Atonement

[Martin Marprelate]

Penal Substitution Theory

I think I should clarify what I wrote above to avoid confusion.

I have never before come across a 'Theory' of Penal Substitution being compared to a 'Doctrine' of Penal Substitution.
I have read several books, mostly Systematics, where various 'theories' of the Atonement are compared, of which P.S. might be described as one of them.

 

[The Biblicist]

The problem, of course, is that God does not punish sin because sin cannot be punished. You can punish a disobedient child, but you can not actually punish the disobedience. If you could, nothing would be remedied. And even sin could be punished, the moral aspect of sin is only one part of the larger definition.

Is this your understanding of the primary focus of Penal Substitutionary Atonement?? Sin is the legal grounds for punishment, but sin is something found in, and promoted by sinners and it is sinners that are the legal object of punishment. Christ on the cross stood in the legal position for the punishment of our sins simply because he took upon himself our sins legally - made to be sin personified with regard to legal consequences.

 

[The Biblicist]

But what is sin?

You answer this by listing uninspired men without a single reference to the inspired men of scripture! I am not suprised, because this seems to be you MO.

Sin is defined in scripture (1 Jn. 3:6; Rom. 3:23) with appropriate words. The Pharisees restricted sin to external words and actions whereas Christ demanded that sin described a spiritual condition or an internal condition so that he could speak of sinners as "being evil" rather than just committing evil.

Significantly, the Bible only defines sin in direct connection with Law (1 Jn. 3:6; Rom. 2:11-15; 3:19-23; Mt. 15:23-25). God's law reveals the principles that characterize the holiness of God and that is why sin "comes short of the glory of God" as God's holiness is the beginning point when dealing with the atonement.

However, you seem to be heavily influenced by Wright and his perverse view of justification and his "community" false doctrine. Wright is wrong, thoroughly and completely wrong as his view is "another gospel" as he fails comprehend that the Jews did view the Law of God as a means for ultimate moral justification.

 

[JonC]

I think I should clarify what I wrote above to avoid confusion.

I have never before come across a 'Theory' of Penal Substitution being compared to a 'Doctrine' of Penal Substitution.
I have read several books, mostly Systematics, where various 'theories' of the Atonement are compared, of which P.S. might be described as one of them.

Then reference J.I. Packer's defense of Penal Substitution. In it he states a belief that the elements of Penal Substitution Theory are not only seen throughout history but also in Scripture. He attributes it's articulation to the Reformers during the Reformation (which goes along well with what @Reformed posted). If penal substitution does not exist then Penal Substitution Theory should not exist. (Same for Moral Influence Theory, Satisfaction Theory, Christus Victor Theory, etc.). By "biblical penal substitution" I am speaking of the biblical text apart from how we may construct doctrine (a kind of "take it as it comes" type of reading).

If it helps I can explain a bit more:

The theories put together what they find in Scripture to form a teachable doctrine. This is what Denny Weaver did with his non-violent atonement theory. It's what Sozzini did with his theory of vicarious satisfaction. It is what the Reformers did when they articulated the elements of penal substitution into a workable theory.

In a way, this is what we all do even if not consciously as a part of our understanding (hence Gibran's comment about passing knowledge but not understanding). If I tell you a story then you will articulate it in your mind a way that is subjective to you. @Reformed could hear the same story and view it an entirely different way. The story is objective. The understanding is not because it incorporates human reasoning.

This is why so many views exist within each of these different theories. But the theories themselves are useful because they hold together these various ideas within a larger theme.

Does that make more sense?

 

[JonC]

Is this your understanding of the primary focus of Penal Substitutionary Atonement?? Sin is the legal grounds for punishment, but sin is something found in, and promoted by sinners and it is sinners that are the legal object of punishment. Christ on the cross stood in the legal position for the punishment of our sins simply because he took upon himself our sins legally - made to be sin personified with regard to legal consequences.

No. My understanding is that the focus of the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement is to address the moral problem of sin as a violation or offense against God's moral law.

You answer this by listing uninspired men without a single reference to the inspired men of scripture! I am not suprised, because this seems to be you MO.

Sin is defined in scripture (1 Jn. 3:6; Rom. 3:23) with appropriate words. The Pharisees restricted sin to external words and actions whereas Christ demanded that sin described a spiritual condition or an internal condition so that he could speak of sinners as "being evil" rather than just committing evil.

Significantly, the Bible only defines sin in direct connection with Law (1 Jn. 3:6; Rom. 2:11-15; 3:19-23; Mt. 15:23-25). However, you seem to be heavily influenced by Wright and his perverse view of justification and his "community" false doctrine.

The problem is that both Paul and Jesus dealt with sin apart from sin being a strictly moral issue. So to reiterate, I do believe that sin is more systemic than a purely moral view would allow. That does not mean I reject that sin is a moral issue. But I do believe that it is a larger "problem" that the atonement addresses.

 

[Reformed]

Jon, I have read Packer's 1973 lecture on Penal Substitution. I have also read Calvin, Pink, Sproul, MacArthur et al. From what I have read there is no bifurcation in the penal substitution position. There may be points of disagreement but there is not a Penal Substitution and a Penal Substitution Theory. Both are theories in the etymological sense of the word.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

 

[The Biblicist]

The problem is that both Paul and Jesus dealt with sin apart from sin being a strictly moral issue.

For example? Are you confusing sin with its consequences in creation?

 

[The Biblicist]

I do believe that sin is more systemic than a purely moral view would allow.

Do you make a distinction between sin and the consequences of sin when you make the above statement?

 

[The Biblicist]

So to reiterate, I do believe that sin is more systemic than a purely moral view would allow.

Creation was "cursed" due to man's sin (Gen. 3:14,17-19; Rom. 8:20). The curse was the consequence of a moral act of disobedience. I hope you are not confusing the cause with the consequence and claiming the consequence is proof that "sin is more systemic than a purely moral view would alllow" because if that is the grounds for your statement then your statement is built upon failure to discern between and thus a confusion between cause and effects. If so, then your belief is founded on error instead of truth and sin is purely a moral issue.

 

[calledbyHisgrace]

I approach the atonement with the foundation that redemption is located "in Christ":

"In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:" Col 1:14

"Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:" Rom 3:24

"In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;" Eph 1:7

"But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:" 1 Cor 1:30

There is no reconciliation with God outside of Christ. This is true whether you're speaking of soul, body, creation, they're all reconciled to God "in Christ".

"For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell; And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven." Col 1:19-20

"For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body." Rom 8:22-23

Christ drank the full cup of God's wrath, and all fullness dwells in Him. Each individual that is in Christ is personally represented by Him as a substitute.

 

[Reformed]

Does that make more sense?

Not really. The term "Penal Substitution" is ubiquitous. Packer made this statement in his 1973 lecture on Penal Substitution:

"The task which I have set myself in this lecture is to focus and explicate a belief which, by and large, is a distinguishing mark of the word-wide evangelical fraternity: namely, the belief that the cross had the character of penal substitution, and that it was in virtue of this fact that it brought salvation to mankind."

He then goes on to define penal and substitution. In his lecture, he allows for the fact that even within the Penal Substitution community there are problems that must be accounted for.

"And with that, it alerts us to the fact that the presence in our theology of unsolved problems is not necessarily a reflection on the truth or adequacy of our thoughts. Inadequate and untrue theories do of course exist: a theory (the word comes from theorein, to look at) is a ‘view’ or ‘sight’ of something, and if one’s way of looking at it is perverse one’s view will be distorted, and distorted views are always full of problems. But the mere presence of problems is not enough to prove a view distorted; true views in theology also entail unsolved problems, while any view that was problem-free would certainly be rationalistic and reductionist. True theories in theology, whether about the atonement or anything else, will suspect themselves of being inadequate to their object throughout. One thing that Christians know by faith is that they know only in part." (emphasis mine)

The fact is that there are not two atonement views known as Penal Substitution and Penal Substitution Theory. I concede that there are differences within the penal substitution community but they do not bifurcate penal substitution itself. It is fair game to point out the intramural debates within any theological construct. There certainly is no shortage of them in the Christus Victor or Ransom views.

I concur that Penal Substitution is a product of the Reformation but only because the Atonement, in general, was not adequately vetted during the early Patristic age. In subsequent posts, I want to make the case that scripture argues for penal substitution and not the other way around.

 

[JonC]

Jon, I have read Packer's 1973 lecture on Penal Substitution. I have also read Calvin, Pink, Sproul, MacArthur et al. From what I have read there is no bifurcation in the penal substitution position. There may be points of disagreement but there is not a Penal Substitution and a Penal Substitution Theory. Both are theories in the etymological sense of the word.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

I am not saying that there are two Penal Substitution Theories.

It is not Penal Substitution Theory vs penal substitution elements of the Atonement. Nor is it Ransom Theory vs ransom elements of the atonement (and so on).

I am in no way defining my position within the context of penal substitution elements or Penal Substitution Theory. What I \am saying is that I affirm the penal substitution elements that the Penal Substitution Theory articulates into a theory. Same with behavioral influences of Christ that the Moral Influence Theory articulates into a theory.

Sorry if my choice of words caused confusion.

 

[JonC]

In subsequent posts, I want to make the case that scripture argues for penal substitution and not the other way around.

I agree that Scripture argues for several theories. I would much prefer, however, that you start a thread defending Penal Substitution Theory rather than using this thread as a format. That is why I am hesitant about honestly discussing the topic (of my position).

That said, I do agree that there are not two positions - penal substitution and Penal Substitution Theory (or ransom and Ransom Theory). That was never my purpose. While I believe Penal Substitution Theory the lesser of several theories, I do not consider it without merit. I just think that it is far too often abused (at least that has been my experience when I taught the Theory). This is probably because it is the most common theory for Baptists more than something at fault with the theory itself.

 

[Reformed]

I would much prefer, however, that you start a thread defending Penal Substitution Theory rather than using this thread as a format.

I will do that.

 

[Reformed]

That said, I do agree that there are not two positions - penal substitution and Penal Substitution Theory (or ransom and Ransom Theory).

Great. That makes things easier to discuss.

 

[JonC]

I will do that.

Thanks.

When discussing doctrines such as these I think it is best to simply talk about what we believe. From experience when we take a defensive position things do not work out well (there is no communication). My belief is that when we do this we not only get a better understanding of where we differ, and where we disagree, but sometimes even where we stand. It is good to look at our doctrine from an opposing perspective.

When I was in seminary one of the things we would have to do was argue the other person’s view. When we do this we gain a better appreciation of the reasons other’s hold a position and come to understand the other person is not rejecting Scripture in their rejection of an interpretation.

This is what I believe is “iron sharpening iron” – not indoctrination into another person’s belief system but a true understanding.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Then reference J.I. Packer's defense of Penal Substitution. In it he states a belief that the elements of Penal Substitution Theory are not only seen throughout history but also in Scripture. He attributes it's articulation to the Reformers during the Reformation (which goes along well with what @Reformed posted). If penal substitution does not exist then Penal Substitution Theory should not exist. (Same for Moral Influence Theory, Satisfaction Theory, Christus Victor Theory, etc.). By "biblical penal substitution" I am speaking of the biblical text apart from how we may construct doctrine (a kind of "take it as it comes" type of reading).

I have various books by Packer; which one are you referencing? Regardless, from your description he does not appear to be comparing a 'theory' of P.S. with a 'doctrine.'

If it helps I can explain a bit more:

The theories put together what they find in Scripture to form a teachable doctrine. This is what Denny Weaver did with his non-violent atonement theory. It's what Sozzini did with his theory of vicarious satisfaction. It is what the Reformers did when they articulated the elements of penal substitution into a workable theory.

the Grand-daddy of all these folk was C.H. Dodd who wrote commentaries on Romans and 1 John, denying the traditional rendering of 'propitiation' for the hilasterion' word group. His views affected the translation of the New English Bible and the Revised Standard Version, but were roundly defeated by men like Leon Morris and Roger Nicole (and later by Martyn Lloyd-Jones).

In a way, this is what we all do even if not consciously as a part of our understanding (hence Gibran's comment about passing knowledge but not understanding). If I tell you a story then you will articulate it in your mind a way that is subjective to you. @Reformed could hear the same story and view it an entirely different way. The story is objective. The understanding is not because it incorporates human reasoning.

This is why so many views exist within each of these different theories. But the theories themselves are useful because they hold together these various ideas within a larger theme.

Does that make more sense?

I understand what you're saying (I think), but the implication of your view is that the truth is not discoverable so we might as well pack up and go home. The Bible tells us differently. Ephesians 4:11-16. As someone or other said, "The truth is out there." God is not the Author of confusion.

 

[JonC]

I understand what you're saying (I think), but the implication of your view is that the truth is not discoverable so we might as well pack up and go home. The Bible tells us differently. Ephesians 4:11-16. As someone or other said, "The truth is out there." God is not the Author of confusion.

The idea is that we can truly know what God has intended to communicate to us through Scripture. Sometimes we want to know other things (what is sometimes referred to as trying to get in the "back door"). 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. We could say they just were not asking the question, but that poses two problems. First, it makes Scripture sort of a magic eight ball. Second, they were asking the question by the eleventh centure.

We all believe our views the correct interpretation and we all teach them as doctrine. All we can do is have a conversation in the correct spirit.

 

[JonC]

I approach the atonement with the foundation that redemption is located "in Christ":

"In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:" Col 1:14

"Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:" Rom 3:24

"In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;" Eph 1:7

"But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:" 1 Cor 1:30

There is no reconciliation with God outside of Christ. This is true whether you're speaking of soul, body, creation, they're all reconciled to God "in Christ".

"For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell; And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven." Col 1:19-20

"For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body." Rom 8:22-2

I agree with the above part (the part that is in the Bible). I also agree the fuller quote to which you allude: "For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily."

Not only is redemption Christ-centered, but all of Creation is Christ-centered as through Him all things have their existence and "hold together".

I also agree that Christ is the substitute for all who are "in Him", as Paul notes writes: "I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me."

Insofar as Christ drinking the full cup of God's wrath, I disagree as this is a little too far from Scripture for me to affirm. I do agree with Christ that the Disciples would share in the "cup" that was His to drink and with Paul that we also share in this "cup".

So we are in agreement insofar as Scripture is concerned. That's close enough.

 

[JonC]

I have various books by Packer; which one are you referencing? .

Oops. Sorry. I missed this question (I was thinking of the last part). I was referencing a book by J.I. Packer and Mark Dever called In My Place He Stood Condemned.

The book deals primarily with "Penal Substitution Theory" which is described as one "form" of the "Latin view". Like @Reformed suggested, the book agrees that the penal and substitution elements were there (in Scripture) but it was not until the Reformation that these things were first studied in earnest.

Theology is not study for the sake of study. Often times theology tries to answer questions contemporary to the Church. Many of the questions Penal Substitution Theory answers came from the experience of the Reformation and their struggle with the Roman Catholic Church (the idea of justice plays an important role here). So we should not be surprised that the Theory is new on the scene, or that it is articulated with more precision than the theories that had gone before.

Anyway, I recall you had not ran across the term "Latin view" so I take it you do not have this book. It is an interesting read (and I think that you would appreciate their arguments).