Christ's victory over Satan

[DaveXR650]

I am going to ask again as this will help me to better understand what you are seeing -

Christ died for us, on our behalf, suffering the punishment we deserved as our substitute.

How is that NOT the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement?

"Penal Substitution Theory The belief that in his death Christ suffered the penalty for our breaking of the law and died as a substitute in our place (penal, involving penalty or legal punishment, from the Lat, poena, punishment, penalty, compensation.)
This is from Torrance's book appendix, def. of Penal Substitution Theory.

I don't know why you keep trying to do this but that is penal substitution or Torrance doesn't know what it is either.

 

[DaveXR650]

That is why I asked if you believed the statement I offered was Penal Substitution. The reason is it is not, yet you read your theory into that statement.

It is. Or no one else but you know what it is. So you can go ahead and debate some definition that no one else knows about but you, which you cannot seem to define and hopefully you will win. But I'm not sure you will find much help from Torrance.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

We know that Penal Substitution Theory did not exist until 1500 years after the Resurrection.

We know nothing of the kind. And if we did, it would not make the Doctrine of Penal Substitution false.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Every Christian believes that Christ died for us, on our behalf, suffering the punishment we deserved as our substitute.

And this isn't true either,at least, not of every professing Christian, and it hasn't been true in Church history. You must surely know this. I corrected you on it before.

 

[JonC]

"Penal Substitution Theory The belief that in his death Christ suffered the penalty for our breaking of the law and died as a substitute in our place (penal, involving penalty or legal punishment, from the Lat, poena, punishment, penalty, compensation.)
This is from Torrance's book appendix, def. of Penal Substitution Theory.

I don't know why you keep trying to do this but that is penal substitution or Torrance doesn't know what it is either.

You are making the assumption Torrance addressed in his published lectures on the Atonement.

You are assuming that redemption was a matter of satisfying the demands of justice.

You are also assuming that because Torrance defined the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement it was the view he held (in his lectures he also defines the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement, but he finds fault in the theory.....it was Torrance that I quoted).

 

[JonC]

And this isn't true either,at least, not of every professing Christian, and it hasn't been true in Church history. You must surely know this. I corrected you on it before.

It is true. Surely you know this. Every Christian believes that Christ died for us, on our behalf, suffering the punishment we deserved as our substitute. Otherwise the person professing Christianity is not Christian.

Can you name one Christian who did not believe that Christ died for us, on our behalf, suffering the punishment we deserved as our substitute?

Of course you can't. All you can do is say most Christians don't believe that because they don't read into those statements your theories.

 

[JonC]

We know nothing of the kind. And if we did, it would not make the Doctrine of Penal Substitution false.

@DaveXR650 knows it (he said as much).

You are perhaps the only person here who does not understand how the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement developed.

 

[JonC]

It is. Or no one else but you know what it is. So you can go ahead and debate some definition that no one else knows about but you, which you cannot seem to define and hopefully you will win. But I'm not sure you will find much help from Torrance.

Traditional Christianity affirms that statement while rejecting the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement by their stated belief.

Thomas Aquinas believed that statement while strongly emphasizing that Christ's punishment was not for sin (a denial of Penal Substitution Theory).

Gregory of Nazianzus held that while defining substitution as "medical substitution" (a view that directly denies Penal Substitution Theory).

Origen believed that while believing that the punishment Christ suffered was by Satan

Torrance believed that while insisting Christ Christ died by the powers of evil (rather than God's punishment) under what he called "ontological substitution" and our redemption being wrought in the Resurrection - which contradicts Penal Substitution Theory.

Augustine believed that while holding Ransom Theory - Recapitulation, with Jesus as a trap for Satan (a view that contradicted Penal Substitution Theory).

The list goes on.

So apparently the problem is not with me but you.


I take it by your posts that you do not understand how that statement is not Penal Substitution Theory.

 

[DaveXR650]

@DaveXR650 knows it (he said as much).

You are perhaps the only person here who does not understand how the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement developed.

I said that the early church fathers writings showed that they had a concept of penal substitution. PSA is and has been under attack from all sorts of professing Christians but I wasn't talking about that. Also, there is a big difference between someone who emphasizes a different aspect of something or even doesn't mention it at all or even is not aware of it and someone who denies it.

 

[JonC]

I said that the early church fathers writings showed that they had a concept of penal substitution. PSA is and has been under attack from all sorts of professing Christians but I wasn't talking about that. Also, there is a big difference between someone who emphasizes a different aspect of something or even doesn't mention it at all or even is not aware of it and someone who denies it.

But you are playing a shell game.

What you call a concept of penal substitution are biblical elements that are penal and substitution.

But that is not the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement.

Penal Substitution Theory assumes several things that were not believed until the 16th Century. Penal Substitution theorists assume redemption was centered on divine justice, that the substitution itself is penal (rather than "medical"), that God is the source of this punishment, that this punishment was "simple punishment" rather than "satisfactory punishment", just to name a few.

The fact is you are using "doublespeak" here, although I don't know you realize it.


How can traditional Christianity believe "penal substitution" as defined in Penal Substitution Theory yet define their belief in such a way that contradicts the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement?

They can't. You are taking people's words out of context and redefining them based on a context you provide. You do this with Torrance by ignoring his criticisms of Penal Substitution Theory and claiming that is really what he meant when he described what he called "ontological substitution".

 

[DaveXR650]

Torrance believed that while insisting Christ Christ died by the powers of evil (rather than God's punishment) under what he called "ontological substitution" and our redemption being wrought in the Resurrection - which contradicts Penal Substitution Theory.

I don't know if you can do that with Torrance. The reason being that he was very strong on the idea of God's being one with Jesus at all times and therefore as Jesus willingly took on our punishment it was God dealing with our sin himself. He had no interest from what I have read so far in taking the willing responsibility of the death of Christ off of God himself (and Jesus) and putting onto powers of evil. I'm not saying that he would be against the fact that evil men crucified Christ, just that in terms of our redemption God the Father was deeply involved, lovingly, in having Christ (while all the while remembering that God was Christ) bearing the penalty and wrath of our sin.

I take it by your posts that you do not understand how that statement is not Penal Substitution Theory.

No I don't. You saw where I posted the definition from Torrance's book. It looks the same to me. If you cannot explain the difference between what you posted and what I posted from Torrance's book then they are the same and you are wrong. You have made up some kind of concept of PSA that you don't like but cannot articulate. I don't know what to say if you don't explain what you mean.

By the way, there is a lot written in regular reformed literature about what exactly the resurrection means to us. The idea that without the resurrection you don't have redemption is not unique to Torrance. He does combine a lot into the actual atonement. I am not at a level where I know enough to comment on whether that's the best way to do it or not.

 

[JonC]

I don't know if you can do that with Torrance. The reason being that he was very strong on the idea of God's being one with Jesus at all times and therefore as Jesus willingly took on our punishment it was God dealing with our sin himself. He had no interest from what I have read so far in taking the willing responsibility of the death of Christ off of God himself (and Jesus) and putting onto powers of evil. I'm not saying that he would be against the fact that evil men crucified Christ, just that in terms of our redemption God the Father was deeply involved, lovingly, in having Christ (while all the while remembering that God was Christ) bearing the penalty and wrath of our sin.


No I don't. You saw where I posted the definition from Torrance's book. It looks the same to me. If you cannot explain the difference between what you posted and what I posted from Torrance's book then they are the same and you are wrong. You have made up some kind of concept of PSA that you don't like but cannot articulate. I don't know what to say if you don't explain what you mean.

By the way, there is a lot written in regular reformed literature about what exactly the resurrection means to us. The idea that without the resurrection you don't have redemption is not unique to Torrance. He does combine a lot into the actual atonement. I am not at a level where I know enough to comment on whether that's the best way to do it or not.

I don't have a problem with Torrance's definition of Penal Substitution Theory. What I provided (the criticism of Penal Substitution Theory) was also from Torrance.

I read John Macarthur define Ransom Theory. That does not mean he holds Ransom Theory.

If you paid attention then you would see that Torrance defined many theories of Atonement. Then he offered his own. He even rejected that Penal Substitution Theory was the "orthodox" reformed position (which is fair as there are many Reformed views that reject Penal Substitution Theory).


The point with Torrance is he viewed our sins being addressed by God in the Resurrection but NOT in Christ's death.

That contradicts the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement no matter how hard you try to hide it.

 

[DaveXR650]

I don't have a problem with Torrance's definition of Penal Substitution Theory. What I provided (the criticism of Penal Substitution Theory) was also from Torrance.

I don't think the quote you provided was Torrance against PSA at all. What he was saying was that you cannot fully understand what is going on with the sacrificial death of Jesus until you fully realize that Jesus himself, as the God-man, was the one freely offering himself. And that, rather than viewing God as needing to be placated in his wrath, we should view God, in his unity with Christ, which was always maintained, as, speaking reverently, taking the punishment and wrath against our sin on Himself. Torrance was explaining the oneness of God and Jesus in this but he was not denying penal substitution. This is really not a lot different from the reformed idea that there was a covenant between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit to redeem men. Sure, there are aspects that were different but Torrance seems to me to be vindicating God from the false charges of those who say that PSA makes God appear like a pagan deity that is angry and needs to be sacrificed to. He is making sure we realize that the Father is also participating in this and also reminding us that the Son is offering himself or else it would not have happened.

 

[JonC]

I don't think the quote you provided was Torrance against PSA at all. What he was saying was that you cannot fully understand what is going on with the sacrificial death of Jesus until you fully realize that Jesus himself, as the God-man, was the one freely offering himself. And that, rather than viewing God as needing to be placated in his wrath, we should view God, in his unity with Christ, which was always maintained, as, speaking reverently, taking the punishment and wrath against our sin on Himself. Torrance was explaining the oneness of God and Jesus in this but he was not denying penal substitution. This is really not a lot different from the reformed idea that there was a covenant between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit to redeem men. Sure, there are aspects that were different but Torrance seems to me to be vindicating God from the false charges of those who say that PSA makes God appear like a pagan deity that is angry and needs to be sacrificed to. He is making sure we realize that the Father is also participating in this and also reminding us that the Son is offering himself or else it would not have happened.

Sure thing, bud.

All scholars misunderstood Torrance and Torrance didn't really mean to be critical of the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement.

You know this truth because you started a book the other day while many of us you dismiss as fools studied theology as graduate students for years. We just didn't pick the right book.

We only read Torrance defined the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement, state that it is the supposedly orthodox Calvinist view, that it is a product of Latin Christianity where “there was a rejection of the consubstantiality of the Word" (Torrance, 1986 essay “Karl Barth and the Latin Heresy,").


But you know better. Everybody who studied theology just got it wrong. You read a few pages in a book and that trump's anything Torrance himself said.

Great insight.

 

[JonC]

This is Torrance's answer to (against) penal substitution and in favor of what he called an ontological substitution. (@DaveXR650 , I know you think Torrance is expressing a difference that only existed in his mind)

‘He came, rather, to penetrate into the innermost existence of Israel in such a way as to gather up its religious and historical dialogue with God into himself, to make its partnership and its conflict with God his own, precisely as they moved to their climax with the Incarnation, and thus in and through Israel to strike at the very root of evil in the enmity of the human heart to God. He came to grapple with evil, therefore, at the very point where under the unrelenting pressure of the self-giving presence and love of God to mankind it was forced to uncover itself in the crucifixion of the incarnate Son of God, and then to deal with it decisively in atoning sacrifice." (from Meditations)

 

[JonC]

The Gospel does not offer us a logical or causal explanation of the origin or presence of evil, or of precisely how it is vanquished in the Cross of Christ. But it does tell us what the Lord God has done to deal with evil. It tells us that in his unlimited love God himself, incarnate in Jesus Christ, has entered into the dark and fearful depths of our depraved and lost existence subjected to death and judgement, in order to make our sin and guilt, our wickedness and shame, our misery and fate, our godlessness and violence, his own, thereby substituting himself for us, and making atonement for sin, so that he might redeem us from our alienation and restore us to fellowship with the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. The saving act of God in the blood of Christ is an unfathomable mystery before which the angels veil their faces and into which we dare not and cannot intrude, but before which our minds bow in wonder, worship and praise. — Divine Interpretation

It was not the death of Jesus that constituted atonement, but Jesus Christ the Son of God offering Himself in sacrifice for us. Everything depends on who He was, for the significance of His acts in life and death depends on the nature of His person. It was He who died for us, He who made atonement through His one self-offering in life and death. Hence we must allow the Person of Christ to determine for us the nature of His saving work, rather than the other way round. The detachment of atonement from incarnation is undoubtedly revealed by history to be one of the most harmful mistakes of Evangelical Churches. — God and Rationality

If I did not believe in the cross, I could not believe in God. The cross means that, while there is no explanation of evil, God himself has come into the midst of it in order to take it upon himself, to triumph over it, and deliver us from it. — Preaching Christ Today

Thus, taking a body like our own, because all our bodies were liable to the corruption of death, He surrendered His body to death instead of all, and offered it to the Father. This He did out of sheer love for us, so that in His death all might die, and the law of death thereby be abolished because, having fulfilled in His body that for which it was appointed, it was thereafter voided of its power for men. This He did that He might turn again to incorruption men who had turned back to corruption, and make them alive through death by the appropriation of His body and by the grace of His resurrection. Thus He would make death to disappear from them as utterly as straw from fire. — On the Incarnation

 

[DaveXR650]

Jon, I just don't see where the above quotes damage PSA.

Sure thing, bud.

All scholars misunderstood Torrance and Torrance didn't really mean to be critical of the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement.

You know this truth because you started a book the other day while many of us you dismiss as fools studied theology as graduate students for years. We just didn't pick the right book.

Like I said earlier, and I should have stuck to it, there isn't anything else to say.

 

[JonC]

Jon, I just don't see where the above quotes damage PSA.

Like I said earlier, and I should have stuck to it, there isn't anything else to say.

They do not damage the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement. They are just contrary to the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement.

One cannot insist that Christ was NOT punished for sins and at the same time insist Christ WAS punished for sins (Gregory of Nazianzus).

One cannot insist that Christ's death did NOT constitute atonement and at the same time insist Christ's death DID constitute atonement (Torrance).

One cannot say that Christ died on our behalf but not instead of us and at the same time insist Christ died instead of us (Anselm).


You are picking out people's words and redefining them while ignoring what they actually said. You would not like it if people did that to you.

The Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement is a new idea. That does not mean it is wrong. But it is a superficial and theologically shallow theory.

That said, congratulations on mastering the art of doublespeak. Reformed Theology is a good fit.

 

[DaveXR650]

"In that double deed of the God-man, of God and man in inconceivable union in Christ, atonement is wrought in the life and blood of Christ. It is at once substitutionary sacrifice in that life is given for life as Christ stands under the divine judgement obedient unto death, the death of the cross, and substitutionary oblation in that here obedience and holiness are offered to God in place of our disobedience and sin. Here we have in one act on the cross. the two fold sacrifice indicated by the Old Testament sin offering and whole burnt offering. It is not merely the death of Christ, his suffering, his blood, his bearing of judgement that atones or expiates guilt, but along with that and within it all the offering of perfect holiness to God from the side of humanity. Jesus is God's beloved son in whom he is well pleased." pg 123 Torrance

Like I said, Torrance has a vast view of the atoning work of Christ. But whatever I have read of him so far, when he eventually gets down to what specifically and actually happened at the cross he sounds like he's describing PSA. I have come across his objections and they seem to be that that is only one aspect of the atonement. He also objects to describing the sacrifice of Christ as an isolated thing done which is then looked at separately from the person of God the Father and the God-man, Christ. To me that's fair enough.

The same thing happens in the section where he describes the superiority of the picture of the Lord's supper to a written narrative of Christ's atoning work. In that case also, when he really gets down to the specifics it looks very familiar to any Christian who has an understanding of PSA.

One cannot insist that Christ's death did NOT constitute atonement and at the same time insist Christ's death DID constitute atonement (Torrance).

Looking at the above quote by Torrance makes a statement like this sound just plain stupid. He flat out said that it did. What he insists on is that that is not the only thing involved in the atonement. Which I'm interested in looking at.

 

[JonC]

"In that double deed of the God-man, of God and man in inconceivable union in Christ, atonement is wrought in the life and blood of Christ. It is at once substitutionary sacrifice in that life is given for life as Christ stands under the divine judgement obedient unto death, the death of the cross, and substitutionary oblation in that here obedience and holiness are offered to God in place of our disobedience and sin. Here we have in one act on the cross. the two fold sacrifice indicated by the Old Testament sin offering and whole burnt offering. It is not merely the death of Christ, his suffering, his blood, his bearing of judgement that atones or expiates guilt, but along with that and within it all the offering of perfect holiness to God from the side of humanity. Jesus is God's beloved son in whom he is well pleased." pg 123 Torrance

Like I said, Torrance has a vast view of the atoning work of Christ. But whatever I have read of him so far, when he eventually gets down to what specifically and actually happened at the cross he sounds like he's describing PSA. I have come across his objections and they seem to be that that is only one aspect of the atonement. He also objects to describing the sacrifice of Christ as an isolated thing done which is then looked at separately from the person of God the Father and the God-man, Christ. To me that's fair enough.

The same thing happens in the section where he describes the superiority of the picture of the Lord's supper to a written narrative of Christ's atoning work. In that case also, when he really gets down to the specifics it looks very familiar to any Christian who has an understanding of PSA.


Looking at the above quote by Torrance makes a statement like this sound just plain stupid. He flat out said that it did. What he insists on is that that is not the only thing involved in the atonement. Which I'm interested in looking at.

You still don't get it.

"In that double deed of the God-man, of God and man in inconceivable union in Christ, atonement is wrought in the life and blood of Christ. It is at once substitutionary sacrifice in that life is given for life as Christ stands under the divine judgement obedient unto death, the death of the cross, and substitutionary oblation in that here obedience and holiness are offered to God in place of our disobedience and sin. Here we have in one act on the cross. the two fold sacrifice indicated by the Old Testament sin offering and whole burnt offering. It is not merely the death of Christ, his suffering, his blood, his bearing of judgement that atones or expiates guilt, but along with that and within it all the offering of perfect holiness to God from the side of humanity. Jesus is God's beloved son in whom he is well pleased."

I agree with that statement. The reason is I have also read Torrance's lectures and theology.

I say that God laid our sins on Christ, that He suffered the stroke we were due, that He is our sacrifice, taking upon Himself the penalty for sin. BUT having explained what I mean (traditional Christianity, the Classic view rather than the Latin view) you know that is not Penal Substitution Theory.

When Torrance criticized Penal Substitution Theory as a corruption of Athanasius (which Torrance wrote is his view of substitution atonement) you completely ignore him.

That is not an honest treatment of his theology (and no, I disagree with Athanasius at points so I disagree with Torrance at points).

My reason for mentioning Torrance is that no reputable theologian believes he affirms Penal Substitution Theory.

He is considered the second most influential Reformed scholar (behind Barth), which should be a huge indicator I don't hold his view completely.

But it is telling that you are at odds with even Reformed theologians on this one.

Many books have been written by Reformed theologians arguing against Torrance (and Barth) when it comes to their view of Atonement.

Perhaps you should study a bit more.

Torrance was a Barthian (he agreed with Karl Barth on many points, especially when it came to Christ and atonement). Reformed pastors like RC Sproul, J.I. Packer, and John MacArthur wrote against Torrance's "ontological atonement".

Yet you know better.

My point is that all Christians believe Christ suffered the punishment we were due as our substitute. Most did not affirm the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement. You just can't tell the difference. That is a "you problem".

Should I believe you or Sproul? Should I believe you or Packer? You or Torrance's lectures?

I don't know. I tend to think Torrance expressed where he differed from Penal Substitution Theory in her s lectures very well. And I would assume him to be an expert on his own beliefs.

And, if course, most Reformed theologians disagree with Torrance's rejection of penal substitution because they find his "ontological substitution" too "abstract" (something Torrance actually embraces).

But you be you. Who knows, studying Torrance may ultimately lead you away from penal substitution.... especially since you can't tell a difference yet. Maybe a year from now you'll be a Barthian as well.