Featured Debt vs. Penal Substitution

No you don't. .

 

Yes, the Theory of Penal Substitution was derived from Scripture. And the theory that God paid a ransom to Satan was derived from 1 Timothy. All of the theories were derived from Scripture (otherwise I doubt Christians would hold them).

If you think that the Theory of Penal Substitution was not called into question until NT Wright then I suspect that you have two issues. First, you elevate the influence that N.T. Wright has outside of the Anglican Church. But second, and more importantly, you ignore the fact that from it's inception people (and Christian theologies, like Anabaptistic theology) have question the extent to which the Theory accurately reflects Scripture.

Today I think that people like Weaver have a louder voice than Wright on the nature of the Atonement. But I don't keep up with the Anglicans (we tend to know what is more around us, I suppose), so I don't know which is more vocal on a national front.

 

People often try to shape Scripture to their worldview. I think this is true with those who reject that it is by the blood of Christ shed that we are saved. I mentioned Weaver earlier. He would fall into this category.

Just as some advocates of the Theory of Penal Substitution cannot fathom the necessity of Christ's shed blood in opposing views, some who oppose the Theory do so because they cannot understand how human violance could fit into the divine will (so their idea of the Cross is less the precious blood shed and more the evil of men overcome).

 

Indeed. It is the primary view of Protestantism (not only Calvinistic Baptists, but Baptists in general...and Presbyterians and Methodists).

Perhaps you see N.T. Wright as the main figure because he was so vocal on another issue within his own group...Reformed Evangelicals (Wright is Reformed, speaks as holding Penal Substitution Theory, but his work on Justification has caused rifts). I am neither a Calvinist or an Anglican. While I can appreciate Wright's observations his conclusions hold no sway in my little world.

There are many reasons to oppose the Theory. I think that one is a bit shallow (e.g., God is not cruel, yet the condemned will suffer in Hell).

 

[

Indeed. Some do. Weaver voiced exactly that thing.

But that does not mean all (or even most) opposed to the Theory do so for the same reason.

I know many atheists who oppose my view because they don't believe in God. That does not mean all who oppose my view do so because they deny the existence of God.

 

Your premise is misguided.

No one, to my knowledge, is arguing fairness on this forum.

The Theory of Penal Substitution makes perfect sense to me. It is clear, and extraordinary simple when presented alongside other doctrines (such as the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Hypostatic Union, etc.).

The question is not its fairness but its accuracy as a representation of the meaning of that precious blood shed on our behalf. Those who hold to the Theory believe it accurate. Those who reject the Theory do so because they believe Scripture teaches something else.

I believe the Theory to be a shallow and superficial representation of the Cross that people adopt because of its simplicity. I believe the Theory an easy one to accept because it requires nothing on the part of those who accept it. I believe the Theory, while derived from Scripture, far more dependent on man. I believe those who hold to the Theory forfeit much of the depth both Scripture and the Cross offer because the Theory colors so much of their perspective on other issues. I believe some are even blinded to the fact the Theory is a theory and instead equate it to Scripture or something authored by Paul (the Apostle, not Simon....although Paul Simon is an excellent writer).

Fairness has nothing to do with it.

 

Sorry to stray. This is just about the only "theological" topic that I've much interest.

I tend to side more with Abelard on this topic (in a limited way, at least). I agree with Abelard that Anselm tended to distort God's character (in much the same way as those who hold to the Theory of Penal Substitution do now). But I don't advocate the Moral Influence Theory as a complete theory.

Abelard insisted that it is (1) by the faith in Christ that God's love is increased in us and (2) it is by virtue of that faith that God in Christ united our nature to Himself and (3) by suffering in that same nature (our nature) God has demonstrated to us that supreme love (which we share in Christ). It is not very hard to get a sense of Moral Influence Theory here.

BUT the concept of justice that Abelard is writing from is a Justinian concept. What makes us righteous is not the exercise of punishment (retributive justice) but rather the presence of God’s love in us. Justice, in this view, is God rendering to man what is genuinely due them. We are slaves to sin and death, but by God’s love we are freed from that bondage.

Abelard will continue to explain that our our redemption is that supreme love of God abiding in us - that same love of God demonstrated through the suffering of Christ (not just the Cross, but incarnation through the grave) that not only frees us from the bondage of sin but gains for us liberty as sons of God. It is God's love that liberates us - NOT because of the exercise of retributive punishment (Penal Substitution Theory) but because of the presence of this supreme love imputed to us, abiding IN us.

Also, it it relevant to remember the first time in history simple forgiveness came into question was in the eleventh century with Anselm’s Cur Deus homo.

Consider too that while Anselm did view Christ as suffering punishment in our place, this was NOT as a condition whereby God cancels our penal debt.

Anselm worked off of the medieval understanding of honor. Through mankind God's honor was lost. Christ became man and ultimately restored to God that honor. This would grow into the Theory of Penal Substitution but it would take centuries, a Reformation, and a lawyer who would become a theologian in Geneva.

 

It is a doctrine (as opposed to a theory) to the indoctrinated, I suppose.

But to most of the world (perhaps most importantly to most Christians in the world not only historically but today) it is a theory.

Here is a very short list of Atonement theories:

Moral Influence Theory
Ransom Theory
Satisfaction Theory
Substitution Theory
Penal Substitution Theory
Government Theory
Recapitulation Theory
Scapegoat Theory
Ontological Substitution Theory

And the list probably goes on (especially if you consider the "in-between" theories.).

I doubt (I hope) that no one questions Spurgeon's belief in the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement. That's like questioning Sproul's Calvinism . But I think John Wesley was probably the most outspoken for the Theory.

 

Depends on just how far one goes into their ideas of the Trinity.

Another difference is that all Orthodox Christianity affirms the Trinity while a minority affirms the Theory of Penal Substitution.