An Alternate View (to the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement

[Martin Marprelate]

This, @DaveXR650 , is what I was talking about.

Penal Substitution theorists want to be in agreement with other positions. They use multi-faceted diamond as an example. BUT they have to redefine other positions in order to agree with them.

Take Christus Victor that @Martin Marprelate brought up. He redefines the position to simply mean that Christ achieved victory (as opposed to loosing against Satan).

But that is dishonest. Christus Victor contains more than Christ achieved victory (it includes the "how", by Christ suffering thr punishment of Satan as a representative of the human race, suffering the same consequences that we will all suffer, and then being judged righteous by God and glorified).

When we compare views we need to do so in an honest way. Dishonesty may earn cheers from the echo chamber but it ultimately foolishness that accomplishes nothing.

I agree that we must be honest. I included in my comment the fact that Christus Victor supporters believe that Christ defeated Satan.
But if you believe that Christ suffered the punishment of Satan, you are believing something that is not in the Bible. The Bible makes it clear that it was God Himself who 'bruised' or 'crushed' Christ (Isaiah 53:10), and that Herod, Pilate, the Gentiles and the Jews (again, no mention at all of Satan) were doing His will (Acts 4:27-28). I cannot think of anywhere in the Bible where it is said that Satan punished our Lord on the cross. So much for you believing only what the Bible says!

Sorry. When I say "Classic theology" I mean the general views prior to the 11th century AD. Yes, Christius Victor says that.

The difference, from what I can tell, is who's punishment Jesus was suffering (God's ounishment for our sins or Satan's as the wages of our sins) and the overall effect (individual forgiveness or the reconciliation of man).

I do agree that if PSA is true then Limited Atonement has to be true (you pointed this out with mentioning if Chriat died for all then that woukd be universalism under PSA). Those, under this theory, that Christ died for are those who are saved.

Christus Victor as a distinct doctrine died a well-deserved death for almost a thousand years before it was resurrected by a chap named Gustav Aulen between the wars. Aulen's view is refuted by the Bible and a variety of theologians.
Many (most?) Arminians believe the Doctrine of Penal Substitution, some of them on this very board!

I have read Anabaotist theologians. Also Reformed theologians. I have also read Calvin's Institutes of the Christian religion a couple if times. I have read Stott's commentary on Romans several times, and everything from John Owen. I have read most of John Piper's books.

By [sic] I have not been reading those guys I mean within the last eight years. My books are still in the attic. I have not bothered to unpack them.

Well here is your problem. You are trying to work out the Bible all on your own, and your brain is by no means capable of doing so, as we see above. I strongly advise you to get those books out of the attic and read them. Paul asked the Ethiopian eunuch, "Do you understand what you are reading?" "How can I," he said, "unless someone explains it to me?" That, it seems to me, is the state you are in, and your pride will not allow you either to accept the help offered on this forum, or to consult better and wiser men who have written books to help you. 'Where there is no counsel, the people fall; but in the multitude of counselors there is safety.'

 

[JonC]

I agree that we must be honest. I included in my comment the fact that Christus Victor supporters believe that Christ defeated Satan.

Well....how "honest" of you

Did you include the part where Christis Victor holds that Jesus did not die fir our sins as individuals but for the sins of mankind as a type of Adam, or that it holds that Christ died with us (not instead of us), or that Christ died under the power of the one who has the power of death (Satan)?

Those are important parts of Christis Victor. It is how Christ was victorious and defeated Satan.

You are confusing Christus Victor with one specific Ransom theory. It is not a theory of the atonement (like Penal Substitution Theory, Satisfaction Theory, or Substitution Theory). It is more of a theme throughout several early positions.

Ransom theory was alive and well before and beyond the Reformation. Aulén used "Christus Victor" as a theme to several views (including Ransom Theory). By the 11th century Ransom Theory had become God paying a ransom to Satan.

But scholars also point out that there were initially two views - Christ ransomed us from Satan (here "Satan" was initially viewed as sin and death because Scripture says Satan holds the power of death), Christian paid a ransom but not to any entity (a ransom paid, referring to the price to free us from bondage).

Read the account of the eunuch again. What was Phillp's explanation? He went through Scripture. He explained that this has been fulfilled in Christ.

You have chosen to follow men who say what you want to believe. So do Mormons. So do Jehovah Witnesses. You test your faith against what the men you have chosen to follow tell you to belueve. So do Mormons. So do Jehovah Witnesses. You cannot find your faith in the Bible. Neither can Mormons. Neither can Jehovah Witnesses.


You look for a multitude of counselors in writers who teach what you believe. Just like Mormons and Jehovah Witnessed.

The difference between you and me when it comes to confirmation of our beliefs is while I also can find a multitude of counselors in books (and Christians) I can also find my faith in God's actual words. You cannot.

You would be better off being a Roman Catholic. You would not be any farther from God's Word and you would have more scholars that tell you that your understanding is what the Bible really teaches.


How do you know that Divine Justice is Legal Humanism? If you (and Calvin) got that wrong your entire faith falls apart. And that is just one assumption anong several you hold that if wrong your faith evaporates.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Did you include the part where Christis Victor holds that Jesus did not die fir our sins as individuals but for the sins of mankind as a type of Adam, or that it holds that Christ died with us (not instead of us), or that Christ died under the power of the one who has the power of death (Satan)?

Those are important parts of Christis Victor. It is how Christ was victorious and defeated Satan.

I think you'll find that the doctrine is Christus Victor, not Christis Victor. I did point out that the claim that Christ died "under the power of Satan" is spurious and cannot be found anywhere in the Bible. It seems to be part of the tradition that you hold. The fact is that you are self-deceived. You have persuaded yourself that you follow only the words of God, when in fact you follow your own mind which, as I have said, is sadly unequal to the task.

Now that we have insulted each other again, shall we discuss the matter like Christians? This is the third time I have made this offer to you, with, as yet, no reply.

 

[Alan Dale Gross]

Psalm 89

New thread: JESUS SUFFERED THE WRATH OF GOD EQUIVALENT OF OUR ETERNAL HELL.

 

[Alan Dale Gross]

You are right, they will quote parts of passages like Psalm 89 but ignore important pasts before (like the reason God's wrath was against the nation of Israel).

Psalm 89 is "maschil", an Instructive Psalm, a Psalm causing to understand; it treats concerning the Covenant of Grace, and the Promises of it; and concerning the Mercy and Faithfulness of God, in Making and Keeping the same; and concerning the Messiah and His seed, His church and people; and the Stability and Duration of all these: many passages in it are applied to the Messiah by Jewish writers, ancient and modern; and Psalm 89:20 is manifestly referred to in Acts 13:22.

Psalm 89:38;
"But Thou hast Cast Off and Abhorred,
Thou hast been Wroth with Thine Anointed."

But thou hast cast off,.... Here begin objections to what is before said, and swore to; even to the Everlasting Love of God, to Christ, and to His seed, to the Unchangeableness and Unalterableness of the Covenant, and to the continuance and Perpetuity of the Kingdom and church of Christ, taken from the dealings of the Lord with the Messiah and His people; which were made either by the Psalmist, under a Spirit of Prophecy, Foreseeing what would come to pass; or by the Apostles and church of Christ, about the time of His Sufferings and Death, and after; when He seemed to be "Cast Off", and Rejected by the Lord, particularly when He Forsook Him, and Hid His Face from Him, Matthew 27:46, as when He Hides His Face from His people, it is interpreted by them as Casting them Off; see Psalm 44:22,

"and Abhorred"; not that He Abhorred the Person of Christ, Who was His Own Son, His Beloved Son; nor His Afflictions and Sufferings, which were a Sacrifice of a Sweet Smelling Savour to Him; see Psalm 22:24, though these might be interpreted by others as if the Lord Abhorred or Rejected Him; because He Suffered Him to be used in the manner He was, and particularly to be abhorred by the Jews, even by the Nation in general, Isaiah 49:7, though the sins of His people are meant, which He had upon Him, and for which He Suffered, were an Abhorring to the Lord; and when He was Made sin, He was Made a Curse:

"Thou hast been Wroth with Thine Anointed"; with Thy Messiah;
not Rehoboam, from whom the ten tribes were rent;
nor Josiah, who was killed by Pharaohnecho;
nor Zedekiah, carried captive into Babylon;

"but the True Messiah, the Son of David, before said to be found by the Lord, and Anointed with His Holy Oil, Psalm 89:20; "I have found David My Servant; with My Holy Oil have I Anointed Him", which is to be understood of Him, not as His Own Son, Who was always the Object of His Love, but as the sinner's Surety, Bearing the sins of his people, and all the Wrath and Punishment due unto them; and so is Reconcilable to the Promise, that Lovingkindness should not be taken from Him, Psalm 89:33 and is no objection to it, though made one."

Psalm 89 Gill's Exposition

They have chosen to abandon the faith once delivered. And it is sad.

What would you say if someone asked you what 'a sinner' was?

 

[DaveXR650]

For the past decade I have been amazed at the depth of God's Word as it is written. Scripture interprets Scripture, and while I have not "discovered" the Bible teaching things other than God's own words I have no want for such things. I have grown to know how the Spirit illuminates and teaches what is actually written (that "faith once delivered"). I can accept that Jesus died "according to the Scriptures" rather than according to what any of the many sects say that Scripture teaches.

Jesus died for our sins according to the scriptures and that is the issue that your understanding does not seem to even attempt to address. What you do is attempt to attack what amounts to the whole core of Christianity. What I mean is that if you are right then when I read a guy like Horatius Bonar, a beloved man who although a Calvinist is respected by all for his preaching of free grace, all his chapters on the blood of Christ are heresy and anti-Christian as you have said in previous posts. And what is proposed as a replacement? Nothing. Except for the vague modern ethical theology of following Jesus which I believe is purposely left vague so that those leaders can fill in what we are truly to do. I see this and can provide concrete examples. And often this comes unfortunately from modern Mennonite sources I am truly sorry to say. (I was raised in a Missionary Church which is an offshoot of Mennonites).

I know these threads get off track and it's hard to answer several people posting from different directions at once but this is your thread and you started it out with what is an incomplete alternative to penal substitution. In post 23 you criticize the SBC for not fully explaining PSA when they affirm it yet you never fully explain an alternate view either. And you called a full explanation "satanic" in the same post. Do you not see how some might object?

 

[JesusFan]

I agree that we must be honest. I included in my comment the fact that Christus Victor supporters believe that Christ defeated Satan.
But if you believe that Christ suffered the punishment of Satan, you are believing something that is not in the Bible. The Bible makes it clear that it was God Himself who 'bruised' or 'crushed' Christ (Isaiah 53:10), and that Herod, Pilate, the Gentiles and the Jews (again, no mention at all of Satan) were doing His will (Acts 4:27-28). I cannot think of anywhere in the Bible where it is said that Satan punished our Lord on the cross. So much for you believing only what the Bible says!

Christus Victor as a distinct doctrine died a well-deserved death for almost a thousand years before it was resurrected by a chap named Gustav Aulen between the wars. Aulen's view is refuted by the Bible and a variety of theologians.
Many (most?) Arminians believe the Doctrine of Penal Substitution, some of them on this very board!


Well here is your problem. You are trying to work out the Bible all on your own, and your brain is by no means capable of doing so, as we see above. I strongly advise you to get those books out of the attic and read them. Paul asked the Ethiopian eunuch, "Do you understand what you are reading?" "How can I," he said, "unless someone explains it to me?" That, it seems to me, is the state you are in, and your pride will not allow you either to accept the help offered on this forum, or to consult better and wiser men who have written books to help you. 'Where there is no counsel, the people fall; but in the multitude of counselors there is safety.'

IF JonC really has indeed read all of those listed authors, he would have been clearly shown via each on of them that the Psa view of the atonement would be the most biblical correct viewpoint to hold

 

[JesusFan]

Well....how "honest" of you

Did you include the part where Christis Victor holds that Jesus did not die fir our sins as individuals but for the sins of mankind as a type of Adam, or that it holds that Christ died with us (not instead of us), or that Christ died under the power of the one who has the power of death (Satan)?

Those are important parts of Christis Victor. It is how Christ was victorious and defeated Satan.

You are confusing Christus Victor with one specific Ransom theory. It is not a theory of the atonement (like Penal Substitution Theory, Satisfaction Theory, or Substitution Theory). It is more of a theme throughout several early positions.

Ransom theory was alive and well before and beyond the Reformation. Aulén used "Christus Victor" as a theme to several views (including Ransom Theory). By the 11th century Ransom Theory had become God paying a ransom to Satan.

But scholars also point out that there were initially two views - Christ ransomed us from Satan (here "Satan" was initially viewed as sin and death because Scripture says Satan holds the power of death), Christian paid a ransom but not to any entity (a ransom paid, referring to the price to free us from bondage).

Read the account of the eunuch again. What was Phillp's explanation? He went through Scripture. He explained that this has been fulfilled in Christ.

You have chosen to follow men who say what you want to believe. So do Mormons. So do Jehovah Witnesses. You test your faith against what the men you have chosen to follow tell you to belueve. So do Mormons. So do Jehovah Witnesses. You cannot find your faith in the Bible. Neither can Mormons. Neither can Jehovah Witnesses.


You look for a multitude of counselors in writers who teach what you believe. Just like Mormons and Jehovah Witnessed.

The difference between you and me when it comes to confirmation of our beliefs is while I also can find a multitude of counselors in books (and Christians) I can also find my faith in God's actual words. You cannot.

You would be better off being a Roman Catholic. You would not be any farther from God's Word and you would have more scholars that tell you that your understanding is what the Bible really teaches.


How do you know that Divine Justice is Legal Humanism? If you (and Calvin) got that wrong your entire faith falls apart. And that is just one assumption anong several you hold that if wrong your faith evaporates.

Satan had NOTHING to between in our salvation, as all he did was to be used by Sovereign God to help in the plot of wicked sinners to get the Lord Jesus upon that Cross, but all of salvation transpired between the transaction between God the Father and God the Son , as Jesus paid not any ransom to satan, but to God the Father

 

[JesusFan]

Jesus died for our sins according to the scriptures and that is the issue that your understanding does not seem to even attempt to address. What you do is attempt to attack what amounts to the whole core of Christianity. What I mean is that if you are right then when I read a guy like Horatius Bonar, a beloved man who although a Calvinist is respected by all for his preaching of free grace, all his chapters on the blood of Christ are heresy and anti-Christian as you have said in previous posts. And what is proposed as a replacement? Nothing. Except for the vague modern ethical theology of following Jesus which I believe is purposely left vague so that those leaders can fill in what we are truly to do. I see this and can provide concrete examples. And often this comes unfortunately from modern Mennonite sources I am truly sorry to say. (I was raised in a Missionary Church which is an offshoot of Mennonites).

I know these threads get off track and it's hard to answer several people posting from different directions at once but this is your thread and you started it out with what is an incomplete alternative to penal substitution. In post 23 you criticize the SBC for not fully explaining PSA when they affirm it yet you never fully explain an alternate view either. And you called a full explanation "satanic" in the same post. Do you not see how some might object?

Without the Psa view of the atonement of Christ, there is NO basis for how and when the wrath of God was ever satisfied, nor any basis given with out that view as to how Holy God can stay as such and declare as now righteous in Christ

 

[JonC]

Jesus died for our sins according to the scriptures and that is the issue that your understanding does not seem to even attempt to address. What you do is attempt to attack what amounts to the whole core of Christianity. What I mean is that if you are right then when I read a guy like Horatius Bonar, a beloved man who although a Calvinist is respected by all for his preaching of free grace, all his chapters on the blood of Christ are heresy and anti-Christian as you have said in previous posts. And what is proposed as a replacement? Nothing. Except for the vague modern ethical theology of following Jesus which I believe is purposely left vague so that those leaders can fill in what we are truly to do. I see this and can provide concrete examples. And often this comes unfortunately from modern Mennonite sources I am truly sorry to say. (I was raised in a Missionary Church which is an offshoot of Mennonites).

I know these threads get off track and it's hard to answer several people posting from different directions at once but this is your thread and you started it out with what is an incomplete alternative to penal substitution. In post 23 you criticize the SBC for not fully explaining PSA when they affirm it yet you never fully explain an alternate view either. And you called a full explanation "satanic" in the same post. Do you not see how some might object?

Jesus died for our sins according to the scriptures.

That is EXACTLY what I have e been shouting at the top of my lungs.

Take away Penal Substitution Theory. Jesus did not die for our sins according to what men think the Bible really teaches.

Look....you do not need to replace Penal Substitution Theory with anything.
Just take it away and trust in every word that comes from God.

Take away that Legal Humanism. It is nit divine justice...it is not even just.
Take away the idea that the focus of the cross, whuke fulfilling the law, was focused on the law.
Take away the idea that Jesus suffered God's punishment.

Take away all of those things men say the Bible teaches and acceot that Jesus died for our sins according to the Scriptures.

Lean not on your own understanding but on every word that comes forth from God.
Test doctrine with "what is written" and get rif of what is not.

That is it. It is that simple (not easy, but simple).

Just trust God.

 

[JonC]

I think you'll find that the doctrine is Christus Victor, not Christis Victor. I did point out that the claim that Christ died "under the power of Satan" is spurious and cannot be found anywhere in the Bible. It seems to be part of the tradition that you hold. The fact is that you are self-deceived. You have persuaded yourself that you follow only the words of God, when in fact you follow your own mind which, as I have said, is sadly unequal to the task.

Now that we have insulted each other again, shall we discuss the matter like Christians? This is the third time I have made this offer to you, with, as yet, no reply.

You did not insult me. You insulted my phone. I do not feel sorry for my phone. Apparently it worships somebody called "Hod".

I apologize, but I already told you I do not discuss things with you for your benefit but for others to see how far philosophy can take people from God (as a warning to others). You are free to use me as that type of warning to your camp, should they start to waiver and turn towards God's Word you can show thrm what happened to me when I left that philosophy.

Those you are speaking of (those multitudes of counselors) did indeed believe that Christ shared in our humanity so that by his death he might break the power of him who holds the power of death—that is, the devil.

And I do believe that is true. But you missed the point. It was that Satan holds the power of death, that Christ died for our sins.


You are wrong. I do not trust in my understanding at all. I am sure I do not have a perfect understanding and I do not expect but to see as through a glass, dimly at this time. The point is I am not leaning on my understanding. I am not telling peoole the Bible means anything other than "what is written".


Look at it this way - we have a couple of options.

We can believe that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures.

OR

We can believe that Christ died for our sins according to the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement (what one sect if men say the Bible "really" teaches).

We cannot do both.