An Alternate View (to the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement

[JesusFan]

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.

Do you even deny that God imputed towards us while we were yet ungodly justification and very righteousness of Christ ?

 

[JesusFan]

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).

The obligations imposed upon us by disobeying the law must be met for us to have available to us now the Grace of God, as we are judged and condemned by that Law, while Justified by that Cross, as sin produces in God reaction of righteous wrath and anger and must be punished, so the Cross meets that requirement to have that all met

 

[atpollard]

I am talking about Calvin's philosophy of justice (Legal Humanism).

Just in the off chance that I am not the only person in the WHOLE WORLD that is unfamiliar with what the heck is meant by "Legal Humanism", I asked GOOGLE AI and thought I would share the result [use with caution and check for yourself ... it IS AI.]

"What is Legal Humanism?"

Legal Humanism
(or jurisprudentia elegantior) was an intellectual movement that emerged during the Renaissance, primarily in the 15th and 16th centuries, which applied the historical and philological methods of Renaissance humanism to the study of Roman law.

Core Principles and Methods

• Historical and Philological Analysis: Legal humanists viewed the Corpus Iuris Civilis (Justinian's compilation of Roman law texts) as a historical document that needed to be understood within its original classical context, using rigorous textual criticism and knowledge of Greek and Latin languages.
• "Petere Fontes": The movement's motto was "go to the sources". They aimed to "deconstruct" Justinian's texts to identify the original writings of the classical Roman jurists, which they believed had been altered by Tribonian and his compilers in the 6th century to fit contemporary needs.
• Reaction Against Medieval Commentators: Legal humanists reacted strongly against the medieval methods of the Glossators and Commentators (mos italicus). They disdained the medieval scholars for moving too far from the original texts and applying Roman law anachronistically to the conditions of their own time without regard for its historical context.
• Integration of Knowledge: Legal humanism advocated the study of law in conjunction with other humanities, such as philosophy, Roman history, literature, and antiquities, to gain a more complete understanding of the law.

Key Figures

Leading figures in the legal humanist movement included:

• Andrea Alciato (Alciatus): Considered a founder of the movement in Italy, who then brought it to France.
• Guillaume Budé (Budaeus): A prominent French scholar known for his encyclopedic classical scholarship applied to law.
• Jacques Cujas (Cuiacius): The supreme scholar of the movement in France, known for his deep historical and textual analysis.
• François Hotman: A radical Protestant humanist who was critical of the traditional authority of Roman law itself, advocating instead for the study of national law.

The legal humanists' work laid the foundations for modern, critical, historical legal scholarship by treating law as a subject for historical inquiry rather than a timeless, universally applicable system. The movement flourished in France (known as the mos gallicus), and later influenced legal traditions in the Netherlands and Germany.

 

[JonC]

Just in the off chance that I am not the only person in the WHOLE WORLD that is unfamiliar with what the heck is meant by "Legal Humanism", I asked GOOGLE AI and thought I would share the result [use with caution and check for yourself ... it IS AI.]

"What is Legal Humanism?"

Legal Humanism
(or jurisprudentia elegantior) was an intellectual movement that emerged during the Renaissance, primarily in the 15th and 16th centuries, which applied the historical and philological methods of Renaissance humanism to the study of Roman law.

Core Principles and Methods

• Historical and Philological Analysis: Legal humanists viewed the Corpus Iuris Civilis (Justinian's compilation of Roman law texts) as a historical document that needed to be understood within its original classical context, using rigorous textual criticism and knowledge of Greek and Latin languages.
• "Petere Fontes": The movement's motto was "go to the sources". They aimed to "deconstruct" Justinian's texts to identify the original writings of the classical Roman jurists, which they believed had been altered by Tribonian and his compilers in the 6th century to fit contemporary needs.
• Reaction Against Medieval Commentators: Legal humanists reacted strongly against the medieval methods of the Glossators and Commentators (mos italicus). They disdained the medieval scholars for moving too far from the original texts and applying Roman law anachronistically to the conditions of their own time without regard for its historical context.
• Integration of Knowledge: Legal humanism advocated the study of law in conjunction with other humanities, such as philosophy, Roman history, literature, and antiquities, to gain a more complete understanding of the law.

Key Figures

Leading figures in the legal humanist movement included:

• Andrea Alciato (Alciatus): Considered a founder of the movement in Italy, who then brought it to France.
• Guillaume Budé (Budaeus): A prominent French scholar known for his encyclopedic classical scholarship applied to law.
• Jacques Cujas (Cuiacius): The supreme scholar of the movement in France, known for his deep historical and textual analysis.
• François Hotman: A radical Protestant humanist who was critical of the traditional authority of Roman law itself, advocating instead for the study of national law.

The legal humanists' work laid the foundations for modern, critical, historical legal scholarship by treating law as a subject for historical inquiry rather than a timeless, universally applicable system. The movement flourished in France (known as the mos gallicus), and later influenced legal traditions in the Netherlands and Germany.

Yep....that Legal Humanism.

Calvin phrased it as the purpose of justice is to avenge the law.

It was not concerned with things like preventing crime, moral issues, or really even ethics. It is kinda like codified "morality". Justice demands thar the judge avenge any violations. The goal is not to create a just society.

This philosophy influenced the Western view of law codes. But as a philosophy of Justice it was a failure.


Calvinistic Atonement asks us to assume two very important things, two things that their theory depends upon.

The first is Legal Humanism, that this philosophy is divine justice.

The second is that the Atonement is primary an issue of divine justice.


These need to be defended before we even turn to Scripture because they are assumotions Penal Substitution theorists make when reading the Bible. Christians here are divided not on Scripture but on assumptions.

 

[DaveXR650]

These need to be defended before we even turn to Scripture because they are assumotions Penal Substitution theorists make when reading the Bible. Christians here are divided not on Scripture but on assumptions.

Just a note of caution here. It isn't really valid that you can bring in an obscure term (at least on a forum of laymen) like "legal humanism" and then complain that unless we can defend your labeling of us as such that we cannot defend our overall position Rather, why don't we get into the subject matter itself and go from there. What you are doing reminds me of an old comedy show I was watching where someone accused the hero of being "obtuse and one dimensional" to which he replied "I'm gonna go look that up. You might be in trouble."

We are like Calvin, all products of our time. So am I and so are you and my understanding is that law is designed to make society survivable , maybe even pleasant in a fallen world filled with sinful people. And we "mess" with people as little as possible. At least that used to be so. You, Jon, are probably close enough to me, age wise to remember that our motto was "don't hassle me". Thus, law is, whenever possible, concerned primarily with wrong concrete actions primarily because in human government we can't properly regulate motives, attitudes and moral proclivities. God's law, as given for instance in the 10 commandments does indeed include motives and attitudes. The demand to honor your parents, worship God, avoid even coveting, not just actual stealing, etc. And that doesn't even begin to discuss Jesus own internalization of the law in the Beatitudes. In our modern era we experiment with these aspects. Think of laws against adultery, sodomy, hate crimes, prohibitions on alcohol or drugs or pornography and so on, with varied amounts of success. Again, we don't have modern consensus on this and it looks like Calvin's day was no different, but there is no reason we can't go on and discuss atonement without resolving the merits of legal humanism.

Church literature and confessions discuss sin as "doing that which we should not as well as neglecting to do what we should". And, this is how this relates to our discussion here. The Reformed Calvinists were well aware of all this and so indeed had this whole range of sin in mind in all discussion of atonement and what exactly constituted sin. In addition, much of their literature involves self examination and the necessity for pursuing holiness and the good of others, not just refraining from law breaking. And in addition to that, there is the whole area of our starting out as lost, and enemies of God, whether federal or hereditary and how all that involves the Atonement. We have hardly touched that, but and this is important, that does not mean the Calvinist Reformers were not aware and had no theology on those areas. And, by the way, I don't agree with all their theology in those areas.

Now, Jon, you do have a point in that sometimes in debates, especially with other believers of penal substitution who believed the atonement was universal, where they do frame their arguments using sins as being "things" with an almost physical nature of their own, and drove their points home by illustrations of an economic nature - and that may be a cause for some objections, especially if in their zeal they indeed insist that the whole of the atonement is that and only that. But it really isn't fair to use arguments with other believers in penal substitution, where the starting point was a shared belief in penal substitution, as ammunition to refute what both groups believed in common.

I have read enough at this point to remind us all of a couple of things. One is that the Reformers, Calvinists specifically since they get blamed primarily for penal substitution, did indeed believe and treasure other aspects of the atonement. I can give you references if you need them but we have read many of the same things. What's important from this is to understand that their almost complete emphasis on one aspect of the atonement was I think two fold. One, they were in a real battle with the Arminians, and remember this was winner take all in that church leadership was also running civil society in many areas of life. If you don't believe me just recall Owen's writings in battling the Arminians and you can see his concern for the future of civil society as a whole as well as the theological battle. And two, they were battling Catholic theology, which when you really look into it, is formidable and they had to emphasize that you were not left with the need for the Church or the priest to absolve you of sin and assign penance. This is very similar to the early church in that they were mainly involved with showing that Jesus was actually God and that even though it did not look like it by the numbers, Jesus was victorious and we were winning. And their writing reflects that, even to the neglect of other areas, at least from what we have discovered so far.

In light of that, continue. I learn things from these discussions and don't really mind them if the rhetoric can be kept somewhat civil.

 

[JonC]

Just a note of caution here. It isn't really valid that you can bring in an obscure term (at least on a forum of laymen) like "legal humanism" and then complain that unless we can defend your labeling of us as such that we cannot defend our overall position Rather, why don't we get into the subject matter itself and go from there.

It is not an obscure term, but I get your point. Many have not actually studied the theology they hold (how it developed, what it assumes). We need to define terms.


Legal Humanism is a judicial philosophy that began under the Renaissance Humanism movement. The Renaissance in general looked back to revive certain aspects on antiquity (we often think of art and architecture).

In 16th century France there was a movement to revive Roman Law within France. This failed because it was divorced from a Roman context. But it did contribute to law codes in the Western judicial system. John Calvin was a part of this movement. He was a lawyer, studied legal philosophy at the University of Orléans and the University of Bourges in France. You can read Calvin's commentaries on law today.

When Calvin became a Reformer he developed a theory of atonement (Penal Substitution Theory). You can read about his process and reasoning in his own writings. The philosophy behind his theory is Legal Humanism. He assumed it was correct. But today most (if not all) recognize its problems. But Penal Substitution theorists still assume this philosophy is divine justice.


How does this apply in to this topic?

This philosophy is not concerned with reducing crime, with actual crimes at all. It is not concerned both the criminal or the effects of crimes. It is concerned with (borrowing from Calvin) "avenging" the law as justice.

Sins create a type of debt in justice. God cannot forgive sins because justice demands an accounting for every crime. Justice is essentually collecting a debt that sin creates. God can "forgive" men (allow them to go unpunished) but the sin itself must be punished.

The Penal Substitution theorists need to first defend using this philosophy as divine justice.

The reason is there are many other philosophies that could be used which would nullify their theory.


The other assumption that Penal Substitution theorists must address is placing Atonement under divine justice. If the issue addressed by the atonement is not divine justice then the theory is wrong.


For example, I believe thar the law is a manifestation of God's righteousness. So divine righteousness is not divine justice (it is above justice...as there is a manifestation of God's righteousness apart from the law). I view atonement as addressing sin as falling short of the glory of God (therefore reconciliation fulfills the law apart from the law....it meets the demands of justice but not through the law itself).

 

[JonC]

We are like Calvin, all products of our time. So am I and so are you and my understanding is that law is designed to make society survivable , maybe even pleasant in a fallen world filled with sinful people.

Calvin was a product of his time. And we are as well.

But one reason for Calvin's philosophy is that it is objective. This justice does not care about society. It does not care about reducing crime. It does not care about making life more pleasant. It cares only about avenging the law. A crime is a debt that must be adjudicated.

I am just saying that we all have the same Scriptures. The thing that makes Penal Substitution Theory is not the Bible but the philosophies behind the theory. So those need to be addressed.

 

[DaveXR650]

How does this apply in to this topic?

This philosophy is not concerned with reducing crime, with actual crimes at all. It is not concerned both the criminal or the effects of crimes. It is concerned with (borrowing from Calvin) "avenging" the law as justice.

Sins create a type of debt in justice. God cannot forgive sins because justice demands an accounting for every crime. Justice is essentually collecting a debt that sin creates. God can "forgive" men (allow them to go unpunished) but the sin itself must be punished.

The Penal Substitution theorists need to first defend using this philosophy as divine justice.

This is what I meant with us all being products of our culture. I think that regardless of where one might wish to trace it as coming from, the concept of justice needing to be done goes back at least to God saying that Abel's blood cried out to Him from the ground. Our laws are indeed for the purpose of justice and as a secondary cause may reduce crime. That is why the state steps in on some matters and does not allow personal settlement between parties or even a refusal to press charges as stopping the state's involvement. And here again, this is found in Genesis and Exodus where some matters are settled by fines, some involuntary cases of injury have provisions of sanctuary and some don't but require death and not rehabilitation. My contention is that you are obscuring things with an additional term which is of no use because the core concepts are biblical and early. There is no point in requiring a discussion of biblical concepts of justice to be framed into the context of the Renaissance Humanism movement. If PSA is false it should be irrelevant as to whether it agrees with this movement. The Reformers said that keeping civil behavior in check was one of the purposes of God's law and that should be sufficient for our purposes.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I am not talking about law codes or the separation of church and state. I am talking about Calvin's philosophy of justice (Legal Humanism).

There are many philosophies of justice.

I understand why Calvin used it (it was the philosophy he studied, that he held...before becoming a Reformer he was a part of this movement (Renaissance Humanism) and he believed legal humanism to be perfect justice. But we have hindsight and know it failed as a system of justice in 16th century France (yes, it still influenced law, but as a system of justice it proved deficient).

Why that paricular philosophy as divine justice?

It isn't a "gotcha" question or a trick. Since it is the basis of Penal Substitution Theory it is something I believe important to ask.

I think you are talking through your hat. I don't think you have ever heard of the Justinian Law Codes, or what they mean. You have not provided a single word from Calvin himself to back up your claim, and even if you did, Penal Substitution doesn't come from Calvin, it comes from the Bible. It is because you cannot refute PSA that you have come up with this nonsense.

Get real with the Bible, which is what you said was all that interested you.

 

[DaveXR650]

But one reason for Calvin's philosophy is that it is objective. This justice does not care about society. It does not care about reducing crime. It does not care about making life more pleasant. It cares only about avenging the law. A crime is a debt that must be adjudicated.

Here again, the Law as given by God was given as His will and had severe sanctions which we are subject to as law breakers. Yes, we have speculated a lot as to whether this law, to the extent it is followed my most people will result in a more pleasant society but that is secondary and of no value to our discussion. Showing us that French Humanists were concerned about this is nice to know but not important here.

 

[JonC]

This is what I meant with us all being products of our culture. I think that regardless of where one might wish to trace it as coming from, the concept of justice needing to be done goes back at least to God saying that Abel's blood cried out to Him from the ground. Our laws are indeed for the purpose of justice and as a secondary cause may reduce crime. That is why the state steps in on some matters and does not allow personal settlement between parties or even a refusal to press charges as stopping the state's involvement. And here again, this is found in Genesis and Exodus where some matters are settled by fines, some involuntary cases of injury have provisions of sanctuary and some don't but require death and not rehabilitation. My contention is that you are obscuring things with an additional term which is of no use because the core concepts are biblical and early. There is no point in requiring a discussion of biblical concepts of justice to be framed into the context of the Renaissance Humanism movement. If PSA is false it should be irrelevant as to whether it agrees with this movement. The Reformers said that keeping civil behavior in check was one of the purposes of God's law and that should be sufficient for our purposes.

What I mean is Penal Substitution theorists need to defend the philosophy they assume. The "blood crying out" has nothing to do with Penal Substitution (that theory would hold God must punish Cain's sin because justice demands it....nothing to do with Able being a victim).

Yes, if Penal Substitution is false then its philosophy of divine justice does not matter.
BUT if one believes Penal Substitution Theory correct then they need to defend the philosophy it uses.

Calvin was not concerned (in terms of justice) in keeping civil behavior in check. The philosophy may have that result, but the concern (again, relying on Calvin's words) is avenging the law.

Per this philosophy the law demands that sins be punished and if God does not punish sins then He is unjust.

Penal Substitution theorists need to justify the philosophy they use. We all hold the same Bible. We do not all hold the same philosophy.

 

[JonC]

I think you are talking through your hat. I don't think you have ever heard of the Justinian Law Codes, or what they mean. You have not provided a single word from Calvin himself to back up your claim, and even if you did, Penal Substitution doesn't come from Calvin, it comes from the Bible. It is because you cannot refute PSA that you have come up with this nonsense.

Get real with the Bible, which is what you said was all that interested you.

I have provided quotes from Calvin.

I do not think you have read Calvin's commentaries on justice or his Institutes of the Christian Religion. You seem to have just accepted what these people told you to believe.

I refute Penal Substitution Theory because it is not in the Bible.

You read it as being taught because your philosophy requires that God avenge the law (punish rather than forgive sins) and this because you assume the Atonement primarily tackles a problem of justice. This IS Calvin's philosophy.

You need to defend your philosophy. That is where we differ. We have and read the SAME SCRIPTURES. The difference is I view your philosophy as wrong.

Obviously you cannot defend your theory. Apparently you do not even understand your theory. You only know ghe conclusions, unable to work it out yourself.

Like I said, Calvinism is just another form of Roman Catholicism...different "popes" telling them what to believe.

 

[DaveXR650]

The "blood crying out" has nothing to do with Penal Substitution (that theory would hold God must punish Cain's sin because justice demands it....nothing to do with Able being a victim).

See. This is where people find your thought patterns frustrating. We are talking about the concept that justice is a prominent part of PSA from Bible times, not just French Humanism and then you just blow off the idea that God felt it necessary to confront Cain about Abel's blood crying out to him from the ground. This is just preposterous and I don't know where else to go in discussion.

 

[JonC]

@Martin Marprelate

I will try to help you as you seem to a bit confused.

Let's go slowly.

What is the purpose of punishment?

 

[JonC]

See. This is where people find your thought patterns frustrating. We are talking about the concept that justice is a prominent part of PSA from Bible times, not just French Humanism and then you just blow off the idea that God felt it necessary to confront Cain about Abel's blood crying out to him from the ground. This is just preposterous and I don't know where else to go in discussion.

It is not the concept of justice but what philosophy of justice we use.

What is the purpose of punishment?

Why would God forgiving man based on repentance ("repent", "a new heart", "set your mind on the Spirit", "turns from wickedness", "turn to God", etc) not be just except that God punish those sins?

 

[DaveXR650]

What is the purpose of punishment?

Why would God forgiving man based on repentance ("repent", "a new heart", "set your mind on the Spirit", "turns from wickedness", "turn to God", etc) not be just except God punish those sins?

Now we are getting to the real issues. The purpose of punishment is to satisfy justice. God does not forgive man based on repentance. We see what looks like that but that must be in the context of justice also being done. If Christ had not done atonement then our repentance would avail nothing. It has no inherent power to set things right. What I was trying to say what just that these concepts predate 17th century debate - even if the same subjects were covered.

Think about it. When we are wronged we want vengeance. God says, not "let it go, it's no big deal" but "vengeance is mine, I will repay". God in the old testament condemns judges who don't do their job and stand up for the oppressed.

So the first big point to understand is that you do need to repent, but repentance is not actually a "basis" or a cause of forgiveness. If it had the real value you put on it you might be right in that no atonement or no punishment would be needed as what is done is done. Without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin is a concept that has actual meaning - as in meaning what it says. Whether that is fashionable nowadays or in the 17th century doesn't matter.