Featured Christ being made sin Volume 2

Yes, Hebrews does teach that sacrificing animals do not actually take away sins. That was my point when @Martin Marprelate posted about man's sins being transferred to goats. Instead we are told (in Romans :25) that this was God "passing over" sins in anticipation of the new and better covenant.

Sins simply cannot be transferred as they are actions that come from the heart of a man. It would be like transferring "riding a bike" to somebody who has never ride a bike. It simply does not make sense.

Guilt is different in a way. Actual guilt cannot be transferred as it simply points to the person who did an act.

But guilt in terms of assigning responsibility can be transferred. As a leader in the Army I could be punished for something one of my soldiers did because I am responsible for their actions (they would be punished as well because a higher accountability dies not relieve personal responsibility).

I do not think this occurred in the Atonement (I have never read a passage imputing guilt, except that it is wrong to impute the guilt of a father to a son).

Do you know of a passage stating that our sin or guilt was actually imputed to Christ?

 

We can disagree on interpretation, and there are instances where we do. That is fine.

If you read the works of the Early Church you will find plenty of examples. They don't always agree, but they do all hold a view that is contrary to Penal Substitution Theory. That said, antiquity doesn't mean correct. It just seems odd to me that no Christian understood the Atonement until the 16th Century (or if they did, for some reason failed to write that doctrine down).

Christ did not defeat sin and death by dying. Penal Substitution Theory is the only one that maintains a complete atonement at Christ's death (Substitution Theory comes very close, but I'm not sure it's as extreme a view).

Christ defeated sin and death by his life of obedience to the will of God, His death, and His resurrection (victory over the grace). He is "a life giving Spirit", the "Firstborn of many brethren". We are freed from sin because His Spirit is in us (sin is not, for us, a necessity). We are freed from the bondage of death because although we die yet shall we live in Him (He is this Life).

 

Another thing I like about Classic Christianity as opposed to Penal Substitution Theory is it maintains God's integrity and character. God remains a righteous God (His Word does not change....He is immutable in character). This is not true with Penal Substitution Theory.

In Classical Christianity God declared that the wages of sin are death. This remains an immutable fact because God said it. It will never change. Man must die. Period. But while the wages of sin are death, the gift of God is life in Christ Jesus. That is, although we die yet shall we live. It is therefore appointed man once to die and then the Judgment, and this Judgment is Christ centered (it is a viral result of the Cross.

Penal Substitution Theory works off of Roman Catholic theology but spiritualized death. They view the wages of sin as the Second death or a spiritual type of death. God punished Jesus with , or with something equivalent to, what rh lost will experience at Judgment. Therefore we do not experience the wages of death.

 

Yes, he did.

But all Christians believe this.

D. E. H. Whiteley put it this way, " if Paul can be said to hold a their of the modus operandi, it is best described as one of salvation through participation: Christ shared all our experiences, sin alone excepted, including death, in order that we, by virtue of our solidarity with him, might share his life."

This is a long the lines of Irenaeus, who said that Christ " was in these last days, according to the time appointed by the Father, united to his own workmanship, inasmuch as he became a man liable t suffering . . . He commenced anew the long line of human beings, and gave us, in a brief and comprehensive manner, with salvation that which we lost in Adam - namely, to be according to the image of God"

Irenaeus was working off of Justin Martyrs view of Christ's work that Christ was summing up his own handiwork in himself.

 

Most Christianity does not accept the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement. But the reasons vary.

Those who do not have a Western worldview typically find Penal Substitution Theory lacking (it does not fit in their logic).

Many just come from a religious tradition that has never held Penal Substitution Theory (Anabaptist, Lutherans, Orthodox, and such).

But a lot of people who reject Penal Substitution Theory today came from a tradition that holds the theory and discovered it was not biblically supported (like the movements to "reform the Reformed", and like me).

I know that many who hold Penal Substitution Theory teach that it was not first articulated by the Reformers. This is a modern claim (a few decades ago we recognized the development of theories of Atonement but lately it is popular to insist all of Christianity once held whatever doctrines we hold).

 

@DaveXR650

Penal Substitution theorists claim that Irenaeus held Penal Substitution Theory.

All I can say is judge for yourself. This is what Irenaeus wrote of his belief:


As it has been clearly demonstrated that the Word, who existed in the beginning with God, by whom all things were made, who was also always present with mankind, was in these last days, according to the time appointed by the Father, united to His own workmanship, inasmuch as He became a man liable to suffering, [it follows] that every objection is set aside of those who say, "If our Lord was born at that time, Christ had therefore no previous existence." For I have shown that the Son of God did not then begin to exist, being with the Father from the beginning; but when He became incarnate, and was made man, He commenced afresh(1) the long line of human beings, and furnished us, in a brief, comprehensive manner, with salvation; so that what we had lost in Adam-- namely, to be according to the image and likeness of God--that we might recover in Christ Jesus.


For as it was not possible that the man who had once for all been conquered, and who had been destroyed through disobedience, could reform himself, and obtain the prize of victory; and as it was also impossible that he could attain to salvation who had fallen under the power of sin,- -the Son effected both these things, being the Word of God, descending from the Father, becoming incarnate, stooping low, even to death, and consummating the arranged plan of our salvation, upon whom [Paul], exhorting us unhesitatingly to believe, again says, "Who shall ascend into heaven? that is, to bring down Christ; or who shall descend into the deep? that is, to liberate Christ again from the dead."(2) Then he continues, "If thou shall confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised Him from the dead, thou shall be saved."(3) And he renders the reason why the Son of God did these things, saying, "For to this end Christ both lived, and died, and revived, that He might rule over the living and the dead."(4) And again, writing to the Corinthians, he declares, "But we preach Christ Jesus crucified;"(5) and adds, "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ?"



For it was for this end that the Word of God was made man, and He who was the Son of God became the Son of man, that man, having been taken into the Word, and receiving the adoption, might become the son of God. For by no other means could we have attained to incorruptibility and immortality, unless we had been united to incorruptibility and immortality. But how could we be joined to incorruptibility and immortality, unless, first, incorruptibility and immortality had become that which we also are, so that the corruptible might be swallowed up by incorruptibility, and the mortal by immortality, that might receive the adoption of sons? . . . For as He became man in order to undergo temptation, so also was He the Word that He might be glorified; the Word remaining quiescent, that He might be capable of being tempted, dishonoured, crucified, and of suffering death, but the human nature being swallowed up in it (the divine), when it conquered, and endured [without yielding], and performed acts of kindness, and rose again, and was received up [into heaven].


Therefore, as I have already said, He caused man (human nature) to cleave to and to become, one with God. For unless man had overcome the enemy of man, the enemy would not have been legitimately vanquished. And again: unless it had been God who had freely given salvation, we could never have possessed it securely. And unless man had been joined to God, he could never have become a partaker of incorruptibility. For it was incumbent upon the Mediator between God and men, by His relationship to both, to bring both to friendship and concord, and present man to God, while He revealed God to man.(2) For, in what way could we be partaken of the adoption of sons, unless we had received from Him through the Son that fellowship which refers to Himself, unless His Word, having been made flesh, had entered into communion with us? Wherefore also He passed through every stage of life, restoring to all communion with God.


For, in what way could we be partaken of the adoption of sons, unless we had received from Him through the Son that fellowship which refers to Himself, unless His Word, having been made flesh, had entered into communion with us? Wherefore also He passed through every stage of life, restoring to all communion with God. Those, therefore, who assert that He appeared putatively, and was neither born in the flesh nor truly made man, are as yet under the old condemnation, holding out patronage to sin; for, by their showing, death has not been vanquished, which "reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression."(3) But the law coming, which was given by Moses, and testifying of sin that it is a sinner, did truly take away his (death's) kingdom, showing that he was no king, but a robber; and it revealed him as a murderer. It laid, however, a weighty burden upon man, who had sin in himself, showing that he was liable to death. For as the law was spiritual, it merely made sin to stand out in relief, but did not destroy it. For sin had no dominion over the spirit, but over man. For it behoved Him who was to destroy sin, and redeem man under the power of death, that He should Himself be made that very same thing which he was, that is, man; who had been drawn by sin into bondage, but was held by death, so that sin should be destroyed by man, and man should go forth from death. For as by the disobedience of the one man who was originally moulded from virgin soil, the many were made sinners,(4) and forfeited life; so was it necessary that, by the obedience of one man, who was originally born from a virgin, many should be justified and receive salvation. Thus, then, was the Word of God made man, as also Moses says: "God, true are His works."(5) But if, not having been made flesh, He did appear as if flesh, His work was not a true one. But what He did appear, that He also was: God recapitulated in Himself the ancient formation of man, that He might kill sin, deprive death of its power, and vivify man; and therefore His works are true.

 

@DaveXR650

Penal Substitution theorists claim that Athanasius held Penal Substitution Theory.

Again, read for yourself and decide:

The Word perceived that corruption could not be got rid of otherwise than through death; yet He Himself, as the Word, being immortal and the Father’s Son, was such as could not die. For this reason, therefore, He assumed a body capable of death, in order that it, through belonging to the Word Who is above all, might become in dying a sufficient exchange for all, and, itself remaining incorruptible through His indwelling, might thereafter put an end to corruption for all others as well, by the grace of the resurrection. It was by surrendering to death the body which He had taken, as an offering and sacrifice free from every stain, that He forthwith abolished death for His human brethren by the offering of the equivalent. For naturally, since the Word of God was above all, when He offered His own temple and bodily instrument as a substitute for the life of all, He fulfilled in death all that was required. Naturally also, through this union of the immortal Son of God with our human nature, all men were clothed with incorruption in the promise of the resurrection. For the solidarity of mankind is such that, by virtue of the Word’s indwelling in a single human body, the corruption which goes with death has lost its power over all. You know how it is when some great king enters a large city and dwells in one of its houses; because of his dwelling in that single house, the whole city is honored, and enemies and robbers cease to molest it. Even so is it with the King of all; He has come into our country and dwelt in one body amidst the many, and in consequence the designs of the enemy against mankind have been foiled and the corruption of death, which formerly held them in its power, has simply ceased to be. For the human race would have perished utterly had not the Lord and Savior of all the Son of God, come among us to put an end to death.

 

As far as I can tell those are accurate. I agree with both of those quotes.

My question is why you (if you do) think that those comments express Penal Substitution Theory.

For example:

"And therefore in the last times the Lord has restored us into friendship through His incarnation, having become 'the Mediator between God and men'; propitiating indeed for us the Father against whom we had sinned, and cancelling our disobedience by His own obedience, conferring also upon us the gift of communion with and subjection to, our Maker".

That is something I completely agree with and have taught (before and after abandoning Penal Substitution Theory).

Christians have a lot in common, especially Christ. So I would be shocked to see you reading Early Church writings and walking away thinking there was no kinship.

That said, do you see what is missing?

Prior to the 16th Century no Christian that we know of believed that God punished Jesus with the punishment due us in our place. That was completely foreign to Christianity.

Now I will stand beside you in proclaiming that Christ is the Propitiation (and the only Propitiation) for our sins. I will stand at your side and teach that God was pleased to crush Him, He bore our sins, became a curse for us, died for us, and that "great exchange" - our flesh for His flesh. I'll support you preaching that God laid our sins on Him and it is by His stripes we are healed.

We have enough in common to be brothers.

But I couldn't in good conscious stand by your side as you taught that God punished Jesus, poured out His wrath on Christ, instead of punishing us because that is a relatively new idea (in terms of Christianity) and foreign to the Bible.

When examining these things it is important to remember that even the worst heresies we have seen is mostly Scripture. It is those little things that change the course of a doctrine. That is why I insist on being very careful with God's Word.

 

Irenaeus is known for Recapitulation. He worked off Justin Martyrs view of Atonement.

Basically he viewed Christ as coming as man, living in all points as man, to include the necessity of death due to Adam's sin. But Christ was perfectly obedient and succeeded where Adam failed.

When we believe and are born of the Spirit we are in union with Christ. Therefore we will share in His resurrection. Recapitulation is one of several focuses or atonement theories within the Classic view of the Cross.

Augustine held this view combined with Random theory. Interestingly, although Calvinists often appreciate Augustine, his view of the Atonement contradicts the Penal Substitution Theory at several points (for one, he rejected any idea that it was God punishing Jesus and instead viewed Jesus as allowing Satan to punish Him in order to redeem man (Satan kills Christ, but Christ is sinless therefore He had no debt to Satan).

 

@Dave G

I need to add that I agree with you about the bad reasons for rejecting the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement.

What people miss with the "cosmic child abuse" claim is the larger picture that the theory has God taking the punishment upon Himself.

That said, there are some very good reasons for rejecting the theory. The main one is that it is unbiblical and because it is unbiblical it corrupts what God has actually revealed to us.