His reasoning thru this doctrine though is what the scriptures affirm, for Jesus had to taste physical death in order to have atonement made to God for our sin debt in full, and he had to suffer as lost sinners did as forsaken of God while upon the cross.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Christ made Sin?
- Thread starter Martin Marprelate
- Start date
- Status
Its not either .or, but Both on the cross, as jesus perfect obedience of the law was reckoned unto us, but His death was inour stead, just as every lost sinner will be, facing the wrath of God for theor own sins.
Scripture indeed affirms the first part. You assume the second (thus far you have not shown this true via Scripture).
He missed the mark on this part. But he did affirm other theories of atonement as well (along side his new theory).
How could he have missed the central theme, as penal substitution was the mode most shown in the scriptures?
None of them missed those themes. What I am talking about is not penal and substitution atonement but the theory that Christ suffered the punishment the lost will suffer at Judgment (Calvin's theory). It wasn't Scripture but his background that led him there.
How is that not per the scriptures though? God wounded/crushed/bruised/laid upon Jesus the wrath we all deserved, so how is that not what lost sinners experience?
Why would he be wrong, and those others right?
I am not speaking towards John Calvin being wrong when I say it concerns me that his theory was a very late arrival. I have also not spoken that the others are right. What I am speaking about is what the Bible says vs. the context you are providing.
Please don't misunderstand me, Y1. I am not questioning penal substitution atonement. I am questioning the theory that you've put forward (why it is as you say it is....or why the context Calvin provided is correct).
What concerns me is the quickness that dialogue is cut off based not on Scripture itself but the way people reason it out. Do I believe the atonement is penal? Yes, this is already established. Do I believe it is substitutionary? Yes, again already established. Do I believe the work of Christ satisfied divine judgment? Absolutely. Do I think it did because God punished Jesus with the punishment men will receive at Judgment? No, that is man centered. I think it sufficient because God offered Himself sacrificially.
It seems that this is where we always end up.
How is the obedience of Christ being offered as a guilt offering, being wounded/ crushed, bruised, and cut off from the land of the living for the transgressions of God’s people to whom the stroke was due is not the same thing as saying Jesus experienced what lost men will experience at Judgment?
My question is….How is it the same????
Provide a passage that states Jesus suffered 3 hours of the Hell the lost will experience at Judgment. Provide a passage saying that God punished Jesus with the punishment that we would have experienced at Judgment.
Do you see what we are arguing about? It is not about Scripture but about a context that you have provided in which to interpret that Scripture. It leads you to add conclusions and statement that are not really there (for example, earlier you spoke of Christ being “cut off” as proof of your theory – BUT you left off the last part of the verse where Jesus was cut off from the “land of the living” and not from the presence of God).
Anyway, I encourage you to study these things and take the lead from Scripture and not tradition. For years I held the same view that you hold now. Another issue caused me to realize there was a "fly in the ointment", and as I continued I realized just how much of my view was theory and how much was Scripture. I am trying to make it more Scripture and less speculation (I bought a few notebooks and have a dry erase board to devoted to this study....I'd recommend that over using only a computer).
I am not missing anything. How did I get in this thread when I haven't even posted in it?
We just love you.
@Yeshua1
Please consider what I am saying here. There are too many people in this discussion that believe a rejection of their theory is a rejection of the Atonement being penal and substitutionary. But this is easily dispelled simply by looking at what some early Christians wrote of the atonement - affirming penal and substitution without holding your version of Penal Substitution Theory:
Justin Martyr (c. 100-165)
If, then, the Father of all wished His Christ for the whole human family to take upon Him the curses of all, knowing that, after He had been crucified and was dead, He would raise Him up, why do you argue about Him, who submitted to suffer these things according to the Father’s will, as if He were accursed, and do not rather bewail yourselves? For although His Father caused Him to suffer these things in behalf of the human family, yet you did not commit the deed as in obedience to the will of God” (Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho)
Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 275-339)
“Thus the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sins of the world, became a curse on our behalf.” He then stated, “And the Lamb of God not only did this, but was chastised on our behalf, and suffered a penalty He did not owe, but which we owed because of the multitude of our sins; and so He became the cause of the forgiveness of our sins, because He received death for us, and transferred to Himself the scourging, the insults, and the dishonour, which were due to us, and drew down upon Himself the appointed curse, being made a curse for us.” (Eusebius, Demonstrantio Evangelica)
Athanasius (c. 300-373)
“For, as when John says, ‘The Word was made flesh we do not conceive the whole Word Himself to be flesh, but to have put on flesh and become man, and on hearing, ‘Christ hath become a curse for us,’ and ‘He hath made Him sin for us who knew no sin,’ we do not simply conceive this, that whole Christ has become curse and sin, but that He has taken on Him the curse which lay against us (as the Apostle has said, ‘Has redeemed us from the curse,’ and ‘has carried,’ as Isaiah has said, ‘our sins,’ and as Peter has written, ‘has borne them in the body on the wood.” (Athanasius, Four Discourses Against the Arians)
Cyril of Alexandria (c. 378-444)
“The Only-begotten was made man, bore a body by nature at enmity with death, and became flesh, so that, enduring the death which was hanging over us as the result of our sin, he might abolish sin; and further, that he might put an end to the accusations of Satan, inasmuch as we have paid in Christ himself the penalties for the charges of sin against us: ‘For he bore our sins, and was wounded because of us’, according to the voice of the prophet. Or are we not healed by his wounds?” (Cyril of Alexandria, De adoratione et cultu in spirtu et veritate)
Please consider what I am saying here. There are too many people in this discussion that believe a rejection of their theory is a rejection of the Atonement being penal and substitutionary. But this is easily dispelled simply by looking at what some early Christians wrote of the atonement - affirming penal and substitution without holding your version of Penal Substitution Theory:
Justin Martyr (c. 100-165)
If, then, the Father of all wished His Christ for the whole human family to take upon Him the curses of all, knowing that, after He had been crucified and was dead, He would raise Him up, why do you argue about Him, who submitted to suffer these things according to the Father’s will, as if He were accursed, and do not rather bewail yourselves? For although His Father caused Him to suffer these things in behalf of the human family, yet you did not commit the deed as in obedience to the will of God” (Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho)
Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 275-339)
“Thus the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sins of the world, became a curse on our behalf.” He then stated, “And the Lamb of God not only did this, but was chastised on our behalf, and suffered a penalty He did not owe, but which we owed because of the multitude of our sins; and so He became the cause of the forgiveness of our sins, because He received death for us, and transferred to Himself the scourging, the insults, and the dishonour, which were due to us, and drew down upon Himself the appointed curse, being made a curse for us.” (Eusebius, Demonstrantio Evangelica)
Athanasius (c. 300-373)
“For, as when John says, ‘The Word was made flesh we do not conceive the whole Word Himself to be flesh, but to have put on flesh and become man, and on hearing, ‘Christ hath become a curse for us,’ and ‘He hath made Him sin for us who knew no sin,’ we do not simply conceive this, that whole Christ has become curse and sin, but that He has taken on Him the curse which lay against us (as the Apostle has said, ‘Has redeemed us from the curse,’ and ‘has carried,’ as Isaiah has said, ‘our sins,’ and as Peter has written, ‘has borne them in the body on the wood.” (Athanasius, Four Discourses Against the Arians)
Cyril of Alexandria (c. 378-444)
“The Only-begotten was made man, bore a body by nature at enmity with death, and became flesh, so that, enduring the death which was hanging over us as the result of our sin, he might abolish sin; and further, that he might put an end to the accusations of Satan, inasmuch as we have paid in Christ himself the penalties for the charges of sin against us: ‘For he bore our sins, and was wounded because of us’, according to the voice of the prophet. Or are we not healed by his wounds?” (Cyril of Alexandria, De adoratione et cultu in spirtu et veritate)
I am superimposing nothing on the text. I am asking you to see the plain meaning of the Scriptures, but you are refusing to do so. I am completely unable to understand your intractability. Two years or so ago, I offered this definition of Penal Substitution, which you agreed. "That God gave Himself in the person of His Son to suffer instead of us the death, punishment and curse due to fallen humanity as the penalty of sin." I believe I have given you far more evidence for this than I could give you for the doctrine of the Trinity, but you have rejected it.
I have nothing to do with Calvin. You are debating me, not him. See the agreed definition above.
Whilst I have no particular brief for the ECFs, it is absolutely false to state that none of them held to Penal Substitution. I have given you quotations in the past; I am (reluctantly) prepared to trot them out again if you require. They include Justin Martyr, Eusebius, Hilary of Poitiers, and Athanasius as well as several slightly later ones including Augustine of Hippo.
Nor do I care particularly about Aquinas. I am a Protestant. However, here is a quote for you:
'God's severity is thus manifested; he was unwilling to remit sin without punishment, as the Apostle intimates when he says, 'He did not spare even His own Son.' But it also illustrates God's goodness, for as man was unable to make sufficient satisfaction through any punishment he might himself suffer, God gave him one who would satisfy for him.. Paul stresses this, saying, 'He has delivered Him for us all' and 'God has established Him as a propitiation by His blood through faith.'
[from Question 47 in Summa Theologiae]
'Aquinas argues that God shows both His severity towards sin and His goodness to His people by paying Himself a debt we could not pay. This debt was the punishment due to us for our sin against Him, and He paid it by giving His Son 'as a propitiation.' The insistence that God in His justice must and will punish sin, and that Christ's death is a 'satisfaction' on our behalf, recurs throughout Questions 48-50 of the S.T.' [from Pierced for our Transgressions by Ovey, Jeffrey and Sach]
If you reject the plain and obvious texts that I have already given you, you are demanding an evidence that you would not demand for any other doctrine. Article 1:6 of the 1689 Baptist Confession states, The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down or necessarily contained in the Holy Scriptures......... That is what I believe and that is what I see in the texts which I have quoted you. However, the Confession continues, .....Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are in the word. I am not suggesting that you are not saved, but I do believe you should ask for the help of the Holy Spirit in our understanding of the texts in question.
I have not stated that at all. I have stated that Christ must render satisfaction to the justice of God for the sins of His people, and that to do so He was made sin-- the very epitome of sin. And because He is of purer eyes than to behold sin, the Father turned away and the sky grew dark for those three hours. At the end of that time, the Father's righteous anger was satisfied. We know that because the sun came out again, and the Lord Jesus, who had previously cried out, "My God, My God, why have you forsaken Me?" could now say, "Father, into Your hands I commend My Spirit." Why 3 hours and not 2 or 4 I do not know, but that is the time stated by the Bible. God's anger was satisfied. It was indeed finished. Propitiation had been made. That is what I believe.
Did Christ pay the penalty required by God for our sins upon the cross? Yes or no? If He did then that is Penal Substitution. Penalty.....Penal. Geddit?
No. Can you truly not see what Luther saw so clearly, that Christ suffered the penalty for our sins? 'For Christ is innocent as concerning His own person, and therefore He ought not to have been hanged on a tree; but because according to the law of Moses, every thief and malefactor ought to be hanged, therefore Christ also ought to be hanged.' There it is! Penal substitution, as large as life! He must suffer the penalty for sin that we should suffer. How can it be any more plain?
Your continuing to state this error cannot make it true. However, I think it necessary to make the point that never, ever, in all our conversations, have I mentioned Calvin. Why you are suddenly bringing him up now and imposing his views on me I can't imagine.
Whether you continue the dialogue is entirely up to you.
What part of that definition do you believe I am rejecting?
Had you said “That God gave Himself in the person of His Son to suffer OUR deaths, OUR individual punishments and OUR curse due to OUR individual sins the penalty WE would have suffered at Judgment” then I would have strongly disagreed.
As it stands, I do believe in penal substitution – I just take issue with your insistence that it is man centered to the point Christ’s suffering and death was not enough unless it was the penalty lost men will endure at Judgment. Instead, I firmly believe that Christ’s obedience, his suffering even to death by virtue of Jesus being God enough to satisfy the demands of divine justice and eternally more significant that the sufferings of every man for an eternity in Hell.
I never claimed to be debating John Calvin. Although I appreciate his writings, Calvin is dead. My comment is that your version of the Atonement was never even considered until Calvin’s articulation of Penal Substitution Theory – which is neither good nor bad in itself. I only mention it to bring out the fact that for centuries men have affirmed penal substitution without affirming your version of Penal Substitution Theory.
All of the ECF’s held to penal substitution (this was my point in quoting them). Martin Luther (known for his adherence of the satisfaction theory) also believed in penal substitution. But none believed that on the cross God punished Jesus with the punishment that lost men will suffer at Judgment. That’s the difference. You go to the ECF’s like you go to Scripture. You find penal substitution and imagine they held your version of Penal Substitution Theory….two years ago you even stated that Justin Martyr believed your theory to be true (ignoring that Martyr’s view of the Cross as it relates to humanity in general itself negated your view).
If I say I drive a truck, this does not mean I drive a Ford. You may imagine this to be the case, and you may even fight tooth and nail to claim this is what I said, but your imagination does not change the fact I drive a Toyota.
Thomas Aquinas believed in penal substitution. But he strongly rejected that Christ suffered what would have been our punishment for our sins. He recognized the flaw in the argument when it comes to the nature of sin and punishment, but more than that he recognized that Christ’s suffering was sufficient apart from it being what we would have suffered because Christ is God.
What you are missing is what Aquinas made very clear. An innocent man may suffer punishment for a guilty man if the punishment is one of sufficiency. Christ suffered the punishment for our sins. But not as a “simple punishment” (Aquinas’ words). In other words, you are reading your theology into history and your view is more humanistic than I think you realize.
I have rejected none of passages that you have given me. I’ve affirmed over and over again that Christ’s work was penal and substitutionary. I also am not offended that you have a context in which you believe the atonement is expressed. I wish you could tell where Scripture ends and your theology begins, but such is tradition.
I don’t bother with creeds, BTW, when it comes to proofing doctrine. I mean no offense here, but we have to know the difference between our understanding and what Scripture actually states.
Sorry, I may have run some of @ ‘s comments into yours.
Absolutely
Please tell me why you believe that this insight into the very nature of God is not also an insight into the very nature of Christ.
I know this is what you believe. And I know that there is no passage of Scripture that states this.
Are you daft? (no offense intended….we don’t say “daft” around here and it sounded kinda British so I thought I’d ask). How on God’s green earth did you come up with the idea that I did not believe Christ paid the penality required by God for our sins upon the cross???? I’ve affirmed penal substitution over and over again. It’s your theories I reject.
The two major differences between Luther and Calvin was how the Lord’s Supper was viewed and Luther’s view of satisfaction atonement as compared to Calvin’s more legal tone in his Penal Substitution Theory. But yes, Martin Luther affirmed penal substitution….just not your version of it. Don’t skim quotes, read Luther.
I would love to (as long as we can on good terms). I’m trying to gather sources throughout church history on the Atonement (which is why I mentioned the ECF’s…their writings were at hand) as well as going through each passage that deals with the atonement.
I ran across this definition from Dr. Akin (Southeastern Baptist Seminary), and it is a place where I think we can agree while still disagreeing:
Jesus Christ, the Son of God, by offering Himself as a sacrifice, by substituting Himself in our place, paying in full the penalty of our sin and actually bearing the punishment which should have been ours, satisfied the Father, effected a reconciliation between God and man, and became our justification by imputing His righteousness to us through faith in His perfect work of atonement.
Last edited:
Here is an example of what I mean with Martin Luther. He holds a Satisfaction Theory of Atonement yet penal substitution (without the extra-biblical content) comes through, I think, very well:
“But now, if God’s wrath is to be taken away from me and I am to obtain grace and forgiveness, some one must merit this; for God cannot be a friend of sin nor gracious to it, nor can he remit the punishment and wrath, unless payment and satisfaction be made.
Now, no one, not even an angel of heaven, could make restitution for the infinite and irreparable injury and appease the eternal wrath of God which we had merited by our sins; except that eternal person, the Son of God himself, and he could do it only by taking our place, assuming our sins, and answering for them as though he himself were guilty of them.
This our dear Lord and only Saviour and Mediator before God, Jesus Christ, did for us by his blood and death, in which he became a sacrifice for us; and with his purity, innocence, and righteousness, which was divine and eternal, he outweighed all sin and wrath he was compelled to bear on our account; yea, he entirely engulfed and swallowed it up, and his merit is so great that God is now satisfied and says, “If he wills thereby to save, then there will be a salvation.” (Sermons of Martin Luther, vol. 2, p. 344)
The only part that contradicts Penal Substitution Theory is the last part (rather than God punishing Christ with the penalty the lost would receive at Judgment, Luther held God's wrath appeased by the nature of the Sacrifice). This is a good example of Satisfaction Theory of Atonement (not Penal Substitution Theory, @Martin Marprelate, although it is certainly has both punishment and substitution in clear view).
These are things that were once argued and discussed....now it seems people want to say "well, he believes it penal and substitution....so that's close enough for us" (really, I think it is people wanting to claim a history that is not theirs....but same end result).
Anyway, I hope this helps to understand the difference and why it is not technically wrong (although it may be misleading) to say Martin Luther taught an atonement that contained both penal and substitution aspects, but why it is wrong to claim he taught Penal Substitution Theory of the Atonement.
“But now, if God’s wrath is to be taken away from me and I am to obtain grace and forgiveness, some one must merit this; for God cannot be a friend of sin nor gracious to it, nor can he remit the punishment and wrath, unless payment and satisfaction be made.
Now, no one, not even an angel of heaven, could make restitution for the infinite and irreparable injury and appease the eternal wrath of God which we had merited by our sins; except that eternal person, the Son of God himself, and he could do it only by taking our place, assuming our sins, and answering for them as though he himself were guilty of them.
This our dear Lord and only Saviour and Mediator before God, Jesus Christ, did for us by his blood and death, in which he became a sacrifice for us; and with his purity, innocence, and righteousness, which was divine and eternal, he outweighed all sin and wrath he was compelled to bear on our account; yea, he entirely engulfed and swallowed it up, and his merit is so great that God is now satisfied and says, “If he wills thereby to save, then there will be a salvation.” (Sermons of Martin Luther, vol. 2, p. 344)
The only part that contradicts Penal Substitution Theory is the last part (rather than God punishing Christ with the penalty the lost would receive at Judgment, Luther held God's wrath appeased by the nature of the Sacrifice). This is a good example of Satisfaction Theory of Atonement (not Penal Substitution Theory, @Martin Marprelate, although it is certainly has both punishment and substitution in clear view).
These are things that were once argued and discussed....now it seems people want to say "well, he believes it penal and substitution....so that's close enough for us" (really, I think it is people wanting to claim a history that is not theirs....but same end result).
Anyway, I hope this helps to understand the difference and why it is not technically wrong (although it may be misleading) to say Martin Luther taught an atonement that contained both penal and substitution aspects, but why it is wrong to claim he taught Penal Substitution Theory of the Atonement.
Last edited:
Totally absurd and false!
First, there is a difference between biological and plant life. Second, you have no way of knowing if any biological life would have suffered death before Adam sinned as both Adam and Eve were vegetarians. Third, it is absolutely false that I believe the death of Christ was merely equivalent in value but I believe it was infinite in value but equivalent to justice. Fourth, your accusation that our view exalts man over God is absurd! Justice never devalues God.
Last edited:
No. Completely true and biblical.
All of creation was affected by the Fall. A dog dies not because of its own sin but because of Rm. 8
We are getting off on a tangent.
Our disagreement is essentially that I believe Christ's work a sufficient propitiation because of His nature and you because God punished Him with our punishment. I believe Christ being made sin refers to the substitutionary nature of His work while you believe it a legal status of actual guilt (deserving of God's wrath).
My observation has been that you are providing a context absent from Scripture itself. Your contention is that your theory is obvious throughout Scripture. My request is that you prove it instead of assuming it correct.
Last edited:
Now you are changing the subject. First, you said death began with life and I said no, death began with the fall, as death entered the world by sin. Now, you are claiming it is the fall that effected death in animals. So Jon, which is it? Paul says death "entered" the world by sin but you say (based strictly upon human reasoning) say it began with life. I agree with Paul.
- Status