclusive to the others. But every single one of the people I listed above have penal substitution as a part of the atonement and one of the aspects of the atonement. You tell me Jon, is this where you are or are you truly opposed to the concept of penal substitution as in believing it is false?

JonC said:

I don't read opinions about other theologians. I don't find them beneficial. Plus, isn't NT Wright Anglican? I doubt I'd agree with his theology, even if he makes some accurate observations.

If I decide to learn NT Wright, I'll read NT Wright. But for now, I have no interest.


My point is that you are not leaving any room for the forgiveness of sins. You seem to be saying that somebody has to suffer God's wrath for sins - either Christ or the sinner.

Click to expand...

I am not saying that, but the Bible is to us, as all will face a Judgement day, and either Jesus paid for all of my sins and God imputed to me His very righteousness, or else I will have to endure and face that stored up towards me wrath and eternal separation from God

JonC said:

I don't read opinions about other theologians. I don't find them beneficial. Plus, isn't NT Wright Anglican? I doubt I'd agree with his theology, even if he makes some accurate observations.

If I decide to learn NT Wright, I'll read NT Wright. But for now, I have no interest.


My point is that you are not leaving any room for the forgiveness of sins. You seem to be saying that somebody has to suffer God's wrath for sins - either Christ or the sinner.

Click to expand...

Please read that article, as it shows that your views exactly mirror his own, and denies Pauline Justification as Reformed and Baptist traditionally have seen it as being

DaveXR650 said:

First of all. I reject this idea that presents penal substitution as developing like you said. The reason being is many seem to find it in scripture, and in the early church fathers. Although not developed and identified as such by name, you are making it seem like the elements were unheard of and this obscures the discussion.

This is completely incorrect. What I am talking about is the simple understanding of language. All I am saying is that in English, if someone else bears the sin that I was supposed to bear, then that is indeed substitution. Trying to then make the assertion that this was unheard of for 15 centuries doesn't have any meaning because I'm describing what was always there, in scripture and in the early church writings. And it confuses the issue because no one else seems to be bothered by your particular objection. But you are of course entitled to your opinion.

This is not mutually exclusive. Jesus shared in our state. He identified with us as men. And indeed he experienced the oppression from the powers of evil. He shared our infirmity. And he also experience the wrath of God against sin and received in some sense the punishment of God that was due sin on our behalf and instead of us. There is absolutely no necessity that you have to make one concept exclusive of the other.

You know exactly what I mean here. What I am saying is that the wrath of God as an attribute or attitude of God against sin is found throughout scripture. Penal substitution requires that be dealt with and no other theory fully addresses this idea. It is and was always, well understood that God's wrath was upon sin and sinners and that without the shedding of blood was there was no remission of sins. So what I am saying to you is simply this: it is fair to ask the question of you and all who dislike the theory of penal substitution, "what aspect of the atonement addresses the wrath of God if penal substitution is a fallacy". I didn't make anything up and attribute it to you. What I am claiming is that the concept of us being under the wrath of God is real, found throughout scripture and must be dealt with or you don't have a complete theology. You dismiss that aspect or ignore it. If that is not true then now is the time to explain how you handle the wrath of God in your theology of atonement.

Anyone who is against penal substitution needs to explain how they handle this. That is not a strawman unless I have falsely stated that the wrath of God is against sin and sinners in man. If you don't believe I am correct in that say so. If I am, then explain how a man can be right with God who is by nature wrathful regarding sin and how is this addressed in your theology.

One more thing. We have been through these discussion before. You're doing the same thing you did before. Now you are complaining that you are being treated unfairly and falsely. I find you extremely confusing, the reason being that since the first couple of times we got into these discussions I have done a lot of reading too. When I look at other books on the atonement, and even look at Youtube debates and so on, I don't see these arguments you are using. You look at William Lane Craig, who is not a Calvinist, talking about penal substitution, and you see none of the things you are bringing up being brought up. You get on Schreiner's site and get his definition of penal substitution and it's the same story. No one else is worried about this idea that you can say Christ bore our sins but yet you are not allowed to call that substitution.

One thing I will concede and encourage others to consider. You can read Owen, Edwards, and yes Aquinas, which I have been reading, and more modern guys like Torrance (who I think you suggested), and even listen to Martyn Lloyd-Jones - and you do indeed find that the atonement is the type of thing that is so huge in it's implications that we may indeed be wanting to spend years, even in eternity, leaning about and praising God for all the various aspects of it. It probably is the single greatest and most important event in the history of our created world. And, I have been greatly blessed by learning the various aspects of the atonement, some of which are cosmic and some of which make a way for us as individuals to be saved. One is not exclusive to the others. But every single one of the people I listed above have penal substitution as a part of the atonement and one of the aspects of the atonement. You tell me Jon, is this where you are or are you truly opposed to the concept of penal substitution as in believing it is false?

Click to expand...

I am currently wading thru the Cross of Christ by John Stott, an excellent treatise ont atonement of Christ
and again, in the various other theories of the Atonement, where and when and how did the wrath and condemnation of God towards lost sinners get propiated and dealt with?

DaveXR650 said:

First of all. I reject this idea that presents penal substitution as developing like you said. The reason being is many seem to find it in scripture, and in the early church fathers. Although not developed and identified as such by name, you are making it seem like the elements were unheard of and this obscures the discussion.

This is completely incorrect. What I am talking about is the simple understanding of language. All I am saying is that in English, if someone else bears the sin that I was supposed to bear, then that is indeed substitution. Trying to then make the assertion that this was unheard of for 15 centuries doesn't have any meaning because I'm describing what was always there, in scripture and in the early church writings. And it confuses the issue because no one else seems to be bothered by your particular objection. But you are of course entitled to your opinion.

This is not mutually exclusive. Jesus shared in our state. He identified with us as men. And indeed he experienced the oppression from the powers of evil. He shared our infirmity. And he also experience the wrath of God against sin and received in some sense the punishment of God that was due sin on our behalf and instead of us. There is absolutely no necessity that you have to make one concept exclusive of the other.

You know exactly what I mean here. What I am saying is that the wrath of God as an attribute or attitude of God against sin is found throughout scripture. Penal substitution requires that be dealt with and no other theory fully addresses this idea. It is and was always, well understood that God's wrath was upon sin and sinners and that without the shedding of blood was there was no remission of sins. So what I am saying to you is simply this: it is fair to ask the question of you and all who dislike the theory of penal substitution, "what aspect of the atonement addresses the wrath of God if penal substitution is a fallacy". I didn't make anything up and attribute it to you. What I am claiming is that the concept of us being under the wrath of God is real, found throughout scripture and must be dealt with or you don't have a complete theology. You dismiss that aspect or ignore it. If that is not true then now is the time to explain how you handle the wrath of God in your theology of atonement.

Anyone who is against penal substitution needs to explain how they handle this. That is not a strawman unless I have falsely stated that the wrath of God is against sin and sinners in man. If you don't believe I am correct in that say so. If I am, then explain how a man can be right with God who is by nature wrathful regarding sin and how is this addressed in your theology.

One more thing. We have been through these discussion before. You're doing the same thing you did before. Now you are complaining that you are being treated unfairly and falsely. I find you extremely confusing, the reason being that since the first couple of times we got into these discussions I have done a lot of reading too. When I look at other books on the atonement, and even look at Youtube debates and so on, I don't see these arguments you are using. You look at William Lane Craig, who is not a Calvinist, talking about penal substitution, and you see none of the things you are bringing up being brought up. You get on Schreiner's site and get his definition of penal substitution and it's the same story. No one else is worried about this idea that you can say Christ bore our sins but yet you are not allowed to call that substitution.

One thing I will concede and encourage others to consider. You can read Owen, Edwards, and yes Aquinas, which I have been reading, and more modern guys like Torrance (who I think you suggested), and even listen to Martyn Lloyd-Jones - and you do indeed find that the atonement is the type of thing that is so huge in it's implications that we may indeed be wanting to spend years, even in eternity, leaning about and praising God for all the various aspects of it. It probably is the single greatest and most important event in the history of our created world. And, I have been greatly blessed by learning the various aspects of the atonement, some of which are cosmic and some of which make a way for us as individuals to be saved. One is not exclusive to the others. But every single one of the people I listed above have penal substitution as a part of the atonement and one of the aspects of the atonement. You tell me Jon, is this where you are or are you truly opposed to the concept of penal substitution as in believing it is false?

Click to expand...

I don't think it matters if you reject how theology has developed. That does not change facts or history. I was simply explaining the term "penal substitution" and how it came to be.

If my family has a sickness and I intentionally get the sickness in order to help them overcome it, that is bearing their illness. But I am not their substitute.

My biggest complaint (my only complaint) is that you wrote - "If you can read scripture and cannot see that the wrath of God and condemnation abides on men who don't come to Christ then I don't know what to say."

Yes, we HAVE been through this before. Please post where I EVER made the claim that the wrath of God DOES NOT abode on those who don't come to Christ.

DaveXR650 said:

the atonement is the type of thing that is so huge in it's implications that we may indeed be wanting to spend years, even in eternity, leaning about and praising God for all the various aspects of it. It probably is the single greatest and most important event in the history of our created world. And, I have been greatly blessed by learning the various aspects of the atonement, some of which are cosmic and some of which make a way for us as individuals to be saved.

Click to expand...

Like, like, like, like, like, like (giving likes). Amen!

Peace to you

JonC said:

I don't think it matters if you reject how theology has developed. That does not change facts or history. I was simply explaining the term "penal substitution" and how it came to be.

If my family has a sickness and I intentionally get the sickness in order to help them overcome it, that is bearing their illness. But I am not their substitute.

My biggest complaint (my only complaint) is that you wrote - "If you can read scripture and cannot see that the wrath of God and condemnation abides on men who don't come to Christ then I don't know what to say."

Yes, we HAVE been through this before. Please post where I EVER made the claim that the wrath of God DOES NOT abode on those who don't come to Christ.

Click to expand...

That very same wrath was due to all of us redeemed, and Jesus took the full blunt of them for our sakes

JonC said:

Yes, we HAVE been through this before. Please post where I EVER made the claim that the wrath of God DOES NOT abode on those who don't come to Christ.

Click to expand...

I explained that above and you apparently don't like what I said. I am claiming that your explanations of the atonement fall short of explaining how the wrath of God is taken care of. You dance around the issue with alternative nuanced meanings of words and then offense.
Take this above:

JonC said:

You seem to be saying that somebody has to suffer God's wrath for sins - either Christ or the sinner.

Click to expand...

Well. Outside of the fact that that is a building block for the cosmic child abuse attack on penal substitution, the question is valid. What happens to the wrath of God and is it a barrier to a sinner who would approach God or does God forgive sin without concern for the injustices done, the wrong done to others, the wrong done to God and with no thought to being just while desiring to justify sinners?

Simply explain what you mean. I'm not seeing any answers or explanations. You indeed are not dealing with the wrath of God if you cannot explain what is being asked here. I'll highlight it. You act offended because you think I have accused you of claiming that the wrath of God does not abide on those who don't come to Christ. I am not. What I am claiming is that if it is true that the wrath of God does abide on those who don't come to Christ, as you claim to agree with me on, then my question is, since the wrath of God was on all of us before we came to Christ, then what happens to this wrath for those of us who do come to Christ? I thought that was the crux of the discussion of penal substitution. What I was saying was simply this. Either you have some explanation of how the wrath of God is handled for those who do come to Christ or - you don't believe the wrath of God is important to handle at all.

Let's stop nailing jello to the wall and just explain your view on this if indeed you agree with me that the wrath of God is found throughout scripture and must be considered in any plan of redemption. How would you explain it?

DaveXR650 said:

I explained that above and you apparently don't like what I said. I am claiming that your explanations of the atonement fall short of explaining how the wrath of God is taken care of. You dance around the issue with alternative nuanced meanings of words and then offense.
Take this above:

Well. Outside of the fact that that is a building block for the cosmic child abuse attack on penal substitution, the question is valid. What happens to the wrath of God and is it a barrier to a sinner who would approach God or does God forgive sin without concern for the injustices done, the wrong done to others, the wrong done to God and with no thought to being just while desiring to justify sinners?

Simply explain what you mean. I'm not seeing any answers or explanations. You indeed are not dealing with the wrath of God if you cannot explain what is being asked here. I'll highlight it. You act offended because you think I have accused you of claiming that the wrath of God does not abide on those who don't come to Christ. I am not. What I am claiming is that if it is true that the wrath of God does abide on those who don't come to Christ, as you claim to agree with me on, then my question is, since the wrath of God was on all of us before we came to Christ, then what happens to this wrath for those of us who do come to Christ? I thought that was the crux of the discussion of penal substitution. What I was saying was simply this. Either you have some explanation of how the wrath of God is handled for those who do come to Christ or - you don't believe the wrath of God is important to handle at all.

Let's stop nailing jello to the wall and just explain your view on this if indeed you agree with me that the wrath of God is found throughout scripture and must be considered in any plan of redemption. How would you explain it?

Click to expand...

Sorry. I took your comment to mean that my position did not hold that God's wrath abides on the lost.

I believe that this has been covered in the first fifteen centuries of Christianity. To sum it up - on the cross God was reconciling man to Himself, not counting their sins against them. Therefore we urge men to be reconciled to God.

God's wrath abides on the world. The world is already condemned. Those who do not come to faith in Christ remain in their sins. They are not forgiven.

That was you and me before we were saved.

But all judgment has been given to Christ. He saves whom He wills. Scripture then states whom He wills is those who believe.


The crux of Penal Substitution Theory is not how God's wrath is avoided. It is how God's wrathis avoid under a philosophical system that denies that individual sins can be forgiven.

God's wrath is handled, for those who believe, by forgiveness based on one being in Christ which includes dying to the flesh and becoming a new creation. This is not completed individually in this lifetime. BUT by the Day of Wrath (the Day of Judgmemt) all of those who are not recreated in the image of Christ will suffer God's wrath.

The crux of the issue is whether God can forgive sins. Penal Substitution says "no, God must ounish sins even if the sinner is no longer a sinner but a new creation, therefore God punished Jesus". I believe God can legitimately forgive sins, but that this forgiveness is conditioned on and based in Christ.

JesusFan said:

That very same wrath was due to all of us redeemed, and Jesus took the full blunt of them for our sakes

Click to expand...

I understand that is what you believe. I once believed that as well, but since then I have committed myself to a faith defined by God's Word (and your belief is absent from actual Scripture).

So believe what you want. I'm not trying to change your mind.

DaveXR650 said:

the atonement is the type of thing that is so huge in it's implications that we may indeed be wanting to spend years, even in eternity, leaning about and praising God for all the various aspects of it.

Click to expand...

I agree here, but I have seen this sentiment abused in an attempt to justify a position that rejects other positions.

Here is what I mean:

The Moral Influence theory focuses on a legitimate aspect of the Atonement. So does Recapitulation. So does Ransom Theory. So does Goverentmental Theory. These are opposing theories, mainly due to what aspect they highlight.

BUT if the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement is correct then Christianity got it completely wrong until the 16th century. The reason is Penal Substitution Theory is the only position that places Jesus as suffering God's wrath.

Here it can't be both ways. Fir example - Augustine taught that God planned the Cross but Satan took the bait to his defeat. Penal Substitution Theory puts God in the role of Satan. Both cannot be correct.

JonC said:

I believe that this has been covered in the first fifteen centuries of Christianity. To sum it up - on the cross God was reconciling man to Himself, not counting their sins against them. Therefore we urge men to be reconciled to God.

Click to expand...

I agree and would say as do the theologians explaining penal substitution - that God was reconciling man to himself, by the fact of Jesus taking our sin upon himself. If the early church fathers were saying what you are stating I agree with that but I think that how that is done is by what we call penal substitution. "Not counting their sins against them" is true for a reason. Some of the early church fathers I hear at least, believed that God could if he chose, simply forgive men's sins.

Let me just say that if you believe the above in either sense I have no problem with that. I just happen to, when I read all the scriptures that describe everything from the sacrificial system, it's application explained in Hebrews, the scriptures that indicate some importance in the concept of God being just as he justifies people, the numerous references to the necessity of the shed blood for remission, think that what we are describing as the penal substitution theory best describes what it precisely is that causes the reconciliation or makes it possible.

JonC said:

The crux of the issue is whether God can forgive sins. Penal Substitution says "no, God must ounish sins even if the sinner is no longer a sinner but a new creation, therefore God punished Jesus". I believe God can legitimately forgive sins, but that this forgiveness is conditioned on and based in Christ.

Click to expand...

So yes, something must be in reality done about our guilt and sin beyond promising to no longer be a sinner. Even if we could truly at some point stop sinning we would still have sin on our account that is still a barrier to reconciliation. Even if you have a doctrine where you can be made a new creation, either sinless or looked upon as sinless, yes, sin still is a barrier. Penal substitution explains this.

DaveXR650 said:

I agree and would say as do the theologians explaining penal substitution - that God was reconciling man to himself, by the fact of Jesus taking our sin upon himself. If the early church fathers were saying what you are stating I agree with that but I think that how that is done is by what we call penal substitution. "Not counting their sins against them" is true for a reason. Some of the early church fathers I hear at least, believed that God could if he chose, simply forgive men's sins.

Let me just say that if you believe the above in either sense I have no problem with that. I just happen to, when I read all the scriptures that describe everything from the sacrificial system, it's application explained in Hebrews, the scriptures that indicate some importance in the concept of God being just as he justifies people, the numerous references to the necessity of the shed blood for remission, think that what we are describing as the penal substitution theory best describes what it precisely is that causes the reconciliation or makes it possible.


So yes, something must be in reality done about our guilt and sin beyond promising to no longer be a sinner. Even if we could truly at some point stop sinning we would still have sin on our account that is still a barrier to reconciliation. Even if you have a doctrine where you can be made a new creation, either sinless or looked upon as sinless, yes, sin still is a barrier. Penal substitution explains this.

Click to expand...

Something IS done about our guilt and sin beyond promising to no longer be a sinner. The difference, I think, may be that I legitimately believe we must die to sin and be made a new creation. There is no condemnation in Christ.

I think where you would denounce Christianity prior to the 16th century isn't in the words they use or passages they reference, but in the fact that they attributed Jesus' death to Satan, believed Jesus shared in our infirmity (which they viewed as our sin) yet without sinning as opposed to adding "instead of us", their focus on physical death as the consequence or curse of sin with a future Judgment based in Christ, and their belief that God can forgive individual sins.

I am not denying that Penal Substitution Theory explains how wrath can be dealt with. I am saying that way is unbiblical.

Also, Penal Substitution Theory does not deal with guilt (it deals with wrath and punishment, not guilt).

What I am saying is biblically wrath is dealt with by dealing with guilt. You are merely saying Jesus was punished instead of the guilty.

JonC said:

I agree here, but I have seen this sentiment abused in an attempt to justify a position that rejects other positions.

Click to expand...

Sure, but the same charge applies to those who advocate those other positions regarding penal substitution. You reject penal substitution. Except for the book by Torrance, who I guess was heavily influenced by Barth, all the other things I have read about the validity of the other theories and aspects of the atonement have been by Calvinists and staunch defenders of penal substitution.

JonC said:

The Moral Influence theory focuses on a legitimate aspect of the Atonement. So does Recapitulation. So does Ransom Theory. So does Goverentmental Theory. These are opposing theories, mainly due to what aspect they highlight.

Click to expand...

No, they are not opposing theories unless you choose to claim they are. If you're not busy tonight pull up Martyn Lloyd-Jones sermon archives. Plug in "atonement" in the sermon search and start listening to him showing all the different aspects of the atonement. Of course you will have discussion develop and disagreements will result. But that's the way it always is with theology. Above, in Ransom theory. That is clearly scriptural. But Ransom paid to who and what was the price? See what I mean?

JonC said:

BUT if the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement is correct then Christianity got it completely wrong until the 16th century. The reason is Penal Substitution Theory is the only position that places Jesus as suffering God's wrath.

Click to expand...

I just disagree with you here and so does almost everyone else. I even went back and looked up some of the cases where early church fathers are claimed to be misquoted or quoted out of context and still, there is plenty to support the foundation at least of an understanding of the principles of penal substitution. So far we may not have a record of a systematic theology of penal substitution recorded but no, the church did not get it completely wrong until the 16th century and in fact they had an understanding of what we now know and call "penal substitution".

JonC said:

Here it can't be both ways. Fir example - Augustine taught that God planned the Cross but Satan took the bait to his defeat. Penal Substitution Theory puts God in the role of Satan. Both cannot be correct.

Click to expand...

Not sure I follow your logic but there have been other discussions on here regarding that. It's confusing because you have Jesus saying he's going to go and be killed, then Peter rebukes Jesus then Jesus says the famous "Get thee behind me, Satan". The cross was planned, it was Jesus' and God's will, and as Peter preached, wicked men took Jesus and did the deed. By the way, as sensitive as you are when you think someone is misrepresenting you in something, do you realize how offensive it is to someone who believes penal substitution, like by far most people on this site, when you say it puts God in the role of Satan.

JonC said:

The difference, I think, may be that I legitimately believe we must die to sin and be made a new creation.

Click to expand...

That can't be the difference. Owen himself said that there are two big mistakes we can make. One is that we think we can be saved without being born again. And the other is that we think we can claim to be saved and continue in known sin. So there you have a new creation, and you better be dying to sin. No difference there and Owen liked penal substitution.

JonC said:

I think where you would denounce Christianity prior to the 16th century isn't in the words they use or passages they reference, but in the fact that they attributed Jesus' death to Satan, believed Jesus shared in our infirmity (which they viewed as our sin) yet without sinning as opposed to adding "instead of us", their focus on physical death as the consequence or curse of sin with a future Judgment based in Christ, and their belief that God can forgive individual sins.

Click to expand...

I have started reading the church fathers and I am surprised by their error in many areas. But as I am learning more about the times they lived in and their limited, sometimes almost non-existent access to good translations of scripture, I respect them more and more, especially for their prayer lives and courage. Besides, I said earlier that I believe that it is necessary that you believe that Jesus is Lord, and the Christ, and that he can forgive sins and that you must endeavor to follow his teachings. Did the early church believe that or not? I think they did and I think they were saved. How many writings are there opposing the idea of penal substitution? I have almost all the available writings on hand, electronically, which is the only way I can afford them and if you can point me to where the early church fathers refute penal substitution then I can look it up. My Kindle won't allow me to do a proper search of that book because of the size I guess so I need specific locations and writers.

DaveXR650 said:

That can't be the difference. Owen himself said that there are two big mistakes we can make. One is that we think we can be saved without being born again. And the other is that we think we can claim to be saved and continue in known sin. So there you have a new creation, and you better be dying to sin. No difference there and Owen liked penal substitution.

I have started reading the church fathers and I am surprised by their error in many areas. But as I am learning more about the times they lived in and their limited, sometimes almost non-existent access to good translations of scripture, I respect them more and more, especially for their prayer lives and courage. Besides, I said earlier that I believe that it is necessary that you believe that Jesus is Lord, and the Christ, and that he can forgive sins and that you must endeavor to follow his teachings. Did the early church believe that or not? I think they did and I think they were saved. How many writings are there opposing the idea of penal substitution? I have almost all the available writings on hand, electronically, which is the only way I can afford them and if you can point me to where the early church fathers refute penal substitution then I can look it up. My Kindle won't allow me to do a proper search of that book because of the size I guess so I need specific locations and writers.

Click to expand...

How many earlier writings oppose Penal Substitution Theory? Most, if not all, that deal with the topic. But only if you accept those writings within their own context. The reason is this topic does not compose all that these writers wrote.

For example, I could post about Jesus as our mediator. You could insist I hold Penal Substitution Theory because that writing fits in your belief. But in reality I was posting from within my own theological beliefs (Christ as our mediator does not fit within Oenal Substitution Theory as it does within historical Christianity).

Owen was wrong in several ways. One is that this rebirth mattered in his theology. IF Jesus' death paid the price for all of your individual sins then what is the purpose of having to be born spiritually? You are already without sin, so you wouldn't experience the Second Death.

Do you believe that God forgives sins?

DaveXR650 said:

Not sure I follow your logic but there have been other discussions on here regarding that. It's confusing because you have Jesus saying he's going to go and be killed, then Peter rebukes Jesus then Jesus says the famous "Get thee behind me, Satan". The cross was planned, it was Jesus' and God's will, and as Peter preached, wicked men took Jesus and did the deed. By the way, as sensitive as you are when you think someone is misrepresenting you in something, do you realize how offensive it is to someone who believes penal substitution, like by far most people on this site, when you say it puts God in the role of Satan.

Click to expand...

The logic is simple. We all agree the Cross was God's preordained plan. But saying that Jesus suffered under God's wrath and saying Jesus suffered under Satan's wrath is not the same thing. Penal Substitution theorists put God in the place Scripture puts Satan.

Do you believe God forgives sins?

JonC said:

How many earlier writings oppose Penal Substitution Theory? Most, if not all, that deal with the topic. But only if you accept those writings within their own context. The reason is this topic does not compose all that these writers wrote.

Click to expand...

Right. But let's be honest. The fact is there are no writings refuting penal substitution because it was not discussed as a coherent theory. So what you are talking about is where some early church father writes something about atonement and you take that to refute penal substitution even though there is no indication they were doing so. Yet you reject all the theologians who say they do see penal substitution in the writings because they do not specifically say they are talking about penal substitution. You have a double standard there.

JonC said:

Owen was wrong in several ways. One is that this rebirth mattered in his theology. IF Jesus' death paid the price for all of your individual sins then what is the purpose of having to be born spiritually? You are already without sin, so you wouldn't experience the Second Death.

Click to expand...

What you're doing here is patently ridiculous. Can you produce one person who espouses penal substitutionary atonement who does not believe one must be born again? That's a false dichotomy with no examples anywhere to be found. You have brought up my objection to Owen and all the limited atonement guys and my answer would just be that penal substitution potentially takes care of one's sins, for those who come to Christ. He can be just and the justifier of all who do because of the fact that he bore all the sin of all the world. I believe in a universal atonement and I believe it is not actualized until a person comes to Christ.

I'm not defending Owen here but he said the same thing, except that in his Calvinistic determinism he honors the inevitability of something God has decreed as being a sure thing, yet not actually done until it is done. So a good Calvinist has no problem with someone being lost until they are saved while at the same time the atonement effectively accomplished what it needed to for all the elect at the time of the cross. (ie, If God says I will do something next week I will infallibly do it with no chance of not doing it - yet it's not actually done till it's done.) The elect are indeed, infallibly "elect" but are lost until they are saved. See R.C. Sproul.

JonC said:

Do you believe that God forgives sins?

Click to expand...

Of course. And I think penal substitution helps explain how this is done so that God can maintain his own honor, vindicate his promises of judgement, remain perfectly just, and still forgive people like us. This is the precise point where every other "theory" fails to be complete.

JonC said:

The logic is simple. We all agree the Cross was God's preordained plan. But saying that Jesus suffered under God's wrath and saying Jesus suffered under Satan's wrath is not the same thing. Penal Substitution theorists put God in the place Scripture puts Satan.

Do you believe God forgives sins?

Click to expand...

I thought we went over this point already. Look, I'm getting confused here too. Too many rapid posts and I've exhausted my limited knowledge of this. You have the last word with my blessing on this topic. God Bless

DaveXR650 said:

I thought we went over this point already. Look, I'm getting confused here too. Too many rapid posts and I've exhausted my limited knowledge of this. You have the last word with my blessing on this topic. God Bless

Click to expand...

The logic is simple:

1. Historical Christianity holds that it was God's plan that Jesus suffer and die unjustly under the powers of this world.

2. Historical Christianity makes a distinction between the wages of sin (physical death, the curse, which Jesus suffered) and spiritual death (the Day of Wrath, Judgment Day, the second death).

3. Historical Christianity holds that God forgives sins.

The Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement rejects all of the above.

Now, I do not care what you choose to believe. Thus far it should be evident that Penal Substitution Theory is not in Scripture. I understand the concept of theological development. I don't hold your belief against you (it is not upon to me to do so). But I believe such an important doctrine is as stated in the Bible.