2 Corinthians 5:21 doesn't support penal substitution (reposted)

[taisto]

Everyone claims to be a biblicist? Not really. You are not a biblicist. Your definition of "propitiation" proves that as it's an interpretation exceeding the definition of the word.

You did not ask about traditional Christianity. You asked what Christian traditions I was steeped in.

What I mean by "traditional Christianity" is the general view of Christians in the first centuries after the Resurrection.

Many things people believe don't fit into that category. The scope of the Atonement was not considered, for example, until Beza (after Calvin). The placement of salvation under the category of divine sovereignty was post Calvin. The Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement was not articulated until the 16th Century. Covenant Theology and Dispensationalism was not developed until late in Christian history. Catholic Theology did not begin until the late 4th Century and was not substantially formed until the 5th Century.

By traditional Christianiy, in the context of the Atonement, I am speaking of the "Classic View" which has Christ submitting Himself to suffer and die under the powers of darkness.

This was the Atonement motif until the late 11th Century - even in the Catholic Church. Anselm developed a view (Satisfaction Theory) which replaced the traditional view within Catholicism. In the mid-13th Century Aquinas revised the theory to Substitution and, of course, it was reformed to Penal Substitution Theory in the 16th Century.

But to answer your question, I am speaking of the "Classic View" - the Father was pleased to crush him, to give His own Son, Christ was made sin for us, Christ became a curse for us, Christ became like us in all points, Christ was obedient even to death in a cross, Christ submitted Himself to suffer and die under the powers of darkness authored by Satan as a direct result of human sin for us, and it is by His stripes we are healed, freed from the bondage of sin and death. This was Christ's solidarity with man so that we could share solidarity with Him.
That is what I mean by "traditional Christianity".

It's been gone over, adnaseum, and substitution is the biblicist view, which you reject, even though it's all throughout the Bible.

You have come up with your view from somewhere outside of the Bible. Someone in some book or sermon taught you the theory you hold and you have worked hard to reword and redefine your understanding of the Bible to accommodate what you were taught. You can keep it. It's not what God teaches in the Bible so it's not for me.

 

[JonC]

It's been gone over, adnaseum, and substitution is the biblicist view, which you reject, even though it's all throughout the Bible.

No, it isn't. You cannot provide even one verse that presents Christ as experiencing God's wrath, or Christ dying instead of us dying, or God punishing Jesus instead of punishing us.

You pretend it is in the Bible. But you only give verses and tell us what those verses "really" mean.

That is why I say you are not a Biblicist. You hold ideas foreign to what is written in God's Word, treat those ideas as if they were Scripture, and read into the Bible your theories.

Provide one verse that says Jesus experienced God's wrath.

Provide one verse that says Jesus died instead of us.

You can't. Because they do not exist.

You hold reformed Roman Catholic doctrine. You read that into Scripture.

 

[JonC]

.
You have come up with your view from somewhere outside of the Bible. Someone in some book or sermon taught you the theory you hold and you have worked hard to reword and redefine your understanding of the Bible to accommodate what you were taught. You can keep it. It's not what God teaches in the Bible so it's not for me.

No, this is false.

I know the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement because I was a Calvinist. I taught the theory.

One Sunday, as a guest preacher, I preached a sermon on the Cross. Being a Calvinist I obviously preached within the context of Penal Substitution Theory. It was well received. I went to bed content with the sermon.

The next morning I awoke with a conviction that I had strayed from Scripture by offering a theory rather than God's Word. I can't explain the conviction adequately. I had held Penal Substitution Theory as correct all of my adult life. I read it throughout Scripture. But I couldn't shake the conviction.

I bought two dry erase boards and set them up in my office. Over a month I went through writing every verse that proved Penal Substitution correct. Then I examined the verses and erased any passage that did not actually present the theory. In the end no verses remained.

I told you I am a Biblicist. How could I believe a view of the Atonement, such a foundational doctrine, if it was it actually in the Bible? How can we test doctrine against "what is written" except that doctrine actually be written.

I knew that the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement was wrong. It was difficult, but I worked to read Scripture without reading into it. Once somebody tells you an ink blot is a bat, it is hard not to see the bat.

I concentrated on the text. And it made sense as written, without adding to it.

I came away believing God's Word - Christ suffered and died under the powers of this world, under the wages of sin....our sin. He did not die instead of us, but as Scripture states He died for us, for our sin.

I was familiar with pre-Reformation writings because my seminary degree was in theology. I had dismissed much of their ideas as undeveloped.

Now I could read the writings of the early church and see that they were correct. They adhered to God's Word (to "what is written".


So my understanding comes solely from Scripture. It was validated through the teachings of the early church, churches outside of the RCC during the Reformation, and current theologies.

Penal Substitution Theory is popular, but it is a small sect within Christianiy that affirms the theory.

 

[37818]

I know the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement because I was a Calvinist. I taught the theory.

Questions. When you held your penal substitution view, did you make distinctions between what and what it was not?

 

[DaveXR650]

I bought two dry erase boards and set them up in my office. Over a month I went through writing every verse that proved Penal Substitution correct. Then I examined the verses and erased any passage that did not actually present the theory. In the end no verses remained.

Jon, I appreciate your sincerity and you sharing this but if I do the same thing and do come up with verses that indicate penal substitution I feel that is just as valid as your assessment. This is explained, sufficient for me, in the London 1689 Confession of Faith, which has verses of scripture listed with the statements. We have had enough discussions on this and I know you reject those verses but we don't.

When you take the bruising of the heel verses the crushing of the head in Genesis - and use that as proof that that refutes penal substitution - that's not a valid argument. Those verses being true does not mean that wrath of God was not averted to us by this, or that Jesus and the Father dealt with our sin so that we would not have to. And plenty of scripture supports those concepts as well.

The Bible was not written in the form of systematic theology. And, when something is said, it is not always said as a systematic teaching, or with the intention that the statement is the total explanation on that subject. Sometimes, for instance, someone will be told in Acts that if they accept the fact that Jesus is the Christ they will be saved. Would that work as an explanation of the gospel? Verses are repeatedly given to you that many of us are convinced indicate penal substitution. You don't think they do. Which is fine but the argument that "it doesn't really say that" is not going to be accepted by everyone else, nor is your experience of enlightenment going to be accepted as true by everyone, although I really do respect it. That doesn't mean I have to agree with it.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

God ordains events in which injustices and sins take place without Himself being unjust or authoring sin.

Statements of God "striking" and "bruising" Jesus are not sufficient to show that God is justly punishing him.

How many would you need? 5? 10? 20? No! The Scriptures are true even if their truth is repeated nowhere else. But in this case, Scripture supports Scripture and there is no doubt that it pleased the Lord to bruise His beloved Son. I find Isaiah 53:10 an inspiring verse to contemplate. How much the Father must love His errant people to send His beloved One to such an awful death; and how much the Son must love us willingly to undergo such dreadful torture!

See places like Psalm 44.

We have not dealt falsely with Your covenant.
Our heart has not turned back,
And our steps have not deviated from Your way,
Yet You have crushed us in a place of jackals
And covered us with the shadow of death.

The language of God "crushing" and "covering with the shadow of death" is used of those who are innocent and unjustly suffering.

Psalm 44 is often called the martyrs' song. Yet it ends, 'Arise for our help, and redeem us for Your mercies' sake.' That prayer will have been swiftly answered in the light of Psalms 37:25.

God "crushed" and "struck" Jesus in the same way he struck Abel, Stephen the Martyr, Joseph (your own example), Naboth, etc.

No. Where does the Bible say that God killed Abel? Where does it say that He killed Stephen? Joseph was not killed, but where does it say that God killed Abel? I am glad to see that like a good Calvinist you perceive that God ordains all things, but only in the case of the Lord Jesus is it specifically said that God struck a righteous Person. God struck wicked men such as Er and Onan (Genesis 38) and Herod (Acts of the Apostles 12:23).

He "struck" them by ordaining that they would be unjustly killed.

HE did not actually strike them as He is described as doing to our Lord.

The writer of Hebrews says that we have been brought near to "Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood, which speaks better than the blood of Abel. (Hebrews 12)"

Amen! The blood of Abel cried out for justice (Genesis 4:10); the blood of Christ speaks of reconciliation (Ephesians 2:13).

The blood of the covenant which has been shed is the blood of an innocent person who has been unjustly murdered, like Abel except better than Abel.

It is the blood of an innocent Person, but our Lord was bearing all the sins of His people (1 Peter 2:24), and paid the price of their iniquities and the curse attached to them.

Peter says that we were purchased with "with precious blood, as of a lamb unblemished and spotless, the blood of Christ(1 Peter 1)" not guilty blood shed by just punishment or vengeance. All the emphasis is on the innocence and purity of the blood.

Only innocent deaths merit the reversal of death, and only Jesus can be the truly innocent party.

Yes indeed. 'Christ our Passover [Lamb] was sacrificed for us.' The Passover lambs were a type of Christ. Were they killed unjustly? 'The LORD will provide for Himself the lamb for a burnt offering.'

I can conceive of nothing more wonderful than this: that God Himself, in the Person of Jesus Christ, should willingly suffer instead of us the death, punishment and curse due to fallen mankind as the penalty for sin so that God might be just and the justifier of the one who believes in Jesus (Romans 3:26)

I can conceive of something far more wonderful than that: the atonement that is actually in the Bible. The one that includes Jesus rising from the dead, which is nowhere in your post.

The resurrection is mentioned neither in Romans 3:26 nor 2 Cor 5:21. That is why I did not mention it in my post. If you want to start a new thread on the Resurrection, that will be great.

That I was dead in my transgressions and sins, already a child of wrath (Eph 2). But Jesus was crucified so that I could be co-crucified with him (Gal 2). Though we were under the same sentence of condemnation and mine was just, his was unjust (Luke 23). Justice demanded the reversal of his unjust death, "The justice due to him was with God" (Isaiah 49:4) and he rose from death so that I could be raised with him, for he was "raised for our justification" (Romans 4).

Your musings are not only wresting the Scriptures, but they leave you still in your sins. I tell you that unless Christ has paid in full for your sins (Isaiah 53:6-7), you will have to pay for them yourself. Ask yourself why the Lord Jesus had to suffer such excruciating torments and die such a terrible death. Because God laid on Him the iniquity of us all - that is, all that the Father had given Him to redeem (John 6:39), and He satisfied the justice and the righteous anger of God against sin.

I had intended to write something on the Union of the believer with Christ, but time has prevented me. I am off for a few days' holiday now, but I will try to do it when I get back.[/QUOTE]

 

[JonC]

Questions. When you held your penal substitution view, did you make distinctions between what and what it was not?

Yes.

 

[taisto]

No, this is false.

I know the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement because I was a Calvinist. I taught the theory.

One Sunday, as a guest preacher, I preached a sermon on the Cross. Being a Calvinist I obviously preached within the context of Penal Substitution Theory. It was well received. I went to bed content with the sermon.

The next morning I awoke with a conviction that I had strayed from Scripture by offering a theory rather than God's Word. I can't explain the conviction adequately. I had held Penal Substitution Theory as correct all of my adult life. I read it throughout Scripture. But I couldn't shake the conviction.

I bought two dry erase boards and set them up in my office. Over a month I went through writing every verse that proved Penal Substitution correct. Then I examined the verses and erased any passage that did not actually present the theory. In the end no verses remained.

I told you I am a Biblicist. How could I believe a view of the Atonement, such a foundational doctrine, if it was it actually in the Bible? How can we test doctrine against "what is written" except that doctrine actually be written.

I knew that the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement was wrong. It was difficult, but I worked to read Scripture without reading into it. Once somebody tells you an ink blot is a bat, it is hard not to see the bat.

I concentrated on the text. And it made sense as written, without adding to it.

I came away believing God's Word - Christ suffered and died under the powers of this world, under the wages of sin....our sin. He did not die instead of us, but as Scripture states He died for us, for our sin.

I was familiar with pre-Reformation writings because my seminary degree was in theology. I had dismissed much of their ideas as undeveloped.

Now I could read the writings of the early church and see that they were correct. They adhered to God's Word (to "what is written".


So my understanding comes solely from Scripture. It was validated through the teachings of the early church, churches outside of the RCC during the Reformation, and current theologies.

Penal Substitution Theory is popular, but it is a small sect within Christianiy that affirms the theory.

The heart is desperately wicked. Who can know it?

I question your conviction (where it came from) and your methodology.
I also question your idea of what is "traditional Christianity" and that substitutional atonement is a small sect in Christianity. I suppose that might be accurate if you are including all the liberal churches, secular Christians, and atheist theologians in your mix of Christianity. But, it certainly isn't true for the community that truly knows Christ Jesus as their Redeemer. In that camp, you are very clearly the odd duck.

 

[JonC]

Jon, I appreciate your sincerity and you sharing this but if I do the same thing and do come up with verses that indicate penal substitution I feel that is just as valid as your assessment. This is explained, sufficient for me, in the London 1689 Confession of Faith, which has verses of scripture listed with the statements. We have had enough discussions on this and I know you reject those verses but we don't.

When you take the bruising of the heel verses the crushing of the head in Genesis - and use that as proof that that refutes penal substitution - that's not a valid argument. Those verses being true does not mean that wrath of God was not averted to us by this, or that Jesus and the Father dealt with our sin so that we would not have to. And plenty of scripture supports those concepts as well.

The Bible was not written in the form of systematic theology. And, when something is said, it is not always said as a systematic teaching, or with the intention that the statement is the total explanation on that subject. Sometimes, for instance, someone will be told in Acts that if they accept the fact that Jesus is the Christ they will be saved. Would that work as an explanation of the gospel? Verses are repeatedly given to you that many of us are convinced indicate penal substitution. You don't think they do. Which is fine but the argument that "it doesn't really say that" is not going to be accepted by everyone else, nor is your experience of enlightenment going to be accepted as true by everyone, although I really do respect it. That doesn't mean I have to agree with it.

I understand. Like I said, I held the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement as correct for most of my life.

Other factors come into play and affect how we deal with the Bible and determine doctrine. And these factors are not the same for every Christian.

What made me move from the theory was that conviction it was wrong. That happened to me (it was personal). Had I not preached the sermon, had I not awoken with that conviction, then I would still hold the theory as correct.

I am also a biblicist in the sense I believe foundational doctrines must be in "what is written" (in the text of Scripture) and not just in what we believe that text teaches. It can be systematically derived, but only in that the points are distributed in God's Word. I could have changed my view of doctrine and Scripture and continued to hold Penal Substitution Theory. I didn't.

There are reasons I believe that way.

I believe we must test doctrine against the text of Scripture. BUT I do not understand how we can text doctrine against God's Word without requiring that doctrine to actually be in the actual text ("what is written").

The problem with testing doctrine against what we believe is indicated by Scripture - if that is a foundational doctrine- is essentially we are testing what we believe Scripture indicates against what we believe is indicated by Scripture. It becomes subjective.

I do not expect everyone to hold my views. I don't expect everyone to adhere to "what is written" as the test of doctrine as I know many (if not most) use "what is taught" or "what is indicated" as the test.

These differences mean there will never be agreement in this life. And that is fine.

I am merely trying to explain my position and why I hold it and I believe that is your intent as well.

We all believe things that are not in the text of Scripture, we all have opinions about what is taught. But for me, a foundational doctrine has to stand up to a stronger criteria. It has to be in God's Word rather than something we believe is taught by the Bible.

 

[taisto]

I understand. Like I said, I held the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement as correct for most of my life.

Other factors come into play and affect how we deal with the Bible and determine doctrine. And these factors are not the same for every Christian.

What made me move from the theory was that conviction it was wrong. That happened to me (it was personal). Had I not preached the sermon, had I not awoken with that conviction, then I would still hold the theory as correct.

I am also a biblicist in the sense I believe foundational doctrines must be in "what is written" (in the text of Scripture) and not just in what we believe that text teaches. It can be systematically derived, but only in that the points are distributed in God's Word. I could have changed my view of doctrine and Scripture and continued to hold Penal Substitution Theory. I didn't.

There are reasons I believe that way.

I believe we must test doctrine against the text of Scripture. BUT I do not understand how we can text doctrine against God's Word without requiring that doctrine to actually be in the actual text ("what is written").

The problem with testing doctrine against what we believe is indicated by Scripture - if that is a foundational doctrine- is essentially we are testing what we believe Scripture indicates against what we believe is indicated by Scripture. It becomes subjective.

I do not expect everyone to hold my views. I don't expect everyone to adhere to "what is written" as the test of doctrine as I know many (if not most) use "what is taught" or "what is indicated" as the test.

These differences mean there will never be agreement in this life. And that is fine.

I am merely trying to explain my position and why I hold it and I believe that is your intent as well.

We all believe things that are not in the text of Scripture, we all have opinions about what is taught. But for me, a foundational doctrine has to stand up to a stronger criteria. It has to be in God's Word rather than something we believe is taught by the Bible.

Jon, everyone here believes we must test scripture against our present beliefs. Yet, here you are in the minority as we all test scripture. Can you acknowledge that everyone has done their due diligence and have come to a different conclusion than you and Arthur who are very clearly in a minority camp? Can you acknowledge this?

 

[JonC]

The heart is desperately wicked. Who can know it?

EXACTLY!!!!

That is why I tested Penal Substitution Theory against "what is written" rather than what I believe is taught by Scripture.

I chose a very objective Standard -God's Word.

As you may have realized by your inability to provide even one verse stating that Christ suffered God's wrath, or stating that God punished Jesus instead of punishing us, you hold a subjective standard.

I can provide Scripture stating what I believe on this subject without having to add "but this really means" and without having to redefine words. You can't.

No, most liberal churches come from a Penal Substitution tradition. I am not sure why that is, but the Methodist Church has become very liberal as has many Presbyterian and Baptist churches.

The churches here in the US that reject Penal Substitution Theory are very conservative (many too legalistic, IMHO).

 

[taisto]

EXACTLY!!!!

That is why I tested Penal Substitution Theory against "what is written" rather than what I believe is taught by Scripture.

I chose a very objective Standard -God's Word.

As you may have realized by your inability to provide even one verse stating that Christ suffered God's wrath, or stating that God punished Jesus instead of punishing us, you hold a subjective standard.

I can provide Scripture stating what I believe on this subject without having to add "but this really means" and without having to redefine words. You can't.

No, most liberal churches come from a Penal Substitution tradition. I am not sure why that is, but the Methodist Church has become very liberal as has many Presbyterian and Baptist churches.

The churches here in the US that reject Penal Substitution Theory are very conservative (many too legalistic, IMHO).

That is why you are wrong. The heart is wicked. Don't trust your heart. Trust scripture as all of us do and realize that everyone but you sees substitution being taught by God throughout the entire Bible. How you could go through the entire Bible and cast out all verses as having nothing to do with substitution is beyond me. I don't think you can honestly and fairly do that and I believe this thread proves it based upon all the posters who have shown you your error and you just wipe out their biblical references as though they don't exist.

 

[JonC]

Jon, everyone here believes we must test scripture against our present beliefs. Yet, here you are in the minority as we all test scripture. Can you acknowledge that everyone has done their due diligence and have come to a different conclusion than you and Arthur who are very clearly in a minority camp? Can you acknowledge this?

This is a false statement.

Most here believe that they do test doctrine against Scripture, that is true. BUT there is a bit of unintentional doublespeak there.

I mean testing doctrine against "what is written". That is something you failed to do by refusing to provide Scripture that states Christ suffered God's wrath, or that God punished Christ instead of punishing us.

What you do is test what you believe Scripture teaches against what you believe is taught in the Bible. That is subjective.

@Arthur King and I are in a minority on this board. There are less than a dozen who reject the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement (that I know of) here.

But that doesn't matter. Penal Substitution Theory is not a majority view outside of that s board.

 

[JonC]

That is why you are wrong. The heart is wicked. Don't trust your heart. Trust scripture as all of us do and realize that everyone but you sees substitution being taught by God throughout the entire Bible. How you could go through the entire Bible and cast out all verses as having nothing to do with substitution is beyond me. I don't think you can honestly and fairly do that and I believe this thread proves it based upon all the posters who have shown you your error and you just wipe out their biblical references as though they don't exist.

Rather than going back and forward saying "you are wrong" let's approach this as Christian adults.


1. Provide a passage stating in the text of that passage that Christ suffered God's wrath.

2. Provide a passage stating that God punished Jesus instead of punishing us.


Then ask me to provide a passage stating two points of my view.


(I am asking for God's Word, not what you believe God's Word teaches....the heart is exceedingly wicked, we have to rely on God).

 

[JonC]

That is why you are wrong. The heart is wicked. Don't trust your heart. Trust scripture...

That is why I bought 2 dry erase boards and went directly to Scripture. I didn't just ditch the theory because of a conviction.

 

[DaveXR650]

No, most liberal churches come from a Penal Substitution tradition. I am not sure why that is, but the Methodist Church has become very liberal as has many Presbyterian and Baptist churches.

That's true. Although one of the reasons I get so worked up about rejecting penal substitution is that it seems to me that historically, when this happens, it was preceded by "new", enlightened views of the atonement. That's why I keep hammering at who it is that believes this nowadays and where are the churches.

I think there is always going to be groups desiring to deemphasize the supernatural and think that they can still have Christianity. And the way to do this is to find some way to avoid the virgin birth and the resurrection. You may say that you can have the virgin birth and the resurrection without penal substitution and that may be true but this often begins by someone proposing a new theory of atonement that would not make it absolutely necessary to have the virgin birth and resurrection - and penal substitution requires both and is the default position of the groups you mentioned that have gone "liberal", and they started rejecting those before they went liberal. So you see my concern.

 

[DaveXR650]

1. Provide a passage stating in the text of that passage that Christ suffered God's wrath.

Would you be willing to agree that we were by nature children of wrath? And would you be willing to agree that we are delivered from God's wrath by Christ? And would you be willing to agree that this was done at the atonement?

 

[JonC]

Would you be willing to agree that we were by nature children of wrath? And would you be willing to agree that we are delivered from God's wrath by Christ? And would you be willing to agree that this was done at the atonement?

I agree that we were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.

I agree that Jesus rescues us from the wrath to come.

I do not agree that this occurred at the Atonement.

I believe that the Cross was God reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their sins against them, and committing to us the ministry of reconciliation, urging men to be reconciled to God.

 

[37818]

I do not agree that this occurred at the Atonement.

Then when? The Atonement was completed, where Christ received full payment prior to John 19:28. Without which there could be no resurrection. 1 Corinthians 15:17.

 

[JonC]

Then when? The Atonement was completed, where Christ received full payment prior to John 19:28.

When do we escape the wrath to come? When the wrath comes ("on that day", the Judgment).

John 19:28 After this, Jesus, knowing that all things had already been accomplished, to fulfill the Scripture, *said, “I am thirsty.”

What does the verse say? What does it say everything is done? Was His second coming done? Was Judgment Day a past event? Was the Resurrection done?

No. Go back to Scripture. What was the Cross?


2 Corinthians 5:18–19 Now all these things are from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation, namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation.

God had reconciled the World to Himself.

What follows? God was not counting their sins against them - He committed to us the ministry of reconciliation.

The World is reconciled to God. What else is there? For men to be reconciled to God, which is why we "urge men to be reconciled to God".