An Alternate View (to the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement

[JonC]

I was thinking of Trypho the Jew in his debate with Justin Martyr. He said, " Be assured that all our nation waits for Christ; and we admit that all the Scriptures which you have quoted refer to him. Moreover, I do also admit that the name of Jesus, by which the son of [Nun] was called, has inclined me very strongly to adopt this view. But whether Christ should be so shamefully crucified, this we are in doubt about. For whosoever is crucified is said by the law to be accursed, so that I am exceedingly incredulous on this point. It is quite clear, indeed, that the Scriptures announce tht Christ had to suffer, but we wish to learn if you can prove to us whether it was by the suffering cursed in the law' [Justin Martyr, 'Dialogue with Trypho, a Jew']

It seems to me that you are somewhat in the position of Trypho, and are unable or unwilling to accept that our Lord suffered the punishment cursed by the law on our behalf. This is how Justin replied:
'...For the whole human race will be found to be under a curse. For it is written, "Cursed is everyone that continueth not in all the things that are written in the law to do them" (Deut. 27:26). And no one has accurately done all, nor will you venture to deny this; but some more and some less than others have observed the ordinances enjoined. But if those who are under the law appear to be under a curse for not having observed all the requirements, how much more shall all the nations appear to be under acurse who practice idolatry, who seduce youths, and commit other crimes.
If then, the Father of all wished His Christ for the whole human family to take on Him the curses of all, knowing that after He had been crucified and was dead, He would raise Him up, why do you argue about Him who submitted to suffer these things according to the Father's will, as if He were accursed, and do not rather bewail yourselves?' [Ibid]

So the Lord Jesus took upon Himself the curse of God that had rested on the 'whole human family,' and was crucified even though He had committed no sin. Although He was innocent, he bore the curse due to us, enduring in His death, the punishment due to us. This is the Doctrine of Penal Substitution, based here upon Gal. 3:13; Deut. 21:23; 27:26. Other ante-Nicean fathers, such as Eusebius of Caesarea and Hilary of Poitiers take a simlar position.

Not really. I am both able and willing to accept that Jesus suffered God's wrath. I once did believe that very thing.

The reason I will not is I do not see a need to add that idea to what is written in Scripture.

Suppose you did not hold the presuppositions you hold (you do not hold the philosophy Calvin held for justice).

You probably would not view the Old Testament as you do. When you read of God forgiving sins, of the sacrific system, of Satan crushing the Seed on the woman's heel, etc
you probably would understand it in an entirely different way.

Penal Substitution Theory is based on some passages, and even some of what the Early Church believed. But it is also based on several presuppositions.

Every theory is based on some Scripture, and related to some of what the Early Church believed.

That is why what we need to look at is the actual core of Penal Substitution Theory (what makes it diffetent....not similar...to other positions).


I have asked before - why Legal Humanism as divine justice?

Why do you even believe that Salvation is through the law?

I believe that Christ fulfilled the law, but not through the law. Part of this is I do not hold your philosophy about justice. But God's righteousness is the same whether through the law or via recreation.

Where you put the law I put the righteousness of God. I view God's righteousness as above the law, and therefore not dependent on the law itself (it can be manifested apart from the law).

 

[JonC]

I do not think you will find anyone here who will disagree that the Lord Jesus died for our sins according to the Scriptures. The issue is, what does this statement actually mean? It will be really helpful if you will tell us what you think it means.

It bothers me when you do that.

I believe that "the Lord Jesus died for our sins according to the Scriptures" means that Jesus died according to "what is written" in God's Word.

I do not mean this to be thhat Jesus died according to what any theory (whether Penal Substitution, Recaitulatiion, Substitution Theiry, Satisfaction Theory, Ontological Substitution, etc.) presents the Scriptures to really teach. Instead I mean by what is in the Biblical text.

I believe that the New Testament explains the symbolism and foreshadowing in the Old Testament. So I do not believe that we have to choose from all of those various theories.

 

[JonC]

I only just saw this post. What Christians believe is that 'by His wounds we are healed.' I seem to recall reading that in the Bible somewhere.

Our sins can be laid upon the Lord Jesus; they can be taken away. Why can they not be transferred?

Nonsense! It accomplishes everything. You are just writing the first thing that comes into your head.

Roman law, if you mean by that the Justinian law codes, was an attempt to make law as close as possible to Divine justice. How well they succeeded is open to debate, but the intention is not.

The cross satisfies the justice of God, That is the first and most important thing. 'For I delivered to you first of all [or 'as of first importance'] that which I also received; that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures.' That, and the resurrection are the things of first importance. The new birth, sanctification, filling with the Spirit and everything else are not unimportant, but they flow from the death and resurrection of Christ.

Praise God! For God demonstrates His own love towards us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. MUch more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him.' Wonderful news! Christ justifies the ungodly. But then, with His justice satisfied, God pours out His Holy Spirit upon His people.

What is deeply concerning is that you are allowed, on this forum, to tell your brothers is Christ that they are teaching doctrines of demons! Shame on you! Perhaps even worse is that your fellow moderators will not take you aside and tell you that you behaviour is unacceptable; shame on them too!

Your problem is that you have your own 'theory of penal substitution' and when you find that it is not the same as the actual Doctrine, you have a hissy fit like the one we see here.

Come on, now....you have said the same about Christians who stick with "what is written" (that they hold a fakse view).

Do I believe that Penal Substitution Theory teaches that Jesus suffered God's punishment for our sins? Yes. That is what the term "penal substitution" (as opposed to ideas like "satisfactory substitution") means.

By Roman Law I mean Roman Law. This is what Calvin insisted on. It was a 16th century philosophy in France that sought to implement Roman Law as justice. Read Calvin's commentaries on judicial philosophy. Read his Institutes. You do not have to take my word for it. He explains his philosophy. He tells us how he developed the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement.


What do you believe is the purpose of punishment?

 

[JonC]

@Martin Marprelate

We cannot discuss our differences by looking only at passages where we agree.
We have to look at our differences.
We have the same Bible, the same passages.
We have different assumptions.

I believe that the Atonement is not a matter of the law but a matter of divine righteousness.
God's righteousness is greater than the law.
God's righteousness can be manifested through thr law.
BUT God's righteousness can also be manifested apart from the law.
This is the sane righteousness.

In other words, I believe that Christ fulfilled the law, not that He saved us through the law.

This affects how I view Scripture. It means I see the spirit of the law a bit differently from the letter of the law. I view God as desiring obedience rather than the actual sacrifice of animals. So I truly believe that God forgives sins, that God's wrath is propitiated.


You view Atonement as a matter of the law. You view sin as a problem of divine justice.

You need to explain why you categorize salvation as being an issue of divine justice.

You need to defend using Legal Humanism as divine justice.

You need to explain the purpose of punishment.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Not really. I am both able and willing to accept that Jesus suffered God's wrath. I once did believe that very thing.

You seem to believe that changing your mind makes you clever. It is not necessarily so (Gal. 3:1).

The reason I will not is I do not see a need to add that idea to what is written in Scripture.

Your smugness does you no credit. You are simply ignoring what is in Scripture

Suppose you did not hold the presuppositions you hold (you do not hold the philosophy Calvin held for justice).

You probably would not view the Old Testament as you do. When you read of God forgiving sins, of the sacrific system, of Satan crushing the Seed on the woman's heel, etc
you probably would understand it in an entirely different way.

FYI, I have read very little indeed of Calvin, and what I have read is mostly his sermons (which are excellent BTW). You seem to think that Calvin held a certain philosophy. So what? I do not know (or care) whether he did or not.

Penal Substitution Theory is based on some passages, and even some of what the Early Church believed. But it is also based on several presuppositions.

Every theory is based on some Scripture, and related to some of what the Early Church believed.

That is why what we need to look at is the actual core of Penal Substitution Theory (what makes it diffetent....not similar...to other positions).

If you believe this, you need to prove it, and I have not seen you do so yet.

I have asked before - why Legal Humanism as divine justice?

Define Legal humanism. I have never mentioned it. Why do you bring it up now after nearly 20 years of discussion?

Why do you even believe that Salvation is through the law?

I do not believe that salvation is through the law; it is through Christ. Why do you not believe that?

I believe that Christ fulfilled the law, but not through the law. Part of this is I do not hold your philosophy about justice. But God's righteousness is the same whether through the law or via recreation.

Where you put the law I put the righteousness of God. I view God's righteousness as above the law, and therefore not dependent on the law itself (it can be manifested apart from the law).

Well, this is just woffle on your part. I prefer to believe the Bible. 'The LORD is well pleased for His righteousness' sake. He will magnify the law and make it honourable.' 'Do we then make the law void through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law.'
The difference between you and me is that you keep talking about Scripture and I keep quoting it.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Come on, now....you have said the same about Christians who stick with "what is written" (that they hold a fakse view).

I have certainly criticized people who quote large portions of Scripture without saying what they think the portions mean, as well as those who keep talking about Scripture without ever quoting it.

Do I believe that Penal Substitution Theory teaches that Jesus suffered God's punishment for our sins? Yes. That is what the term "penal substitution" (as opposed to ideas like "satisfactory substitution") means.

If you stick to that, you will not go far wrong.

By Roman Law I mean Roman Law.

Great. Do you mean pagan Roman law or the Justinian law codes?

This is what Calvin insisted on. It was a 16th century philosophy in France that sought to implement Roman Law as justice. Read Calvin's commentaries on judicial philosophy. Read his Institutes. You do not have to take my word for it. He explains his philosophy. He tells us how he developed the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement.

As I have just written,I have read very little of Calvin and almost none of his Institutes. Penal Substitution predates Calvin, and from a Protestant point of view can be seen in Wycliffe and Tyndale along with Peter Martyr and others on the Continent. My beliefs have nothing to do with French law, although most countries in 16th Century Europe based their laws on the Justinian codes.

What do you believe is the purpose of punishment?

What do you think the Bible says?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

@Martin Marprelate

We cannot discuss our differences by looking only at passages where we agree.
We have to look at our differences.
We have the same Bible, the same passages.
We have different assumptions.

I believe that the Atonement is not a matter of the law but a matter of divine righteousness.
God's righteousness is greater than the law.
God's righteousness can be manifested through thr law.
BUT God's righteousness can also be manifested apart from the law.
This is the sane righteousness.

In other words, I believe that Christ fulfilled the law, not that He saved us through the law.

This affects how I view Scripture. It means I see the spirit of the law a bit differently from the letter of the law. I view God as desiring obedience rather than the actual sacrifice of animals. So I truly believe that God forgives sins, that God's wrath is propitiated.


You view Atonement as a matter of the law. You view sin as a problem of divine justice.

You need to explain why you categorize salvation as being an issue of divine justice.

You need to defend using Legal Humanism as divine justice.

You need to explain the purpose of punishment.

All this is a question of philosophy. Thank you for laying out yours. But since you have told me what I believe , without ever quoting anything I have posted, why do you need me to comment further?
You need to defend your position from Scripture, but that seems to be very difficult for you. Why not start with Isaiah 42:21 and Romans 3:31?