In what sense did Christ die for all sinners?

[JonC]

Right. But let's be honest. The fact is there are no writings refuting penal substitution because it was not discussed as a coherent theory. So what you are talking about is where some early church father writes something about atonement and you take that to refute penal substitution even though there is no indication they were doing so. Yet you reject all the theologians who say they do see penal substitution in the writings because they do not specifically say they are talking about penal substitution. You have a double standard there.

What you're doing here is patently ridiculous. Can you produce one person who espouses penal substitutionary atonement who does not believe one must be born again? That's a false dichotomy with no examples anywhere to be found. You have brought up my objection to Owen and all the limited atonement guys and my answer would just be that penal substitution potentially takes care of one's sins, for those who come to Christ. He can be just and the justifier of all who do because of the fact that he bore all the sin of all the world. I believe in a universal atonement and I believe it is not actualized until a person comes to Christ.

I'm not defending Owen here but he said the same thing, except that in his Calvinistic determinism he honors the inevitability of something God has decreed as being a sure thing, yet not actually done until it is done. So a good Calvinist has no problem with someone being lost until they are saved while at the same time the atonement effectively accomplished what it needed to for all the elect at the time of the cross. (ie, If God says I will do something next week I will infallibly do it with no chance of not doing it - yet it's not actually done till it's done.) The elect are indeed, infallibly "elect" but are lost until they are saved. See R.C. Sproul.

Of course. And I think penal substitution helps explain how this is done so that God can maintain his own honor, vindicate his promises of judgement, remain perfectly just, and still forgive people like us. This is the precise point where every other "theory" fails to be complete.

There are no writings refuting Penal Substitution Theory prior to the 16th century because the theory was not invented until that time. BUT the writings that exist DO refute necessary elements of Penal Substitution Theory.

That said, this itself does not disprove the theory. Christians up to the sixteenth century could have gotten it wrong. What disproves Penal Substitution Theory is the fact it is not in Scripture and what is in Scripture offers a different gospel.

But you believe what you want to believe. I suggest you go back to Scrioture itself (without using the Bible to support any view). But I'd never demand it of anybody. Every one has to live or die with their own choices.

 

[JesusFan]

I understand that is what you believe. I once believed that as well, but since then I have committed myself to a faith defined by God's Word (and your belief is absent from actual Scripture).

So believe what you want. I'm not trying to change your mind.

Except what you now appear to hold unto is not the majority view held by either Reformed nor Baptists, and it still DOEs not adress the issue of how/when/ our sin debt obligation we owe to the Father is addressed, as there is not anyone burdened with taking on the due wrath and condemnation we incur as sinners before a Holy God

Do you now see it then as not fair and not right to have theFather judge Jesus in our place then, to take upon Himself what all lost sinners will endure in Hell eternally?

 

[JesusFan]

I understand that is what you believe. I once believed that as well, but since then I have committed myself to a faith defined by God's Word (and your belief is absent from actual Scripture).

So believe what you want. I'm not trying to change your mind.

No, my "understanding" of atonement lines up with Pauline Justification and Isaiah 53

 

[JesusFan]

I agree here, but I have seen this sentiment abused in an attempt to justify a position that rejects other positions.

Here is what I mean:

The Moral Influence theory focuses on a legitimate aspect of the Atonement. So does Recapitulation. So does Ransom Theory. So does Goverentmental Theory. These are opposing theories, mainly due to what aspect they highlight.

BUT if the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement is correct then Christianity got it completely wrong until the 16th century. The reason is Penal Substitution Theory is the only position that places Jesus as suffering God's wrath.

Here it can't be both ways. Fir example - Augustine taught that God planned the Cross but Satan took the bait to his defeat. Penal Substitution Theory puts God in the role of Satan. Both cannot be correct.

The Apostles main view was Sufferings Servant of Isaiah 53, as well as the OT sacrifice system, both much better explained by Penal Substitution model

 

[JesusFan]

I agree and would say as do the theologians explaining penal substitution - that God was reconciling man to himself, by the fact of Jesus taking our sin upon himself. If the early church fathers were saying what you are stating I agree with that but I think that how that is done is by what we call penal substitution. "Not counting their sins against them" is true for a reason. Some of the early church fathers I hear at least, believed that God could if he chose, simply forgive men's sins.

Let me just say that if you believe the above in either sense I have no problem with that. I just happen to, when I read all the scriptures that describe everything from the sacrificial system, it's application explained in Hebrews, the scriptures that indicate some importance in the concept of God being just as he justifies people, the numerous references to the necessity of the shed blood for remission, think that what we are describing as the penal substitution theory best describes what it precisely is that causes the reconciliation or makes it possible.


So yes, something must be in reality done about our guilt and sin beyond promising to no longer be a sinner. Even if we could truly at some point stop sinning we would still have sin on our account that is still a barrier to reconciliation. Even if you have a doctrine where you can be made a new creation, either sinless or looked upon as sinless, yes, sin still is a barrier. Penal substitution explains this.

That view of JonC seems to not deal with what happened to all our stored up wrath and condemnation due to us by a Holy God before we got saved

 

[JesusFan]

Something IS done about our guilt and sin beyond promising to no longer be a sinner. The difference, I think, may be that I legitimately believe we must die to sin and be made a new creation. There is no condemnation in Christ.

I think where you would denounce Christianity prior to the 16th century isn't in the words they use or passages they reference, but in the fact that they attributed Jesus' death to Satan, believed Jesus shared in our infirmity (which they viewed as our sin) yet without sinning as opposed to adding "instead of us", their focus on physical death as the consequence or curse of sin with a future Judgment based in Christ, and their belief that God can forgive individual sins.

I am not denying that Penal Substitution Theory explains how wrath can be dealt with. I am saying that way is unbiblical.

Also, Penal Substitution Theory does not deal with guilt (it deals with wrath and punishment, not guilt).

What I am saying is biblically wrath is dealt with by dealing with guilt. You are merely saying Jesus was punished instead of the guilty.

No Jesus received in himself what was due to us as being sinners before Holy God, as that wrath must be appeased before we can be then declared as being "no longer guilty"

 

[JesusFan]

How many earlier writings oppose Penal Substitution Theory? Most, if not all, that deal with the topic. But only if you accept those writings within their own context. The reason is this topic does not compose all that these writers wrote.

For example, I could post about Jesus as our mediator. You could insist I hold Penal Substitution Theory because that writing fits in your belief. But in reality I was posting from within my own theological beliefs (Christ as our mediator does not fit within Oenal Substitution Theory as it does within historical Christianity).

Owen was wrong in several ways. One is that this rebirth mattered in his theology. IF Jesus' death paid the price for all of your individual sins then what is the purpose of having to be born spiritually? You are already without sin, so you wouldn't experience the Second Death.

Do you believe that God forgives sins?

Does not benefit us at all unless we are saved by Grace alone received thru/by faith alone , as must applied towadrfs us on an individual basis

 

[JesusFan]

The logic is simple. We all agree the Cross was God's preordained plan. But saying that Jesus suffered under God's wrath and saying Jesus suffered under Satan's wrath is not the same thing. Penal Substitution theorists put God in the place Scripture puts Satan.

Do you believe God forgives sins?

On the basis of death of Jesus as our sacrificial lamb, taking upon Himself the wrath and comdemnation that we were due

 

[JesusFan]

Right. But let's be honest. The fact is there are no writings refuting penal substitution because it was not discussed as a coherent theory. So what you are talking about is where some early church father writes something about atonement and you take that to refute penal substitution even though there is no indication they were doing so. Yet you reject all the theologians who say they do see penal substitution in the writings because they do not specifically say they are talking about penal substitution. You have a double standard there.

What you're doing here is patently ridiculous. Can you produce one person who espouses penal substitutionary atonement who does not believe one must be born again? That's a false dichotomy with no examples anywhere to be found. You have brought up my objection to Owen and all the limited atonement guys and my answer would just be that penal substitution potentially takes care of one's sins, for those who come to Christ. He can be just and the justifier of all who do because of the fact that he bore all the sin of all the world. I believe in a universal atonement and I believe it is not actualized until a person comes to Christ.

I'm not defending Owen here but he said the same thing, except that in his Calvinistic determinism he honors the inevitability of something God has decreed as being a sure thing, yet not actually done until it is done. So a good Calvinist has no problem with someone being lost until they are saved while at the same time the atonement effectively accomplished what it needed to for all the elect at the time of the cross. (ie, If God says I will do something next week I will infallibly do it with no chance of not doing it - yet it's not actually done till it's done.) The elect are indeed, infallibly "elect" but are lost until they are saved. See R.C. Sproul.

Of course. And I think penal substitution helps explain how this is done so that God can maintain his own honor, vindicate his promises of judgement, remain perfectly just, and still forgive people like us. This is the precise point where every other "theory" fails to be complete.

Its the only theory that makes the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53 be true

 

[JesusFan]

The logic is simple:

1. Historical Christianity holds that it was God's plan that Jesus suffer and die unjustly under the powers of this world.

2. Historical Christianity makes a distinction between the wages of sin (physical death, the curse, which Jesus suffered) and spiritual death (the Day of Wrath, Judgment Day, the second death).

3. Historical Christianity holds that God forgives sins.

The Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement rejects all of the above.

Now, I do not care what you choose to believe. Thus far it should be evident that Penal Substitution Theory is not in Scripture. I understand the concept of theological development. I don't hold your belief against you (it is not upon to me to do so). But I believe such an important doctrine is as stated in the Bible.

You are very much preaching and teaching NT Wrong here now, and you seem to denying the bible that teaches to us Jesus died chiefly for and in the place sinners, hat we do owe to The father for our breaking of His Law, and Jesus death did appease the wrath of God towards us as being lost sinners. Do you no longer hold that the wrath of God towards us then no longer had to be Propiated then?

 

[JesusFan]

There are no writings refuting Penal Substitution Theory prior to the 16th century because the theory was not invented until that time. BUT the writings that exist DO refute necessary elements of Penal Substitution Theory.

That said, this itself does not disprove the theory. Christians up to the sixteenth century could have gotten it wrong. What disproves Penal Substitution Theory is the fact it is not in Scripture and what is in Scripture offers a different gospel.

But you believe what you want to believe. I suggest you go back to Scrioture itself (without using the Bible to support any view). But I'd never demand it of anybody. Every one has to live or die with their own choices.

So you would see all Reformed and many Baptist dead wrong on this issue then?

 

[DaveXR650]

That view of JonC seems to not deal with what happened to all our stored up wrath and condemnation due to us by a Holy God before we got saved

No it doesn't. These exchanges go way back on this board, I think even before I joined. There are multiple factors involved here but I would just say read the back and forth exchanges on this thread and draw your own conclusions. What makes this frustrating is that you simply cannot find, anywhere, such a line of reasoning and argumentation that takes a position that close to penal substitution, except for some nuanced word definitions and then turns around and condemns that same penal substitution with such contempt, bordering on denying that we have the gospel right. If you discuss the atonement on this board it's almost a rite of initiation to go through this. Just be aware.

 

[atpollard]

The logic is simple:

1. Historical Christianity holds that it was God's plan that Jesus suffer and die unjustly under the powers of this world.

2. Historical Christianity makes a distinction between the wages of sin (physical death, the curse, which Jesus suffered) and spiritual death (the Day of Wrath, Judgment Day, the second death).

3. Historical Christianity holds that God forgives sins.

The Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement rejects all of the above.

Well summarized.
Even if one disagrees that "Historical Christianity" believed as you claim ... it clearly articulates the "difference" between Penal Substitution and its alternative.

 

[atpollard]

it still does not address the issue of how/when/ our sin debt obligation we owe to the Father is addressed, as there is not anyone burdened with taking on the due wrath and condemnation we incur as sinners before a Holy God

Where exactly (in scripture) is this taught?
I am only asking in order to go and read the exact wording and surrounding context to conform proper exegesis supporting this claim.

In other words, "Who says God does not just forgive?" as in John 3:18 ([NLT] "There is no judgment against anyone who believes in him. But anyone who does not believe in him has already been judged for not believing in God's one and only Son.")

 

[atpollard]

That view of JonC seems to not deal with what happened to all our stored up wrath and condemnation due to us by a Holy God before we got saved

This is what happened to the "stored up wrath" ...

Hebrews 8:8-12 [ESV]
For he finds fault with them when he says:

"Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord,
when I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel
and with the house of Judah,

not like the covenant that I made with their fathers
on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt.
For they did not continue in my covenant,
and so I showed no concern for them, declares the Lord.

For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel
after those days, declares the Lord:
I will put my laws into their minds,
and write them on their hearts,
and I will be their God,
and they shall be my people.

And they shall not teach, each one his neighbor
and each one his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,'
for they shall all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest.

For I will be merciful toward their iniquities,
and I will remember their sins no more."

 

[DaveXR650]

Even if one disagrees that "Historical Christianity" believed as you claim ... it clearly articulates the "difference" between Penal Substitution and its alternative.

I would just say that historical Christianity does not have a unified belief to consider. The atonement was theologically undeveloped. It cannot refute a theory that at the same time was claimed to be unknown, and thus wherever a ECF quote is found that might support penal substitution it is rejected out of hand for the very same reason.

It was God's plan that Jesus suffer and die and it was unjust, both from God's point of view, and as Pilot even admitted, Jesus actually won his case. This is not something disputed by those who hold to penal substitution.

I certainly don't blame, and I have not come across any advocate of penal substitution who does this, but the fact that at a time in church history there was no organized and written treatise on the precise meaning of the atonement is not a problem or an example of wrongdoing on their part. That does not mean that something is necessarily more prone to error if it does come eventually either.

For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel
after those days, declares the Lord:
I will put my laws into their minds,
and write them on their hearts,
and I will be their God,
and they shall be my people.

And they shall not teach, each one his neighbor
and each one his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,'
for they shall all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest.

For I will be merciful toward their iniquities,
and I will remember their sins no more."

This is true. And you have to remember that Jesus later held up the cup, representing his blood, and said "this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the remission of sins". ESV.
So somehow the stored up wrath is indeed connected to the shedding of Christ's blood, which signified a violent death, which we know involved a lot of suffering. And the suffering was connected to God's wrath as we all agree. And the wrath was because of our sin, which we all agree Jesus bore. I say that Jesus bearing my sin that I was obligated to bear because I could not bear it could be described as Jesus bearing it "instead of" me. That is substitution. Not only is it substitution but the argument that is being made here, that the whole issue is about incorrectly using the word "instead of" and thus we have the gospel wrong is not found anywhere else. There are all kinds of critique of penal substitution but that argument is not used because it is so obviously ridiculous.

 

[atpollard]

I would just say that historical Christianity does not have a unified belief to consider. The atonement was theologically undeveloped. It cannot refute a theory that at the same time was claimed to be unknown, and thus wherever a ECF quote is found that might support penal substitution it is rejected out of hand for the very same reason.

I agree, but I don't think I ever even implied "refute" ... merely that an alternative POV to - God's "wrath" against us, delivered to Jesus in our place -exists. I know I never referenced the ECFs (whom I hold in complete indifference due to getting as much wrong as they got right).

 

[atpollard]

So somehow the stored up wrath is indeed connected to the shedding of Christ's blood

... I don't quite see it that way. Clearly the FORGIVENESS OF SIN is connected to the shedding of Chris's blood. I see FORGIVENESS of sin as assumed ("not remember") just as you see PAYMENT of wrath as assumed ("stored wrath").

What if WRATH is stored for those "already condemned" [John 3:18] - aka 'vessels of wrath' [Romans 9:22] ... while sin is NOT REMEMBERED (no wrath) for those for whom there is "no judgement" [John 3:18] - aka 'vessels of mercy' [Romans 9:23]?

Notice this discussion on JUSTICE and SIN and FORGIVENESS from God, and note that nowhere does God speak of JUSTICE demanding a balancing payment ...

Ezekiel 18:19-32 [ESV]
"Yet you say, 'Why should not the son suffer for the iniquity of the father?' When the son has done what is just and right, and has been careful to observe all my statutes, he shall surely live. The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.

"But if a wicked person turns away from all his sins that he has committed and keeps all my statutes and does what is just and right, he shall surely live; he shall not die. None of the transgressions that he has committed shall be remembered against him; for the righteousness that he has done he shall live. Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked, declares the Lord GOD, and not rather that he should turn from his way and live? But when a righteous person turns away from his righteousness and does injustice and does the same abominations that the wicked person does, shall he live? None of the righteous deeds that he has done shall be remembered; for the treachery of which he is guilty and the sin he has committed, for them he shall die.

"Yet you say, 'The way of the Lord is not just.' Hear now, O house of Israel: Is my way not just? Is it not your ways that are not just? When a righteous person turns away from his righteousness and does injustice, he shall die for it; for the injustice that he has done he shall die. Again, when a wicked person turns away from the wickedness he has committed and does what is just and right, he shall save his life. Because he considered and turned away from all the transgressions that he had committed, he shall surely live; he shall not die. Yet the house of Israel says, 'The way of the Lord is not just.' O house of Israel, are my ways not just? Is it not your ways that are not just?

"Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways, declares the Lord GOD. Repent and turn from all your transgressions, lest iniquity be your ruin. Cast away from you all the transgressions that you have committed, and make yourselves a new heart and a new spirit! Why will you die, O house of Israel? For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Lord GOD; so turn, and live."

 

[Christforums]

While it is probably true that Pelagius has been unfairly ‘demonized’, it is still true that the term “Pelagianism” (fair or unfair) has come to represent a very specific contra-biblical belief in a works based salvation.

I'd equate Pelagius w/ the first Adam. And whenever addressing the first Adam, consider the narrative of the natural man or unregenerate and his works. Then again, anybody might be falling into a snare addressing Pelagians, wasting our time and breath on their works. Pelagians render man fully capable of righteousness and only require a good teacher.

The ignore feature on this board works great for Pelagians. Like the unregenerate gentiles their laws have become the rule and they are the judge over human nature.

 

[DaveXR650]

Notice this discussion on JUSTICE and SIN and FORGIVENESS from God, and note that nowhere does God speak of JUSTICE demanding a balancing payment ...

Romans 3:23-26 is sometimes considered a core area of teaching. Here Jesus is shown being put forth as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. Then verse 26 explicitly says it's that he might show his righteousness in being just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. Jesus as a propitiation is probably not a balancing payment. It most likely is superabundant with no comparison being possible. But it is said in that passage to be propitious toward God and I believe that involves his wrath. Propitiation if it is the proper word to use there involves wrath which is why modern theologians try to explain it away or translate it differently.

I agree, but I don't think I ever even implied "refute" ... merely that an alternative POV to - God's "wrath" against us, delivered to Jesus in our place -exists. I know I never referenced the ECFs (whom I hold in complete indifference due to getting as much wrong as they got right).

Sorry there. I lumped you in with discussion with Jon since he was quoted in the post. And you make a good point in that those who use the writings of the ECF's to refute penal substitution, if they really did read them, would discover some really strange doctrines about all sorts of things. And of course in most cases they should immediately convert to the Catholic faith as well.