An Alternate View (to the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement

[JonC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

The fact is that PSA stands alone.

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

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

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

 

[DaveXR650]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[JonC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[atpollard]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[DaveXR650]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[JonC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[DaveXR650]

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

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

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

 

[DaveXR650]

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

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

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

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

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

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