Featured Debt vs. Penal Substitution

Please. Not again. This topic has been beaten to death on this forum already.

 

You rang?

 

Anselm predates the Theory of Penal Substitution. But I think what he did was similar to what we see in some doctrines developed during the Reformation period.

Anselm rightly took issue with the most popular (at that time) understanding that Christ's death amounted to a ransom paid to Satan. While this isn't how the "ransom" was always viewed as some held Christ a ransom paid on our behalf in general (some as "paid" to sin and death, others simply as the price of our freedom from sin and death) Anselm was addressing a fairly unbiblical view.

But his solution magnifies one aspect over what Scripture actually teaches. Anselm's theory would grow in context of a Roman-type (rather than Jewish) sence of justice as merit would replace the medieval"honor" system where Christ died in our place to restore God's honor mankind had robbed. It ends up being twisted into the Catholic model (almost....if not exactly...a divine penance system complete with a treasury of merit upon which to draw).

The Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement was created as an attempt to reform the Catholic idea of Atonement, and just like Anselm it failed by creating a neo-orthodoxy rather than going back to Scripture.

 

Yep. (But the numerous times this topic comes up demonstrates that some are, in fact, still interested in the topic. I suspect some simply don't want the theory questioned so they'd rather take it off the table as new fundamental "truth" to be accepted unconditionally).

Plus....if we didn't talk about topics that have been beaten to death this forum wouldn't exist.

Years ago I introduced a new topic about cats using toilets only to be proven wrong. It had already been discussed.

 

That is why I believe the topic remains a relevant discussion.

While you believe you have proven your point (and while authors like Steve Jeffery and Andrew Sach see their inferences as obvious "proof") others disagree and offer points that they feel evidence error on your part. What I mean, brother, is that as much as you believe you have proven your point I and others believe we have proven ours. All we can do at this juncture is have Christian discussions over our differences, how we view the issues, interpretations, Scriptures, etc.

The Theory of Penal Substitution has always been (and, I hope will always be) a minority position among Christians. BUT the Theory of Penal Substitution IS (and, I fear, will always be) a majority position within Evangelical Christianity and Protestantism (the group of Christians to which I belong). At minimum this tells us that the ideas proposed by the Theory are not as obvious (or as obsolete....depending on which side one falls on) as many might suggest. There is much room for debate.

The problem that I see is that some, even given the fact that honest Christian scholars exist on both sides, believe the Theory of Penal Substitution is beyond question. They see the Theory as a clear teaching of Scripture rather than a product of theology formulated through great effort, study, and time devoted to God's Word. And I'd apply this problem to all of the theories. They are theories, and not all Christians will latch on or accept them.

Where does this leave people like you and I (who strongly hold views regarding the topic, and who have devoted much time in prayerful study only to end up as theological opponents when it comes to the issue of the Theory of Penal Substitution)?

Well, @Martin Marprelate , I can only speak for myself. Most of my friends, my brothers in Christ, believe in the Theory of Penal Substitution. I love them. We pray together, praise together, worship together, and live life together. While I believe the Theory to be superficial and in opposition to what Scripture teaches (and I believe it poses a very real danger to the Christian by spiritualizing far too much), I am not opposed to Christians who have adopted the Theory of Penal Substitution. I believe that people can (and hopefully will) discuss the issues within the faith as brothers rather than outside of the faith as adversaries.

I understand the "biblical" basis for the Theory of Penal Substitution (I studied the Theory at a graduate level, held it, and even taught the Theory for years). I disagree with the Theory on a deeper level than your article (which I've read, and believe is truly well written) explores. The Theory of Penal Substitution is simply wrong (in my view) at the start because its presuppositions fail the test of Scripture.