Atonement

[Reformed]

As @Reformed pointed out, Penal Substitution Theory was not articulated until the Reformation. I do not think the Church was void what God was revealing through Scripture the Theory for 1500 years.

What I said was that Penal Substitution was a product of the Reformation. I never said the truths it confesses did not exist before that time. I do discount the pronouncements of the Roman Catholic Church from the early 5th century until the beginning of the Reformation. The early Patristic Age left more than just the Atonement as unfinished business. It failed to tackle the importance of grace and faith, independent from an ecclesiastical hierarchy until a temperamental Benedictine monk decided to combine writing with carpentry.

I think God was very much at work during the time when the papacy ruled both religious and political life in Europe. The lamp of the Gospel was never extinguished, although it was dim to the masses. The Reformation was not an event to itself, although historians and even some in the church view it that way. The Reformation was an exodus of sorts. Just as Israel was freed from the yoke of Pharaoh, the Gospel was liberated from forces that tried to hijack it for its own purposes. The Reformers started to tackle that unfinished business that the ECF's were divided over. Part of that was the Atonement. I will save my advocacy for Penal Substitution for a thread that I will start unless someone else gets to it first. One thing that I am asking you to do is to make a strong biblical case for your position. One of the criticisms you have made about a few members of this board is that they have not made a biblical case for Penal Substitution; that they have used implied doctrine and eisegesis. Unless I am reading you wrong, you have an affinity for the writings of the ECF's and the theology that was done during the Patristic Age. That can be just as bad as an eisegetical argument because it is not an authoritative source. I cannot speak for anyone else, but I promise to give your biblical argument a serious read and honest critique.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

As @Reformed pointed out, Penal Substitution Theory was not articulated until the Reformation.

What I said was that Penal Substitution was a product of the Reformation. I never said the truths it confesses did not exist before that time. I do discount the pronouncements of the Roman Catholic Church from the early 5th century until the beginning of the Reformation. The early Patristic Age left more than just the Atonement as unfinished business. It failed to tackle the importance of grace and faith, independent from an ecclesiastical hierarchy until a temperamental Benedictine monk decided to combine writing with carpentry.

Whilst I agree that there isn't a lot out there from the ECFs on the Atonement -- they were very much taken up with Christology -- without doubt there is enough for us to know that Penal Substitution was alive and well in the Patristic Era.
I was hoping to avoid having to cut and paste all those quotes again, but I can see it will have to be done.

 

[JonC]

What I said was that Penal Substitution was a product of the Reformation. I never said the truths it confesses did not exist before that time. I do discount the pronouncements of the Roman Catholic Church from the early 5th century until the beginning of the Reformation. The early Patristic Age left more than just the Atonement as unfinished business. It failed to tackle the importance of grace and faith, independent from an ecclesiastical hierarchy until a temperamental Benedictine monk decided to combine writing with carpentry.

I think God was very much at work during the time when the papacy ruled both religious and political life in Europe. The lamp of the Gospel was never extinguished, although it was dim to the masses. The Reformation was not an event to itself, although historians and even some in the church view it that way. The Reformation was an exodus of sorts. Just as Israel was freed from the yoke of Pharaoh, the Gospel was liberated from forces that tried to hijack it for its own purposes. The Reformers started to tackle that unfinished business that the ECF's were divided over. Part of that was the Atonement. I will save my advocacy for Penal Substitution for a thread that I will start unless someone else gets to it first. One thing that I am asking you to do is to make a strong biblical case for your position. One of the criticisms you have made about a few members of this board is that they have not made a biblical case for Penal Substitution; that they have used implied doctrine and eisegesis. Unless I am reading you wrong, you have an affinity for the writings of the ECF's and the theology that was done during the Patristic Age. That can be just as bad as an eisegetical argument because it is not an authoritative source. I cannot speak for anyone else, but I promise to give your biblical argument a serious read and honest critique.

The way I see it we started off talking past each other for a time due to my poor articulation. Your statement here clarifies what I mean by the difference in penal and substitution elements and the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement, the latter being a product of the Reformed Church. In the past this saw contention as some believed the newness of the Theory (the articulation of those pre-existing ideas/ truths as the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement) was somehow an insult to its validity.

While I do have an appreciation of the Early Church Fathers it is primarily from a historical standpoint. I also appreciate ANE literature (which were to a large extent centered around paganism). I like Greek and Roman history. In fact, the only history that does not hold my attention is American history (I don't know why...my wife talked me into seeing God's and Generals which was like watching the same scene over and over again for four hours....but she loved it).

I do not take my doctrinal nod from the Early Church Fathers, if that is what you are asking. I find their writings insightful, but mostly because they were living out their understanding in a way that is foreign to most of us. I like George Müller as well....but that's another story.

 

[JonC]

Whilst I agree that there isn't a lot out there from the ECFs on the Atonement -- they were very much taken up with Christology -- without doubt there is enough for us to know that Penal Substitution was alive and well in the Patristic Era.
I was hoping to avoid having to cut and paste all those quotes again, but I can see it will have to be done.

I think you would be surprised. It is not a lack of teaching (compared to what we have of their teaching) but a lack of precision. And we have to be mindful that we are not fully aware of the extent of their teachings. Origen is a good example. He is credited with the Ransom Theory and viewing the ransom as a payment to Satan. But this is very questionable (others viewed it as a ransom to liberate us from sin and death, and it has been suggested this was what Origen was communicating). Nevertheless, it became a ransom paid to Satan.

But even with Origen (regardless as to the way he viewed this ransom) the penal and substitution elements are there. There are very few views of the atonement that are absent these things (the word "atonement", even, implies a penal element and some type of substitution or representation).

If you would like to cut and past the teachings of the Early Church that shows these elements present, then please do but on a separate thread. The ideas that they affirm are what I have referred to as "penal substitution" (sorry again for the phrase, but here it means the ideas) in contrast with Penal Substitution Theory (which is a very precise theory).

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I do not take my doctrinal nod from the Early Church Fathers, if that is what you are asking

If that is so, why do you consistently make a criticism of Penal Substitution by saying (wrongly) that it did not exist before the Reformation? In fact, the time the doctrine was articulated is really irrelevant; what matters is its fidelity to the Bible.

 

[JonC]

I cannot speak for anyone else, but I promise to give your biblical argument a serious read and honest critique.

That would be refreshing.

As I said before, where we begin dictates where we end.

I think the first issue is my understanding of the “problem” the atonement addresses. I suggested that this problem is “sin”. And I stated that Scripture deals with sin as a systemic corruption which includes but extends far beyond moral implications.

For example, in Romans Paul uses 10 general terms for sin (not including specific sins). 48 times Paul speaks of sin as a principle, twice as an act, 5 times as transgression, 15 times as a deviation from truth, 9 times as unclean, twice as disobedience, four times as ungodliness, 6 times as lawlessness, and four times as error. In Galatians Paul uses sin to describe the failure of man to attain righteousness. John uses sin in association with the individual to the Christian community. Jesus uses sin to denote irresponsibility to another human being.

So there are my first two points:

1. The atonement deals with the problem of sin.

2. Sin is a systemic corruption which includes but is greater than its moral aspect.

 

[JonC]

If that is so, why do you consistently make a criticism of Penal Substitution by saying (wrongly) that it did not exist before the Reformation? In fact, the time the doctrine was articulated is really irrelevant; what matters is its fidelity to the Bible.

Because when I was a graduate student I wrestled between two things I truly loved - Systematic Theology and Church History. I chose the former but was invited back after earning my masters to study the later under a professor who had read my thesis (I had neither the time nor the money). I saw the idea that Penal Substitution was the view of the Early Church Fathers as as attributing a foreign mindset to the ECF's (thereby tainting history and skewing what they legitimately taught) and depriving the Reformers of the work that they truly accomplished.

For me, that subject was never about contending for or against Penal Substitution Theory. The writings of those men are all that exists to speak for them and they need to be taken as a whole. They are witnesses of our faith in the sense that they lived and died for Christ, and I believe deserve that respect even if I disagree with their conclusions.

 

[Reformed]

2. Sin is a systemic corruption which includes but is greater than its moral aspect.

At its lowest common denominator, sin is rebellion, specifically, rebellion against God. The consequence of sin is death* (physical and spiritual) and all other temporal manifestations** of the Fall (weeds, pain in childbirth, natural disasters et al.). I probably do not need to ask this, but since defining terms means sometimes dividing syllables, what do you see as the genesis of sin? A second question is about your view of the Fall. How did it affect Adam and his posterity? I am asking because you are starting with sin and that will give us a window into your view of the Atonement.

*Genesis 2:17
**Genesis 3:16-19

 

[The Biblicist]

For example, in Romans Paul uses 10 general terms for sin (not including specific sins). 48 times Paul speaks of sin as a principle, twice as an act, 5 times as transgression, 15 times as a deviation from truth, 9 times as unclean, twice as disobedience, four times as ungodliness, 6 times as lawlessness, and four times as error. In Galatians Paul uses sin to describe the failure of man to attain righteousness. John uses sin in association with the individual to the Christian community. Jesus uses sin to denote irresponsibility to another human being.

I fail to see your point. All of these uses are connected with God's Law either as a moral standard or failure rooted in a moral condition. Just because Paul speaks of it as a "principle" ("law") it is clear from the context it is a MORAL principle that opposes "good." "Transgression" is violation of law. Deviation from "truth" is due to moral deviation. . "Unclean" has ceremonial baggage which is rooted in holiness versus unholiness, again moral in nature. "Ungodliness" has a moral context. "lawlessness" is standard of violation of law which is rooted in morality. "Error" again points to a moral condition that is in opposition to God. Failure to attain righteousness is unrighteousness.

It seems you are not going to respond, but your evidence is contrived and forced rather than a careful contextual based treatment of facts.

 

[JonC]

I fail to see your point. All of these uses are connected with God's Law either as a moral standard or failure rooted in a moral condition. Just because Paul speaks of it as a "principle" ("law") it is clear from the context it is a MORAL principle that opposes "good." "Transgression" is violation of law. Deviation from "truth" is due to moral deviation. . "Unclean" has ceremonial baggage which is rooted in holiness versus unholiness, again moral in nature. "Ungodliness" has a moral context. "lawlessness" is standard of violation of law which is rooted in morality. "Error" again points to a moral condition that is in opposition to God. Failure to attain righteousness is unrighteousness.

It seems you are not going to respond, but your evidence is contrived and forced rather than a careful contextual based treatment of facts.

My point is that when Paul was speaking of it as a principle he was not consistently speaking of it as "law".

 

[JonC]

At its lowest common denominator, sin is rebellion, specifically, rebellion against God. The consequence of sin is death* (physical and spiritual) and all other temporal manifestations** of the Fall (weeds, pain in childbirth, natural disasters et al.). I probably do not need to ask this, but since defining terms means sometimes dividing syllables, what do you see as the genesis of sin? A second question is about your view of the Fall. How did it affect Adam and his posterity? I am asking because you are starting with sin and that will give us a window into your view of the Atonement.

*Genesis 2:17
**Genesis 3:16-19

There are two places that we disagree.

First, I believe that Sin entered the world through one man's disobedience (and this disobedience was a sin). But I believe that sin is more than this disobedience or rebellion. I believe that it is first and foremost a principle and power (Romans 7:14-8:8) that entered the world through Adam's disobedience (sin). Adam's transgression is not the problem. Sin as a principle/ power is the problem (Romans 5:12-21; 1 Cor 5...I can't remember the verses). Second, I do not believe that the wages of sin (in terms of the "Fall") is a spiritual death. When we look at Scripture as a whole we have to include the affects of the Cross, so in that sense we are judged for our sins but it is Christ-centered. But in Genesis and the Fall, the wages of sin is death (a physical death). Genesis 2:14 presents God's words to Adam that when he eats of it death is certain (basically, it's muth or "die" stated twice). Often this type of wording is used as an emphatic or to express a certainty (just as plurals in Hebrew can indicate power, and Jesus' use of the Greek ἀμή ἀμήν to express certainty). Hebrews 9:27-28 also affirms this view. It is appointed to man once to die (physically) and then the judgment. Men are never presented in Scripture as experiencing a "spiritual death", I believe because man (to include Adam) was created flesh.

So I believe that Adam was created flesh and out of Adam's will he sinned. Because of Adam's transgression sin entered the world and through sin death. That is what I believe to be the genesis of sin. Adam chose to do his will above God's command and because of this transgression sin as a principle/ power was introduced into the world and men were slaves to sin.

The way that the Fall affected Adam and his posterity is that mankind was enslaved to sin (as a principle) and because of sin (as principle/ power) men sin (as an act of moral disobedience).

As a window into my view of the atonement, I see the "problem" of sin that the atonement addresses not as Adam's transgression but as the sin (principle) that entered the world because of that transgression with the consequence of physical death.

To illustrate by way of application: I believe that a child who dies in infancy dies because of sin as principle - even that child is a slave to the power of sin and death. But the child is not guilty of sin (I do not believe the Judgment comes into play, but that to the child belongs the Kingdom of God).

 

[The Biblicist]

My point is that when Paul was speaking of it as a principle he was not consistently speaking of it as "law".

If he is speaking of it as a principle of rebellion against righteousness then how in the world can you deny it is rooted in a clear moral basis. If you are speaking of Romans 7:13-25 then how in the world can you overlook it is being contrasted to "the law of God" (Rom. 7:22,25) as a moral principle of rebellion against righteousness? If you are referring to some other passage other than Romans 7 than please point it out.

 

[JonC]

If he is speaking of it as a principle of rebellion against righteousness then how in the world can you deny it is rooted in a clear moral basis. If you are speaking of Romans 7:13-25 then how in the world can you overlook it is being contrasted to "the law of God" (Rom. 7:22,25) as a moral principle of rebellion against righteousness? If you are referring to some other passage other than Romans 7 than please point it out.

I am not saying Paul speaks of sin as a moral issue snd a principal of rebellion (that seems basically the same to me). I am saying in addition to sin as a moral issue Paul speaks of sin as an enslaving principle or power.

I am not overlooking the passage. I do not believe that there are two competing "moral laws" (I believe when we speak of sin in terms of morality it is always focused on God's moral nature).

 

[The Biblicist]

I believe that it is first and foremost a principle and power (Romans 7:14-8:8) that entered the world through Adam's disobedience (sin). Adam's transgression is not the problem. Sin as a principle/ power is the problem (Romans 5:12-21; 1 Cor 5...I can't remember the verses).

You are reversing cause and effect here. The "law of sin" Paul is referring to in Romans 7 is not the cause for the fall but the effect of the fall that a regenerated person continues to deal with after regeneration. You admit this when you say:

"because of this transgression sin as a principle/ power was introduced into the world and men were slaves to sin." - Jon

But Jon, Paul demands this is a CONDITION of their immaterial nature that actively opposes God (Eph. 2:1-3). It was not their BODY that is the object of new birth but their "spirit" (Jn. 3:6). So, it is not biblically accurate to claim this is merely a mere abstract "principle" or "law" but is a subjective condition of spirit due to separation from the Spirit of God.

The problem you have is that between birth and physical death there is a SPIRITUAL CONDITION that exists which manifests itself through the physical body and it is that IMMATERIAL aspect of human nature that is the object of new birth (Jn. 3:6) and not the body.

Infants are born into this world not merely subject to physical death, but they come into this world with a predisposed spiritual condition that is at enmity towards God and not subject to the law of God. That condition is an active condition of the spirit of man that is termed as "dead" because it is a spiritual condition "without God."

Second, I do not believe that the wages of sin (in terms of the "Fall") is a spiritual death.......Men are never presented in Scripture as experiencing a "spiritual death", I believe because man (to include Adam) was created flesh.

That is true, no post-Adam human EXPERIENCES a spiritual death because that experience occurred once with regard to HUMAN NATURE when Adam sinned. Adam's posterity is born with an active SPIRITUAL CONDITION that is at enmity with God and not subject to the law of God and it is "dead" not in the sense of inactivity (Eph. 2:1-3) but in the sense of any spiritual union with God, but is existing "without God....alienated from the life of God" (Eph. 2:13; 4:19).

As a window into my view of the atonement, I see the "problem" of sin that the atonement addresses not as Adam's transgression but as the sin (principle) that entered the world because of that transgression with the consequence of physical death.

The problem with your explanation is that the Bible does not deal with the "law of sin" as an abstract principle but a CONDITION of the human spirit because it is "alienated from the life of God" and "without God" and therefore a problem of SPIRITUAL SEPARATION from God and that is easily proven because the Biblical remedy is the act of bringing the human spirit into spiriutal union with God. The body is not regenerated and the principle or law of corruption is still at work in the physical body after new birth (Rom. 7:22-25).

To illustrate by way of application: I believe that a child who dies in infancy dies because of sin as principle - even that child is a slave to the power of sin and death. But the child is not guilty of sin (I do not believe the Judgment comes into play, but that to the child belongs the Kingdom of God).

The problem with your explanation is that the Bible clearly teaches that we come into this world (infancy) "condemned already" due to Adam's singular act of disobedience (Rom. 7:15-19; Jn. 3:17). Jeremiah and David make it clear that we are born as "transgressors from the womb". Paul denies that universal death between Adam and Moses is due to Mosaic law and neither can universal death be attributed to violation of the law of conscience as infants are incapable of that. The only law existent that has universal death consequences is the violation of God's Law note in Genesis 2:17 and that is his argument in Romans 7:13-14 to support his assertion in Romans 7:12 that all mankind has already sinned (aorist tense - completed action).

 

[The Biblicist]

I am not saying Paul speaks of sin as a moral issue snd a principal of rebellion (that seems basically the same to me). I am saying in addition to sin as a moral issue Paul speaks of sin as an enslaving principle or power.

I am not overlooking the passage. I do not believe that there are two competing "moral laws" (I believe when we speak of sin in terms of morality it is always focused on God's moral nature).

My problem with your view is that you seem to view "the law of sin" as an abstract principle whereas the Biblical writers view it as an inseparable CONDITION OF THE ENTIRE HUMAN BEING (immaterial and material) from the womb that requires a "new creation" both in spirit and in body. Romans 7 deals with the removal of that condition from the spirit of the regenerated spirit but not the removal from the material condition of man.

The Biblical writers view the infant as guilty for this condition as they view the infant as a "transgressor from the womb" and "condemned already" prior to birth. Metaphors demand a corresponding literal reality or else they cease to be metaphors.

 

[JonC]

John 3:17-18 is a good point.

17 For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. [18] 18 He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

I believe that the result of Adam's transgression is sin (principle) entering the world and through sin a physical death. The Judgment is Christ-centered.

 

[JonC]

My problem with your view is that you seem to view "the law of sin" as an abstract principle whereas the Biblical writers view it as an inseparable CONDITION OF THE ENTIRE HUMAN BEING (immaterial and material) from the womb that requires a "new creation" both in spirit and in body. Romans 7 deals with the removal of that condition from the spirit of the regenerated spirit but not the removal from the material condition of man.

The Biblical writers view the infant as guilty for this condition as they view the infant as a "transgressor from the womb" and "condemned already" prior to birth. Metaphors demand a corresponding literal reality or else they cease to be metaphors.

No. I believe sin as a moral transgression is real. But I do not believe that we can ignore sin as a principle or power (which is just as large, if not larger, an issue).

 

[The Biblicist]

My point is that when Paul was speaking of it as a principle he was not consistently speaking of it as "law".

This distinction is based on what? What text supports this distinction?

 

[The Biblicist]

No. I believe sin as a moral transgression is real. But I do not believe that we can ignore sin as a principle or power (which is just as large, if not larger, an issue).

Do you accept that the human spirit is capable of a moral transgression even though the body does not reflect it by any words or actions?

If so, is not the fallen spirit of man existing in moral transgression as a spiritual condition, a state of enmity, thus, Jesus can claim that doing evil is due to "BEING EVIL" by this transgressing condition which exists in a state of sin which is the cause of external manifestations of sin?

Thus, BEING EVIL from birth, is why the operations of mind, will and emotions engage in transgression even though it may not be phsyically manifested by words and deeds.

 

[JonC]

This distinction is based on what? What text supports this distinction?

Beyond what I already listed, Romans 6 for one. Gaving discussed this with you before, I think the closest you can come to agreement is in terms of a "sin nature". This is not exactly the same, but it is probably a closer middle ground.