Does the Text of 1 John Demand Penal Substitution Theory ? 2

[JonC]

The Doctrine of Penal Substitution is found in the Bible and in the ECFs. There were no 500 page University theses on P.S. back then because it was generally accepted. It was entirely possible to hold Satisfaction and Christus Victor theories at the same time since they were not mutually exclusive back then.

But the Scripture tells us that the cross is a stumbling-block to the Jews, and so it was for Trypho. He wrote, 'But whether Chrsit should be so shamefully crucified, this we are in doubt about. For whosoever is crucified is said in the law to be accursed, so that I am exceedingly incredulous on this point. It is quite clear, indeed, in the Scriptures that Christ had to suffer; but we wish to learn if you can prove it to us whether it was by suffering cursed by God.'

Justin Martyr replies, after answering Trypho's concern, the Christ was not cursed for His own sins, 'For the whole human race will be found to be under a curse.....If those who are under this [Mosaic] law appear to be under a curse for not having observed all the requirements, how much more shall the nations appear to be under a curse who practise idolatry, who seduce youths...etc.'

He continues, '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 dead, He would raise Him up, why do you argue about Him who submitted to suffer these things according to the Father's will.......'
Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, a Jew.

It's quite brief, but the Lord Jesus took upon Himself the curse of God that had rested on 'the whole human family.' That is why He was crucified although He had committed no sin. It is a clear statement of Penal Substitution. Christ endured the punishment due to us and took the curse upon Mankind to fall upon Himself.

I agree. The biblical doctrine of Penal Substitution - that Jesus bore our sin, became a curse for us, died that we might in Him live - is in the Bible and throughout history.

The Theory of Penal Substitution- that God poured His wrath upon Christ in our stead - is not.

 

[JonC]

So you're essentially arguing for Anselm's Satisfaction Theory?

The Archangel

No. I'm just saying that his theory also has wrath in view (as does Aquinas take on his theory). That said, I do like Martin Luther's explanation that Christ's death outweighed the sin and wrath against us (Satisfaction Theory). But I lean more towards those aspects of penal substitution that are in Scripture within the general context of Christus Victor.

 

[JonC]

Here is a difference in how we’ve been looking at the issue.

The Theory of Penal Substitution views sin as creating a debt that must be paid. God’s justice demands that the debt be paid, otherwise forgiveness is impossible (because justice would not be satisfied). Our sin debt was paid by Christ as God poured out the wrath due us onto His Son at the Cross.

But this is an accounting type of retributive justice. It assumes things about sin and justice that do not exist (biblically). It looks at the atonement almost as a monetary transaction. Jim owes Mike $50. Mike forgives the debt. That means Mike assumes the $50 penalty himself.

Scripture presents sin in a much different light. It is an offense, or a rebellion (an action) against God. If Jim punches Mike in the nose, Mike does not have to punch himself in the nose in order to forgive Jim. Mike can forgive Jim without compensation or recompense. Justice does not demand that Mike punch someone for the offense. But before Mike forgives Jim he may want to make sure Jim has changed his ways (otherwise Jim will keep on punching people).

Penal Substitution Theory assumes that biblical penal substitution occurs within a context that it has failed to prove. That is the difference between the biblical doctrine of penal substitution and the Theory of Penal Substitution. The doctrine does not present God as having to satisfy justice by pouring His wrath on someone before He can forgive. Instead, the doctrine of penal substitution presents God as forgiving when (and only when) true repentance is present.

The Theory of Penal Substitution rejects the biblical doctrine of penal substitution.

 

[Darrell C]

I agree that it was the cup given to Christ that He would undergo the brutality due to man by that very man. It is (by extension) to all nations in that nationalities other then Jews witnessed the crucifixion.

AS such, it was never God brutalizing a portion of the trinity.

I would agree. We have to consider that the Son took on flesh for the purpose of going to the Cross. While we can say there is the spiritual aspect of our sin being placed on Him in a vicarious meaning (just as the laying on of hands of the Priest demonstrated the sinner's sin transferred to the sacrificial animal, though it was not literally "placed" on the animal), I don't view the sinless Son of God as actually having sin in any way. That would defeat the entire point of a blameless, sinless Sacrifice that was worthy to have His death applied to those who did sin.

We will continue to disagree as to the "mystery" being the gospel. But that is for another thread.

Fair enough.


God bless.

 

[The Archangel]

No. I'm just saying that his theory also has wrath in view (as does Aquinas take on his theory). That said, I do like Martin Luther's explanation that Christ's death outweighed the sin and wrath against us (Satisfaction Theory). But I lean more towards those aspects of penal substitution that are in Scripture within the general context of Christus Victor.

But is sin dealt with?

The Archangel

 

[JonC]

But is sin dealt with?

The Archangel

Yes. Absolutely. Sin is dealt with.

Christ does not prevent us from being subject to the wages of sin (we physically die) but He delivers from that death (just as He was delivered). The wages of sin are death but the gift of God is eternal life through Christ Jesus. We are responsible for the things that we do in this lifetime, but we have an advocate in Christ. The Father judges no one, but all judgment is given to the Son. The Judgement, therefore, is Christ-centered. Those “in Christ” are raised to life. Those not “in Christ” are raised to condemnation. They will experience the “second death” as death and Hades are cast into the Lake of Fire.

 

[The Archangel]

No. I'm just saying that his theory also has wrath in view (as does Aquinas take on his theory). That said, I do like Martin Luther's explanation that Christ's death outweighed the sin and wrath against us (Satisfaction Theory). But I lean more towards those aspects of penal substitution that are in Scripture within the general context of Christus Victor.

Also, why would Peter say:

[18] knowing that you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your forefathers, not with perishable things such as silver or gold, [19] but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot. (1 Peter 1:18–19 ESV)

The use of the word "ransom" tells us of some type of transaction--likely where the errant "ransom to Satan" theory comes in.

How else would Jesus' blood ransom believers if PSA is wrong?

The Archangel

 

[JonC]

Also, why would Peter say:

[18] knowing that you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your forefathers, not with perishable things such as silver or gold, [19] but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot. (1 Peter 1:18–19 ESV)

The use of the word "ransom" tells us of some type of transaction--likely where the errant "ransom to Satan" theory comes in.

How else would Jesus' blood ransom believers if PSA is wrong?

The Archangel

Yes, I think that word is where Origen went wrong (and it was the primary theory for centuries). But Origen did not come up with his view in a vacuum.

There are a few peer-reviewed articles about the topic -I don't have any now, but perhaps can find some around (if so I'll get it to you). I remember one was from DTS, but I can't remember the journals the others were published (I collected articles for awhile). Anyway, the point was that the language of "ransom" was not unique to Origen. It had been used to present mankind as being "ransomed" in a general sense without one to receive payment (one I believe correct in this case), and it's been used in the sense Christ ransomed us from the principles of sin and death. As far as I know, until the Reformation it had not been suggested Christ ransomed us from God.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Here is a difference in how we’ve been looking at the issue.

The Theory of Penal Substitution views sin as creating a debt that must be paid. God’s justice demands that the debt be paid, otherwise forgiveness is impossible (because justice would not be satisfied). Our sin debt was paid by Christ as God poured out the wrath due us onto His Son at the Cross.

But this is an accounting type of retributive justice. It assumes things about sin and justice that do not exist (biblically). It looks at the atonement almost as a monetary transaction. Jim owes Mike $50. Mike forgives the debt. That means Mike assumes the $50 penalty himself.

Scripture presents sin in a much different light. It is an offense, or a rebellion (an action) against God. If Jim punches Mike in the nose, Mike does not have to punch himself in the nose in order to forgive Jim. Mike can forgive Jim without compensation or recompense. Justice does not demand that Mike punch someone for the offense. But before Mike forgives Jim he may want to make sure Jim has changed his ways (otherwise Jim will keep on punching people).

Penal Substitution Theory assumes that biblical penal substitution occurs within a context that it has failed to prove. That is the difference between the biblical doctrine of penal substitution and the Theory of Penal Substitution. The doctrine does not present God as having to satisfy justice by pouring His wrath on someone before He can forgive. Instead, the doctrine of penal substitution presents God as forgiving when (and only when) true repentance is present.

The Theory of Penal Substitution rejects the biblical doctrine of penal substitution.

As usual, you present your case without bringing any Scripture to bear. I am not interested in Jim or mike. I am interested in the living God who is 'by no means clearing the guilty.' The One who says, "I will not justify the wicked." What Mike does or what Jim does is up to them; they're both sinners, but God has to be 'just and the justifier of the one who believes in Jesus.' Your theory of Penal Substitution falls at this very point; the Doctrine of Penal Substitution reveals how 'Mercy and truth have met together; righteousness and peace have kissed.'

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I agree. The biblical doctrine of Penal Substitution - that Jesus bore our sin, became a curse for us, died that we might in Him live - is in the Bible and throughout history.

The Theory of Penal Substitution- that God poured His wrath upon Christ in our stead - is not.

They are the same doctrine. To imagine that Christ can become a curse (Galatians 3:13) and be made sin (2 Corinthians 5:21) without incurring the wrath of God against sin is just that: imagination. Justin Martyr knew better.

 

[JonC]

@The Archangel ,

I'm sorry. I looked but can't find my library of articles. Most were digital or scanned and I've gone through a few computers. They are somewhere on a hard drive, some in a notebook.....somewhere.

I found this article, but it's not one I was thinking of: "The Evolution of the Doctrine of the Atonement in the Medieval Church” in McMaster Journal of Theology & Ministry, 2007, vol 9.

Additionally, Gregory of Nazianzus held a “ransom theory” but he rejected that there was a ransom payment (personally, I believe Gregory anticipates the “moral influence theory”)

De recta in Deum fide (around 300 AD) called the suggestion God paid a ransom to the Devil “a great folly and a blasphemy”.

So there were some variants.

 

[agedman]

The Doctrine of Penal Substitution is found in the Bible and in the ECFs. There were no 500 page University theses on P.S. back then because it was generally accepted. It was entirely possible to hold Satisfaction and Christus Victor theories at the same time since they were not mutually exclusive back then.

But the Scripture tells us that the cross is a stumbling-block to the Jews, and so it was for Trypho. He wrote, 'But whether Chrsit should be so shamefully crucified, this we are in doubt about. For whosoever is crucified is said in the law to be accursed, so that I am exceedingly incredulous on this point. It is quite clear, indeed, in the Scriptures that Christ had to suffer; but we wish to learn if you can prove it to us whether it was by suffering cursed by God.'

Justin Martyr replies, after answering Trypho's concern, the Christ was not cursed for His own sins, 'For the whole human race will be found to be under a curse.....If those who are under this [Mosaic] law appear to be under a curse for not having observed all the requirements, how much more shall the nations appear to be under a curse who practise idolatry, who seduce youths...etc.'

He continues, '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 dead, He would raise Him up, why do you argue about Him who submitted to suffer these things according to the Father's will.......'
Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, a Jew.

It's quite brief, but the Lord Jesus took upon Himself the curse of God that had rested on 'the whole human family.' That is why He was crucified although He had committed no sin. It is a clear statement of Penal Substitution. Christ endured the punishment due to us and took the curse upon Mankind to fall upon Himself.

Not true, Martin.

The psa was developed after the satisfaction theory which wasn't developed until a 1000 years after the Christ.

Here is a theopedia article I found on the subject to help the readers:
https://www.theopedia.com/penal-substitutionary-atonement

Forensic (penal - that which concerns the body of the suffering savior) was formulated into PSA Theory as well as the thinking of the justification for such being the Wrath of God needing drained.

The ECF such as you quote would not write that God poured out his wrath upon the Son - that was reformation information.

What the ECF recognized was the "curse" was used as one condemned, one appointed to die. Not as one cursed by God, but just as anyone who hangs on a tree will die, so one is cursed by being hung on a tree.

Specific to Justin Martyr. You need to reference this collection, for in it he is certainly not supportive of PSA, but far more supportive of the Christus Victor with a bit of Ransom thrown in (imo).
Saint Justin Martyr: Dialogue with Trypho (Roberts-Donaldson)

 

[JonC]

As usual, you present your case without bringing any Scripture to bear. I am not interested in Jim or mike. I am interested in the living God who is 'by no means clearing the guilty.' The One who says, "I will not justify the wicked." What Mike does or what Jim does is up to them; they're both sinners, but God has to be 'just and the justifier of the one who believes in Jesus.' Your theory of Penal Substitution falls at this very point; the Doctrine of Penal Substitution reveals how 'Mercy and truth have met together; righteousness and peace have kissed.'

Here are two passages that prove your theory wrong, without damaging the doctrine of penal substitution that is in the Bible:

Proverbs 17:15
15 He who justifies the wicked and he who condemns the righteous, Both of them alike are an abomination to the LORD.

Romans 3:21-26
21 But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets,
22 even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction;
23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
24 being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus;
25 whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed;
26 for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

 

[Darrell C]

"My God, My god, why have you forsaken me?"

Let's have a Paul Harvey minute:


Psalm 22
King James Version (KJV)

1 My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? why art thou so far from helping me, and from the words of my roaring?

2 O my God, I cry in the day time, but thou hearest not; and in the night season, and am not silent.


23 Ye that fear the Lord, praise him; all ye the seed of Jacob, glorify him; and fear him, all ye the seed of Israel.

24 For he hath not despised nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted; neither hath he hid his face from him; but when he cried unto him, he heard.


Now you have "the rest of the story."


God bless.

 

[JonC]

Not true, Martin.

The psa was developed after the satisfaction theory which wasn't developed until a 1000 years after the Christ.

Forensic (penal - that which concerns the body of the suffering savior) was formulated into PSA Theory as well as the thinking of the justification for such being the Wrath of God needing drained.

The ECF such as you quote would not write that God poured out his wrath upon the Son - that was reformation information.

What the ECF recognized was the "curse" was used as one condemned, one appointed to die. Not as one cursed by God, but just as anyone who hangs on a tree will die, so one is cursed by being hung on a tree.

Specific to Justin Martyr. You need to reference this collection, for in it he is certainly not supportive of PSA, but far more supportive of the Christus Victor with a bit of Ransom thrown in (imo).
Saint Justin Martyr: Dialogue with Trypho (Roberts-Donaldson)

@Martin Marprelate typically references a book which quotes the ECF's out of context. Normally he offers a quote from
Dialogue with Trypho, never engaging the context of the writing or the places where it calls his theory into question. I wouldn't bother exploring the context (I've presented the entire chapter, but he clings to snip taken out of context).

 

[JonC]

Let's have a Paul Harvey minute:


Psalm 22
King James Version (KJV)

1 My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? why art thou so far from helping me, and from the words of my roaring?

2 O my God, I cry in the day time, but thou hearest not; and in the night season, and am not silent.


23 Ye that fear the Lord, praise him; all ye the seed of Jacob, glorify him; and fear him, all ye the seed of Israel.

24 For he hath not despised nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted; neither hath he hid his face from him; but when he cried unto him, he heard.


Now you have "the rest of the story."


God bless.

Yea....the "rest of the story" kind of changes things a bit....doesn't it.

 

[Darrell C]

Yea....the "rest of the story" kind of changes things a bit....doesn't it.

Absolutely brother.


Hope everyone has a blessed evening, see you at the next appointed time, God willing.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

So, then, what are you arguing that the blood does?

The Archangel


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

One question I would pose to you is what do you think Scripture is referring to when it speaks of the Blood of Christ?


God bless.

 

[JonC]

Not answering for @The Archangel , but testing my guesswork.

I'd say his position considers that the blood of Christ represents His blood shed as He bore God's wrath on the Cross for us. My reasoning is that I believe he views the OT sacrificial primarily in the killing of the animal (the shedding of blood).

My answer several years ago would have been that God's justice required death, and that Christ's death paid that debt. But I would have been dealing with a theoretical "spiritual death" having been accomplished by an abandonment on the Cross (a substitute for the "second death" people will experience).

(Again, not speaking for anyone here, that's just what I would suspect the Theory to suggest).

 

[Squire Robertsson]

And this thread grew like Topsy. But, It's still closed.

In consideration of the heat, this thread is generating, I am posting this early:
Six Hour Warning
This thread will be closed sometime after 7 PM Pacific.