Featured Did Jesus die as payment we owe?

Yes, traditional Christian theories of Atonement would fall under the category we now call "Christus Victor".

All Christians at one time viewed the Cross as Christ gaining victory over sin and death for us. But they all had different focuses.

Ransom Theory focused on Christ purchasing us. By the middle ages this was a purchase from Satan. But Early on there were several ideas (from death, from Satan as a personification of death and sin, and as a simple purchase).

Moral Influence Theory focused on Christ showing us how to live. Recapitulation focused on Christ as a type of Adam.


Penal Substitution Theory does not fall under Christus Victor. It was a reworking of Aquinas' Substitution Theory (satisfactory punishment) which was a reworking of Satisfaction Theory.

 

Ad hominem. This fallacy is used when one has no argument.

And no, it is impossible for you to have studied theology at a legitimate seminary and never have been exposed to traditional Christianity to the point you ask what branch of Christianity I am a part of. That simply cannot happen because you would have studied exactly what I believe and within a Baptistic context.

 

Yea...those pesky Calvinists just muddy the pond with Penal Substitution, Covenant Theology, and Dispensationalism.

 

False. Anabaptist Theology has described Penal Substitution as a theory for a couple of centuries. So has Orthodox Theology and traditional Lutheran Theology. Even Calvinists, at one time, recognized it as a theory.

Penal Substitution Theory is a relatively new theory held by a relatively small sect of Christianity.

It is humorous (and sad) that Penal Substitution theorists complain about using "theory" to describe their theory while all other views are fine with their focuses being called "theories". The reason is Penal Substitution theorists are blind to Scripture (they cannot tell where Scripture ends and their understanding behind).

The solution is a simple highlighter.

Instead of continuing to argue against what is written in God's Word (in the text), why don't you pick up a highlighter and highlight Jesus paying our debt instead of us in your Bible? Oh....I know....that isn't written in the Bible but it is taught. That is why Penal Substitution Theory is a theory.

 

This is where we disagree (not that you rely on other "scripture" but that there are other scripture in addition to the Bible).

I believe that the Bible is the ONLY Scripture.

Christians may offer their understanding, and Christians can learn from one another without accepting all they say.

But God's revelation in terms of Scripture was completed with the books of the Bible. When we look to progressive revelation in terms of additional "scripture" we open ourselves up to error.

We will never agree on this because I do not recognize another scripture. I believe God's Word is complete and final.

And I believe Scripture (the Bible) IS God's Word - not just a guide to truth but truth itself. Where you rely on the Bible and "other Scripture" to guide you to truth I believe the Bible is the ONLY Scripture and it itself is what God teaches.

 

There are issues here.

Highlighting the remissions of dins and the blood shed for us is not highlighting Penal Substitution.

Likewise, Reading Romans 3 and 4 is not reading Penal Substitution.

Post one verse in Romans 3 and 4 that says Jesus paid our penalty for sin so we wouldn't. You can't because that is not actually in the text of Scripture.

You acknowledge that Penal Substitution was not expressed until the Reformation. That is honest of you and I appreciate that honesty. BUT you argue that Penal Substitution is obvious throughout Scripture without explaining exactly why it took 1600 years to be found.

I wouldn't turn to ceremony. Penal Substitution is a revising of Roman Catholic theology, and while many see it as a correction you are assuming rejecting Penal Substitution would be turning to Catholicism.

If I were to turn to a different theology it would be Anabaptist Theology.

I believe the "Latin views" (which would include not only Penal Substitution but also the Catholic views the Reformers sought to correct) are equally wrong.

 

I understand. You cannot answer for your faith.

That is a common problem here, especially regarding Penal Substitution.

Penal Substitution theorists, like you, often enter a discussion only to back away when challenged to provide their theory in God's actual Word.

It would be wasting your time because, as I'm sure you discovered, Penal Substitution Theory is not actually in God's Word. You have nothing to say because all you can do is insist it's what God teaches even though He didn't record it in Scripture.

And that IS, in fact, another Scripture. You have elevated your understanding to Scripture and yourself to God.

Where traditional Christianity, for better or worse, relied on God's Word and tested doctrine against "what is written" your test is this "other Scripture" in that you test what you believe Scripture teaches against what you believe is taught by Scripture.

You posted correctly that you rely on "other Scripture" because you rely on a different authority for doctrine than the actual text of the Bible.

 

I worked last night - got home this morning. So yes, I do have all day (don't go in until tomorrow morning).

And yes, it is absolutely true.

This is an important truth.

We are to test doctrine against Scripture (the Bible). But when you test doctrine (teachings) against what you believe is taught by the Bible then you have an entirely subjective standard.

Provide one verse that states Jesus paid our debt.

You can't because it does not exist. You believe Scripture teaches that Jesus paid our debt, but you cannot test that doctrine against Scripture.

You get frustrated, engage in ad hominem, and say you don't have time to prove your theory.

But at the end of the day you - at some level - have to know that you hold a faith that is not based on God's Word (on what is written in the text of Scripture).

That is probably true of all of these newer theories, not just yours. You hold a reformed Catholic faith. But that Catholic faith was developed a thousand years after Christ.

I wish you would rely on God's Word (on "what is written"). Then we could discuss disagreements based on the same Scripture.

As it is, we hold different presuppositions (I believe foundational doctrines must be in the Bible itself). So there can be no legitimate discussion as you will constantly introduce extra-biblical teachings as if they were Scripture itself because to you they are.

 

Wrong.

I have repeatedly said that the author of Christ's death was the "powers of darkness", "wicked men's but that this was "according to the predetermined plan of God".

You assumed that because I didn't repost that in every post I stopped believing it.

Please provide one verse that states Jesus paid our debt instead of us.

 

I also get aggravated.

Those you quoted offer a position contrary to Penal Substitution but use Bible verses you use so you "see" the beginnings of Penal Substitution. That is not an honest treatment of those people.

It has been argued that Augustine held Penal Substitution because he believed Christ died for our sins. But Augustine said that the Cross was a trap for Satan, that Satan accepted Christ as payment for us.

It has been argued that Irenaeus held Penal Substitution. But he wrote that Christ died as a union with mankind (the Last Adam) to undo where Adam failed by suffering death authored by Satan.

It has been argued that Gregory of Nazianzus' "medical substitution" was somehow penal substitution (it isn't), that Justin Martyr's therapeutic substitution is really Penal Substitution (it isn't)....and this continues.


Roman Catholic theology is penal substitution in embryo in the sense that penal substitution is Aquinas reformed. Aquinas developed the doctrine that Jesus suffered punishment (satisfactory punishment) to pay our sins. Punishment was the morally "good" response to sin. Christ merits grace on our behalf for our sins.

Penal Substitution reformed this doctrine by replacing satisfactory punishment (punishment that satisfied the demands of sin) with simple punishment (punishment for sin) and based atonement on divine justice rather than merit.

But history aside -

Provide a verse that states Jesus paid our debt.

 

Yes, I understand what a surety is. Do you??? It is a representative guarantee (a pledge).

More important, do you understand that "a better covenant" does not mean "a debt"?

Christ is the surety OF A BETTER COVENANT.