It is not theory. So what and how should . . . be called?

[Alan Gross]

The Penal Substitution Theory and Satisfaction Theory are opposing theories.

Yeah, I had fully anticipated that there may be a 'mutually exclusive'
axiom added in there, to some of the equations these theories are based on.

It happens in various other areas of reasoning sometimes, too.

The primary difference between Satisfaction and Penal Substitution is the reason Christ had to die and substitution vs representation.

How is being a representation not in any way a substitution?

Beats me.

That's why I made an extended New Thread of all of the relative scriptures.

I thought that might help to have someone show me
what is the "difference between Satisfaction and Penal Substitution",
"the reason Christ had to die and substitution vs representation"(?),
(I don't follow that sentence too well), and why they believe,
"The Penal Substitution Theory and Satisfaction Theory are opposing theories",
& "How is being a representation not in any way a substitution?", etc.,

and/or how is it they think, "Penal Substitution" and "Satisfaction"
can't work together as compatible Doctrines, both in The Atonement.

In my mind, Penal Substitution and Satisfaction, are perfectly harmonious,
however, you notice I didn't throw in the 'Theory' word,
because there is no telling how people actually are defining
"The Penal Substitution Theory" and "Satisfaction Theory",
to get them at odds with one another.

Lots and lots of scriptures to look at and find what it is we believe in there!
Need a "TOPIC" to Preach on, tomorrow?
How about, "The Blood Atonement of Jesus Christ"?

 

[JonC]

Yeah, I had fully anticipated that there may be a 'mutually exclusive'
axiom added in there, to some of the equations these theories are based on.

It happens in various other areas of reasoning sometimes, too.





Beats me.

That's why I made an extended New Thread of all of the relative scriptures.

I thought that might help to have someone show me
what is the "difference between Satisfaction and Penal Substitution",
"the reason Christ had to die and substitution vs representation"(?),
(I don't follow that sentence too well), and why they believe,
"The Penal Substitution Theory and Satisfaction Theory are opposing theories",
& "How is being a representation not in any way a substitution?", etc.,

and/or how is it they think, "Penal Substitution" and "Satisfaction"
can't work together as compatible Doctrines, both in The Atonement.

In my mind, Penal Substitution and Satisfaction, are perfectly harmonious,
however, you notice I didn't throw in the 'Theory' word,
because there is no telling how people actually are defining
"The Penal Substitution Theory" and "Satisfaction Theory",
to get them at odds with one another.

Lots and lots of scriptures to look at and find what it is we believe in there!
Need a "TOPIC" to Preach on, tomorrow?
How about, "The Blood Atonement of Jesus Christ"?

The two are mutually exclusive.

One says that Jesus suffered divine justice as our substitute and the other that it is impossible that Christ suffered punishment for sin.

Both are theories of Atonement (the Penal Substitution Theory a reform of Substitution Theory).

That said, I have argued that Penal Substitution Theory actually holds to a type of satisfaction rather than direct substitution (the penalty is different from what man would experience).

In the end, however, I think the RCC was wrong which makes Calvin's theory wrong as well.

 

[Alan Gross]

"Penal", "Satisfaction", "Representation",
"Substitution", "Atonement", etc., have me bongers so far.

I do know that I can go with the Doctrine of Satisfaction,
made by Jesus Paying a Satisfactory Price
into God the Father's Hands of Justice,
since it is so closely connected with and even included in,
and already exists as a part of the Doctrine of Redemption.

Jesus Christ did SOMETHING!

GILL takes off on it like this: "What Christ has Done and Suffered, in the room and stead of sinners, with Content, Well Pleasedness, and Acceptance in the sight of God, is what may, with propriety, be called “satisfaction;” and this is plentifully spoken of in the word of God; as when God is said to be “well pleased for Christ’s righteousness sake,” and with "Satisfaction", it being Answerable to the Demands of Law and Justice; and is an Honoring and Magnifying of the Law;

"and when the sacrifice of Christ, and such His sufferings are, is said to be of a “sweet smelling savor to God;” because Jesus' Vicarious Sacrifice has Expiated sin, Atoned for it; that is, made Satisfaction for sin, and taken it away;

"which the sacrifices under the law could not do;
hence here was a Remembrance of it every year (Isa. 42:21; Eph 5:2),

*and there are terms and phrases
which are used of Jesus Christ, and of His Work;
such as “Propitiation, Reconciliation, Atonement,” etc.,
which are equivalent and synonymous to Satisfaction for sin."

There we go! 37818 can call it, "Jesus Christ and His Work"!!!

Gill gives a full chapter of his Body of Doctrinal Divinity to "Satisfaction",
in Chapter 5, "The SATISFACTION OF CHRIST",

then he goes on in Chapter 6,
to expound on "PROPITIATION, ATONEMENT, AND RECONCILIATION,
AS ASCRIBED TO CHRIST," saying that

"it may be proper to explain these terms, and give the sense of them;
which may serve the more
to clear and confirm the Doctrine of Satisfaction."

For one example, for "Propitiation", he starts out saying,
"in the fulness of time, in the Exhibition of Him, in human nature,
in which He was Manifested to take away sin;

"and He has put it away, and even abolished it,
by the Propitiatory Sacrifice of Himself;

"and He is still set forth in the Gospel,
as the sin Bearing and sin Atoning Saviour
Who has Satisfied Law and Justice,
and made Peace by the Blood of His cross;
and therefore it is called the Word of Reconciliation,
the Gospel of Peace",
and the Word Preaching Peace by Jesus Christ, Who is Lord of all."

"Christ was “set forth” to be the Propitiation
in the Purposes and Decrees of God, προεθετο,
God “Foreordained” Him,
as He was Foreordained to be the Lamb slain,
as the Ransom Price and Propitiatory Sacrifice;

"whose Sufferings and Death, which were the Sacrifice,
were according to
"the Determinate Counsel and Foreknowledge of God"
(1 Pet. 1:19; Acts 2:23; 4:28)."

So, it is good stuff and that leaves me in good shape
as far as all that goes, so far. I've got one definition started!

Now, I'll just have to try and match wits with his terms he is explaining,
as to what these other terms we're talking about
will mean to me, or not!

Satisfaction Theory

being a representation not in any way a substitution

both in The Atonement

the Penal Substitution Theory a reform of Substitution Theory

Penal Substitution Theory actually holds to a type of satisfaction rather than direct substitution (the penalty is different from what man would experience).

Jesus suffered divine justice as our substitute

it is impossible that Christ suffered punishment for sin.[/QUOT

 

[Alan Gross]

I strongly suggest using another term to express your view.

What terminology would that be?

I'VE GOT IT!! Well, I don't have it for you, unless you catch onto what I'm saying
(which has never happened before on any other subject,)
so I have to say, "I'VE GOT IT, FOR ME!!

It's all about me.

In other words, I drew heavily from this brilliantly perspicacious fellow;
Is Penal Substitution Unsatisfactory? | Reasonable Faith

So, what's it going to be all about?? And What are we going to call it?

O.K., that's easy enough for starters.

(And what a way to Nail an O.P.!? (according to me);
"It is not theory.
So what and how should . . be called?"

It is an Inclusionary Penal Substitutionary-Representation Atonement, or
an Inclusionary Penal Representative-Substitutionary Atonement, if you will.

Either way.

See?

This "Substitutionary-Representation" Combo
is simply an Inclusionary Place-Taking Atonement.

If we will remember to keep in mind that God, as the Supreme Legislator,
Judge, and Ruler, Himself,
is the One Who Determines what Satisfies the Demands of His Justice.

In the event we say that Retributive Justice, as we know and understand it,
belongs essentially to God, the question will then become
why would it have to be a case and an issue specifically
where we are forced to have to say,
"Substitutionary Punishment (for some unknown 'reason'(?)
cannot Satisfy the Demands of Retributive Justice"?

When we already know that in Criminal Law
we can find any number of cases
that closely resemble Penal Substitution.

So, we are cleared to justifiably designate and
think of Christ being Vicariously Liable for our sins
and that His Punishment is also Satisfaction for us,
AT THE SAME TIME,
while still Adequately Satisfying the Demands of God's Justice,
in an way that is Acceptable to God.

Moreover, in this Inclusionary Penal Substitutionary Atonement,
(with Jesus having the Combined Capacity
as being our Substitutionary-Representative),

it is not going to in any way preclude that;
"we are punished for our sins, effectively,
when Christ is punished for our sins."

Since,
"we are punished for our sins, effectively,
when Christ is punished for our sins",
is going to be Accomplished with Jesus Christ’s being Divinely
and Voluntarily Appointed to Act on our behalf, again, with Jesus being
not merely our Substitute but also as our Representative,

which then Enables Him to be in the Position
of Serving as our Proxy before God,
so that when He is punished, we are punished by Proxy,
and He Made His Atonement for our sins,
to the Uttermost Absolute Satisfaction of Divine Justice.

I guess that explains it all right.

Probably won't have to explain that again any more, after that.

Penal Substitution Theory actually holds to a type of satisfaction
rather than direct substitution

I went ahead and included both of those concepts.

I always thought that there was no reason being
where one would necessarily exclude the other one, automatically.

They both work together and are both needed.

 

[Alan Gross]

Inclusionary Penal Substitutionary-Representation Atonement

I guess that explains it all right.

To "illustrate" some things, with regard to
an Inclusionary Penal Substitutionary-Representation Atonement,
I have these "illustrations", no less, used here:
Is Penal Substitution Unsatisfactory? | Reasonable Faith

An "important distinction requires a word of explanation
about Substitution and Representation respectively"

and then, how we can understand the two of them,
Combined and Utilized together, in a Double Function Capacity.

Substitution:

What we mean, when we say that
someone is Acting for us, in a Role of being our "Substitution",

may be shown by the example of a Pinch Hitter in Baseball
who Enters the Lineup, to Bat in the Place of another Player.

"In cases of a simple Substitution,
someone takes the place of another person
but does not Represent that person.

"For example, a pinch hitter in baseball enters the lineup
to bat in the place of another player.

"He is a Substitute for that player
but in no sense Represents that other player.

"That is why the batting average of the player whom he replaces
is not affected by the pinch hitter’s performance."
...

Representation:

What we mean, when we say that
someone is Acting for us in the capacity of a "Representation" Role,

may be illustrated by the Baseball Player who has an Agent
that Represents them in Contract Negotiations with the Team.

So, "a simple Representative
can act on behalf of another person and serve as his spokesman
but is not a Substitute for that person, as in the first illustration, above.

"For example, the baseball player has an agent
who represents him in contract negotiations with the team.

"The Representative does not replace the player
but merely advocates for him."
...

Both of the Substitutional and Representational Roles Combined.

Then, what we mean, when someone is given the Authority to Act,
in a combined Substitutional and Representational capacity,

can be shown by The Role of a Proxy at a Shareholders’ Meeting.

I have shown where I believe that
"these Two Roles, of being a Substitution and a Representative,
can be combined, in which case we no longer have
a simple Substitution or a simple Representation,

but rather a hybrid combination that can be utilized
which would then be called a Substitutional-Representation
(or Representative-Substitution, etc.).

"This combination of the Two Roles of Substitution and Representation,
is just a common application of an Inclusionary Place-taking."

"A good example to illustrate this Inclusionary Place-taking Function,
where a combination of Substitution and Representation is employed,
can be found in the Role of a Proxy at a Shareholders’ Meeting.

"If we cannot attend the meeting ourselves,
we may sign an agreement authorizing someone else
to serve as our Proxy at the meeting.

"He votes for us, and because he has been Authorized to do so,
his votes are, IN EFFECT, EQUAL to being our votes:
so that we have, therefore, voted via Proxy at the Meeting of Shareholders.

FIRST: "The Proxy is a Substitute
in that he attends the meeting in our place,

& SECOND: he is also our Representative
in that he does not vote instead of us, but on our behalf,
so that, when they voted as our Representative, it was our vote.

 

[JonC]

I'VE GOT IT!! Well, I don't have it for you, unless you catch onto what I'm saying
(which has never happened before on any other subject,)
so I have to say, "I'VE GOT IT, FOR ME!!

It's all about me.

In other words, I drew heavily from this brilliantly perspicacious fellow;
Is Penal Substitution Unsatisfactory? | Reasonable Faith

So, what's it going to be all about?? And What are we going to call it?

O.K., that's easy enough for starters.

(And what a way to Nail an O.P.!? (according to me);
"It is not theory.
So what and how should . . be called?"

It is an Inclusionary Penal Substitutionary-Representation Atonement, or
an Inclusionary Penal Representative-Substitutionary Atonement, if you will.

Either way.

See?

This "Substitutionary-Representation" Combo
is simply an Inclusionary Place-Taking Atonement.

If we will remember to keep in mind that God, as the Supreme Legislator,
Judge, and Ruler, Himself,
is the One Who Determines what Satisfies the Demands of His Justice.

In the event we say that Retributive Justice, as we know and understand it,
belongs essentially to God, the question will then become
why would it have to be a case and an issue specifically
where we are forced to have to say,
"Substitutionary Punishment (for some unknown 'reason'(?)
cannot Satisfy the Demands of Retributive Justice"?

When we already know that in Criminal Law
we can find any number of cases
that closely resemble Penal Substitution.

So, we are cleared to justifiably designate and
think of Christ being Vicariously Liable for our sins
and that His Punishment is also Satisfaction for us,
AT THE SAME TIME,
while still Adequately Satisfying the Demands of God's Justice,
in an way that is Acceptable to God.

Moreover, in this Inclusionary Penal Substitutionary Atonement,
(with Jesus having the Combined Capacity
as being our Substitutionary-Representative),

it is not going to in any way preclude that;
"we are punished for our sins, effectively,
when Christ is punished for our sins."

Since,
"we are punished for our sins, effectively,
when Christ is punished for our sins",
is going to be Accomplished with Jesus Christ’s being Divinely
and Voluntarily Appointed to Act on our behalf, again, with Jesus being
not merely our Substitute but also as our Representative,

which then Enables Him to be in the Position
of Serving as our Proxy before God,
so that when He is punished, we are punished by Proxy,
and He Made His Atonement for our sins,
to the Uttermost Absolute Satisfaction of Divine Justice.

I guess that explains it all right.

Probably won't have to explain that again any more, after that.



I went ahead and included both of those concepts.

I always thought that there was no reason being
where one would necessarily exclude the other one, automatically.

They both work together and are both needed.

The problem is that our Chriatian literacy has fallen so low that many who hold Penal Substitution do not realize that it is a theory.

There was a time thus was not so. People argued for their theory on a Biblical basis, but they understood words like "substitution" and terms like "penal substitution" were theories.

Today people do not even seem to know that "Penal substitution" is descriptive of a type of substitution developed by John Calvin as a rework of the Satisfactory Substitution of the RCC.

They see two words and assume they are separate (penal and substitution) rather than one term.


The question is whether we woukd be better off if Christians were more knowledgeable of historical theology and how these thoughts were introduced.

I have to say "yes" to an extent. Today people read scripture and never realize the impact of historical theology and never know they are influenced in their understanding by the past.

 

[rsr]

THIS IS NOT A TRANSLATION THREAD. Please stop printing the boilerplate nonsense that slams all modern translations. I plan to severely edit when I have time.

Thank you.

 

[JonC]

THIS IS NOT A TRANSLATION THREAD. Please stop printing the boilerplate nonsense that slams all modern translations. I plan to severely edit when I have time.

Thank you.

I'd add to @rsr - when referencing the work of another it is appropriate to simply post your point and provide the reference. Lengthy quotes loose any point being made.

 

[Revmitchell]

Question. Why is "penal substitution" not a truthful discription of "the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all" in Isaiah 53:6?

It is exactly a truthful description and there is not other appropriate way to describe it. Since our iniquity was laid on Him He is our substitute. Denial of that is a denial of what scripture says and of reason and logic.

 

[Alan Gross]

many who hold Penal Substitution

It's Holistic! "adjective. ho·lis·tic hō-ˈlis-tik. : relating to or concerned
with wholes or with complete systems rather than with the individual parts."

Definition of HOLISTIC

From what I understand, we as a people being Children of the Flames
generally are known for holding to and maintaining throughout history,
as opposed to eating the bread crumbs off the tables of others.

Where do you think they came up with their good stuff that is still good?

Midair?

This stuff here might not even be on the same subject,
because I can't even hazard to guess what various meanings folks go by
when they are talking about "subjects" sometimes to arrive at their points.

"Christ was “set forth” to be the Propitiation
in the Purposes and Decrees of God,
προεθετο, God “Foreordained” Him,

as He was Foreordained to be The Lamb Slain,
as the Ransom Price and Propitiatory Sacrifice;
Whose sufferings and death, which were the sacrifice,
were according to
The Determinate Counsel and Foreknowledge of God",
(1 Pet. 1:19; Acts 2:23; 4:28),

and He was set forth in the Promises and Prophecies spoken of
by all the Holy Prophets that were from the beginning of the world..."

"...with “Propitiation”: the first time we meet with this word,
and as applied to Christ, is in Romans 3:25;
“Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation”;

"...to be The Author of Propitiation; for Whose sake,
and on account of what He was to do and suffer,
God would be Propitious to men—

His Justice be Appeased—and He be at Peace with them;
laying aside all marks of displeasure, anger, and resentment against them:

because this was Christ’s Work as Mediator;
He drew nigh to God, and treated with Him about terms of Peace,
and entered into measures of Peace with Him;

Interposed between Justice and them,
became a Mediator between God and man, to bring them together.

Hence he has the names of Shiloh, the Prince of peace, the Man the Peace,
and Jesus our peace, Who has made both one:

AND AT THE SAME TIME (according to me) "to be the propitiatory sacrifice for sin; such Hilastic, Propitiatory, and Expiatory sacrifices there were under the law; typical of the Expiatory and Propitiatory sacrifice of Christ;
and as God in them smelled a sweet savor of rest,

"as types of Christ; so his sacrifice was an offering of a sweet smelling savor to him; he was well pleased with it, it gave him content and satisfaction, because his justice was appeased by it, and the demands of his law were answered,
yea, The Law was magnified and made honorable..."

John Gill: Doctrinal Divinity - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

 

[JonC]

It's Holistic! "adjective. ho·lis·tic hō-ˈlis-tik. : relating to or concerned
with wholes or with complete systems rather than with the individual parts."

Definition of HOLISTIC

From what I understand, we as a people being Children of the Flames
generally are known for holding to and maintaining throughout history,
as opposed to eating the bread crumbs off the tables of others.

Where do you think they came up with their good stuff that is still good?

Midair?

This stuff here might not even be on the same subject,
because I can't even hazard to guess what various meanings folks go by
when they are talking about "subjects" sometimes to arrive at their points.

"Christ was “set forth” to be the Propitiation
in the Purposes and Decrees of God,
προεθετο, God “Foreordained” Him,

as He was Foreordained to be The Lamb Slain,
as the Ransom Price and Propitiatory Sacrifice;
Whose sufferings and death, which were the sacrifice,
were according to
The Determinate Counsel and Foreknowledge of God",
(1 Pet. 1:19; Acts 2:23; 4:28),

and He was set forth in the Promises and Prophecies spoken of
by all the Holy Prophets that were from the beginning of the world..."

"...with “Propitiation”: the first time we meet with this word,
and as applied to Christ, is in Romans 3:25;
“Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation”;

"...to be The Author of Propitiation; for Whose sake,
and on account of what He was to do and suffer,
God would be Propitious to men—

His Justice be Appeased—and He be at Peace with them;
laying aside all marks of displeasure, anger, and resentment against them:

because this was Christ’s Work as Mediator;
He drew nigh to God, and treated with Him about terms of Peace,
and entered into measures of Peace with Him;

Interposed between Justice and them,
became a Mediator between God and man, to bring them together.

Hence he has the names of Shiloh, the Prince of peace, the Man the Peace,
and Jesus our peace, Who has made both one:

AND AT THE SAME TIME (according to me) "to be the propitiatory sacrifice for sin; such Hilastic, Propitiatory, and Expiatory sacrifices there were under the law; typical of the Expiatory and Propitiatory sacrifice of Christ;
and as God in them smelled a sweet savor of rest,

"as types of Christ; so his sacrifice was an offering of a sweet smelling savor to him; he was well pleased with it, it gave him content and satisfaction, because his justice was appeased by it, and the demands of his law were answered,
yea, The Law was magnified and made honorable..."

John Gill: Doctrinal Divinity - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

All of the theories of Atonement are holistic.

I do not believe John Calvin was correct (I believe the Atonement as held outside of the Roman Catholic Church was correct, therefore reforming Roman Catholic doctrine culminated in holistic, but wrong, theory).

 

[Alan Gross]

Question. Why is "penal substitution" not a truthful discription of "the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all" in Isaiah 53:6?

What is your source?

SOURCE: 19th Century Occult Revival by Dr. Barbara Aho.

THIS IS NOT A TRANSLATION THREAD. Please stop printing the boilerplate nonsense that slams all modern translations. I plan to severely edit when I have time.

Thank you.

O.K., thank you.

Didn't intend to be starting a war, or break a BB rule.

I gave tmi apparently, in responding to the questioning of my position
when it was said to "not be a truthful description",
when I then had to consider that slight to be: "not be a truthful description".

Just trying to Worship the Lord along the way with my posts,
and didn't mean to slam an entire category of folks with one shotgun blast.

Sorry about that.

 

[Alan Gross]

reforming Roman Catholic doctrine

Yeah, seems like everything I believe has to be designated
as "Reformed", and/or "Roman Catholic", or "Ruckmanite",
because I've heard there was such a thing that exists called The KJV,
even though neither of those first two things ever crossed my mind,
and none of them could ever be said
to have had anything to do with my life, otherwise,
except out of panic or desperation, maybe.

It's an "Illusion"!

God just triggered another slam is all, I guess.

 

[JonC]

Yeah, seems like everything I believe has to be designated
as "Reformed", and/or "Roman Catholic",
even though neither of those two things ever crossed my mind,
or could ever be said to have anything to do with my life, otherwise.

It's an "Illusion"!

God just triggered another slam is all.

No, it is not an illusion. It is a reflection of the impact the Roman Catholic Church and the Presbyterian Church has had on our culture, our judicial philosophy, and our theology.

The ignorance many have regarding how these theories came to be is a recent phenomenon.

 

[37818]

How about "redemption"?

I suppose.
That term does have two meanings. What Christ finished on the cross. And what the believer acquires, acquiring it as a gift from God.

But the means can still be described as a penal substitution.

 

[JonC]

I suppose.
That term does have two meanings. What Christ finished on the cross. And what the believer acquires, acquiring it as a gift from God.

But the means can still be described as a penal substitution.

But "penal and substitution" is still theoretical (Scripture does not present Christ's work as a substitution or even penal in the sense of a punishment).

If you really mean "penal substitution" then it is even more a theory (a specific type of substitution not used at all in Scripture itself).

Aquinas developed the term (as Calvin used) for substitution but went to lengths to distinguish "simple punishment" from "satisfactory punishment". Had Calvin not studied Aquinas (Summa Theologiae) we wouldn't be discussing penal substitution today

 

[37818]

But "penal and substitution" is still theoretical (Scripture does not present Christ's work as a substitution or even penal in the sense of a punishment).

If you really mean "penal substitution" then it is even more a theory (a specific type of substitution not used at all in Scripture itself).

Aquinas developed the term (as Calvin used) for substitution but went to lengths to distinguish "simple punishment" from "satisfactory punishment". Had Calvin not studied Aquinas (Summa Theologiae) we wouldn't be discussing penal substitution today

I came across this:
"Substitutionary atonement

Substitutionary atonement, also called vicarious atonement, is a central concept within Western Protestant Christian theology which asserts that Jesus died "for us", as propagated by the Western classic and objective paradigms of atonement in Christianity, which regard Jesus as dying as a substitute for others, instead of them."

 

[JonC]

I came across this:
"Substitutionary atonement

Substitutionary atonement, also called vicarious atonement, is a central concept within Western Protestant Christian theology which asserts that Jesus died "for us", as propagated by the Western classic and objective paradigms of atonement in Christianity, which regard Jesus as dying as a substitute for others, instead of them."

We can come across anything we are determined to find.

You are correct that Penal Substitution is a Western concept. But you need to understand that the Bible is not written from a Western perspective. The Presbyterian and Roman Catholic Church were perhaps the most influential entity in the development of Western thought as we know it.

All Christistians believe that Jesus died "for us". That is neither penal or substitution.

Substitution is Jesus died "instead of us" (what Jesus suffered is what we would have suffered had He not died in our place).

Penal Substitution is a theory that one person can be justly punished in place of another.

In Penal Substitution Theory there are many theoretical concepts (e.g.- that "penal substitution" is just, that sins can be transferred, that divine justice is the crux of redemption).


Here is Wayne Grudem (an advocate of the theory) on the topic:

"As the name suggests, the doctrine comprises theological principles like a penalty for sin, a substitutionary saviour, and a particular vision of the atonement. And actually, it draws from even more theological first principles than this list.

The composite nature of PSA explains why few Christians before the reformation defined PSA exactly as the Reformed did, while most pre-reformation Christians affirmed the first principles that would make up the doctrine."


Note - we all agree on the "first principles". Christ did die "for us". It is by His stripes we are healed.

BUT it is how the Reformers defined Atonement that has caused division. They made God the punisher of our sins on Christ. They turned Christ dying for us into Christ dying instead of us.

 

[JonC]

Here is a common definition of Calvin's theory:

"God gave himself in the person of his Son to suffer instead of us the death, punishment and curse due to fallen humanity as the punishment for sin” (from Pierced for Our Transgressions)

Now, on the surface it sounds like something we would all agree on. BUT the little changes and additions make it unbiblical.

These include changing "for us" to "instead of us" (introducing substitution) and "punishment for sin" rather than wages of sin (in the theory the principles of wickedness...the "dogs"...are replaced with "God").

So what you end up with is a theory that has the Father punishing His Son (taking upon Himself punishment) instead of punishing us.

As Grudem noted, this is built upon but foreign to Christianity for its first 2000 years.

 

[JonC]

It is exactly a truthful description and there is not other appropriate way to describe it. Since our iniquity was laid on Him He is our substitute. Denial of that is a denial of what scripture says and of reason and logic.

It is Calvinism.

And like Wayne Grudem (a theologian who holds the theory) noted, while built on past theological concepts Penal Substitution did not exist until almost 2,000 years after Christ was crucified.

So obviously there are other appropriate ways to describe the Atonement.

I was under the impression you had studied (formally) theology. Have you never read how others prior to John Calvin viewed our sins being laid on Christ (as "solidarity", "the Son of Man", "Incarnation") ???


It is one thing to say that John Calvin articulated the truth that was hidden awaiting theological developments, it is another to pretend it is the only interpretation. The former is an honest opinion many hold. The latter is dishonest and willful ignorance.