Yes, but that is not the heart of the Gospel now, is it?
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Justin Martyr and Friends - Penal Substitution Theory?
- Thread starter JonC
- Start date
- Status
You hold up the Cross theology of Luther instead of Calvin, so you agree with His infant viewpoints then?
So you believe that 15 centuries of Christians missed the "heart of the gospel"?
I don't hold the Cross theology of Luther (Luther never developed a theory of Atonement).
You seemed to be looking towards his satisfaction atonement view though, correct?
No, that is not correct. Luther never developed a theory of Atonement - he accepted what already existed in terms of the satisfaction theory. Even there I don't know if it is proper to look at one aspect or quality of God. But the point here is that the theory Luther held was not his own.
You do uphold what he thought on it,correct?
Not really - other than departing from PSA by viewing the Atonement as Christ outweighing the charge against us I don't know what Luther taught. From what I've read he seems more biblical than Calvin (less theory) but there's still the issue of looking for one attribute of God in substitution. I don't know that this is correct.
I guess I lean more to the Law as being one of Restorative Justice instead of Retributive Justice, but probably lean more towards ontological or total substitution as I believe that the Atonement was the righteous for the unrighteous.
Luther saw Jesus in the whole Bible, and at times he strained the scriptures mighty fashion to get him in there!
Calvin much better for a literal and scripture upon scripture exegetic of the scriptures, as Luther was in many ways making theology for common man, and Calvin for the church itself!
Yet Calvin introduced a context to the Atonement that was new to Christianity (one, in fact, that could not have existed apart from Augustine and probably not apart from Aquinas). So you believe that 15 centuries of Christians missed the "heart of the gospel". Not only that, but given all that is plainly stated in Scripture (with words, not implication) you believe this vital doctrine was somehow implied yet not written?
Calvin viewpoint though was NOT a novel one, as there those way before Him who also saw the death of Jesus in a primary substitution mode!
What was new was not substitution (the Righteous for the unrighteous) but placing the Atonement within a framework of judicial retribution where God punished Jesus with the punishment reserved for our sins therefore satisfying the demands of the Law. Not only was this a new framework but it is one absent from Scripture.
So you believe God manifested His righteousness through the Law, satisfied its demands and imputed this perfect law-keeping to the elect?
You have, BTW, misunderstood the OT if you believe PSA reflects the OT system. The focus in PSA is punishing sin to satisfy God's wrath. The sacrificial system focused on actual guilt (which is one difference between retributive justice/PSA and restorative justice/Scripture)..
Last edited:
Isa. 53:10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.
11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.
One cannot get any clearer than the above language. Was the Son the object of God's wrath? ANSWER: "it pleased the Lord to bruise him....put him to grief". How could God be "pleased" to do that if there were no JUST basis to do it? Answer: he could not apart from a JUST basis! What is his purpose for being pleased, for bruising him, for putting him to grief? Answer: "make his soul an offering for FOR SIN." Why would he make such an offering for sin that included brusing him and putting him to grief? ANSWER: "he shall see the TRAVAIL of his soul AND BE SATISFIED." Why must he be "satisfied"? Better yet, WHY would it take this to "satisfy" him? Would not his perfect righteousness "satisfy" him sufficiently? That is your theory! There is something beyond mere sinless perfection that needs satisfaction that only be accomplished by being "pleased" to "bruise him" "put him to grief" and "travail" as a "sin offering"!! It is his wrath against sin and Christ legally taking the place of sinners and sin on the cross! Thus a PENAL satisfaction!
Now, this is the obvious import of these two texts in this context and you must EXPLAIN IT AWAY.
The ceremonial sacrifices on the day of atonement are just as clear and you must EXPLAIN THEM AWAY. Penal substitutionary atonement is the clear teaching of Scripture and is obvious in the ceremonial sacrifices and clear statements.
11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.
One cannot get any clearer than the above language. Was the Son the object of God's wrath? ANSWER: "it pleased the Lord to bruise him....put him to grief". How could God be "pleased" to do that if there were no JUST basis to do it? Answer: he could not apart from a JUST basis! What is his purpose for being pleased, for bruising him, for putting him to grief? Answer: "make his soul an offering for FOR SIN." Why would he make such an offering for sin that included brusing him and putting him to grief? ANSWER: "he shall see the TRAVAIL of his soul AND BE SATISFIED." Why must he be "satisfied"? Better yet, WHY would it take this to "satisfy" him? Would not his perfect righteousness "satisfy" him sufficiently? That is your theory! There is something beyond mere sinless perfection that needs satisfaction that only be accomplished by being "pleased" to "bruise him" "put him to grief" and "travail" as a "sin offering"!! It is his wrath against sin and Christ legally taking the place of sinners and sin on the cross! Thus a PENAL satisfaction!
Now, this is the obvious import of these two texts in this context and you must EXPLAIN IT AWAY.
The ceremonial sacrifices on the day of atonement are just as clear and you must EXPLAIN THEM AWAY. Penal substitutionary atonement is the clear teaching of Scripture and is obvious in the ceremonial sacrifices and clear statements.
Last edited:
Your whole argument comes down to claiming that Christ did not receive the exact punishment that we would if we stand in judgement at the last day. You then proceed to drop "exact" and argue he did not receive punishment at all, as he was not subject to God's wrath but it was his righteousness, his sinlessness that satisfied God. So it is a step by step repudiation of penal atonement as well as a step by step repudiation of a strictly "substitutionary" atonement as you have emptied the term "substitutionary" of any penal position to be in the place of.
However, simply because it is not the "exact" punishment does not mean it was not sufficient punishment and thus still a "penal" satisfaction as proven in my previous post with Isaiah 53:10-11. The Sufficiency of God's wrath in the form of crucifixion and broken fellowship during that three hour period must be measured with regard to who he is as a person versus who we are. Unlike us, he is not merely man but is God the Son. God the Son cannot suffer death of any kind, but the man or human nature can and did. IF you can't see that distinction between his humanity and divinity we just need to drop this whole coversation as it is hopeless. So to deny obvious and immense VALUE between the Son of God taking the wrath of God and sinners who have no positive value in God's sight is ridiculous. Standing before Nicodemus he claimed to be both in heaven and on earth at one and the same time. It should be obvious that his humanity was not in heaven but on earth and the only aspect of his nature that could be omnipresent is his divinity. Again, to deny such a clear distinction is made and must be made is rediculous as it is obvious. The fact that he is God gives him a much greater value than every sinner born and hence, the cross can be sufficient satisfaction due to the value of the Person being the object of judicial wrath. Thus justice would include the differences between who He is and who we are and what would be required to justly satisfy God's wrath against sin and sinners. It is one thing to crucify all the justly condemned sons of Adam but quite another thing to crucify the King of kings, the Creator with regard to the enormity of value one has over the other. Perfect justice would have to take into consideration that enormous difference.
If you reject that! Fine! But your rejection does not deny it is an obvious truth to those who have no hatchet to grind and no doctrine to defend.
Quote all the Catholics and Reformed Catholics you want but tradition has no value in my eyes whatsoever. To claim that secular historical sources are a complete revelation of every day and every group in history may be something you embrace but not I.
However, simply because it is not the "exact" punishment does not mean it was not sufficient punishment and thus still a "penal" satisfaction as proven in my previous post with Isaiah 53:10-11. The Sufficiency of God's wrath in the form of crucifixion and broken fellowship during that three hour period must be measured with regard to who he is as a person versus who we are. Unlike us, he is not merely man but is God the Son. God the Son cannot suffer death of any kind, but the man or human nature can and did. IF you can't see that distinction between his humanity and divinity we just need to drop this whole coversation as it is hopeless. So to deny obvious and immense VALUE between the Son of God taking the wrath of God and sinners who have no positive value in God's sight is ridiculous. Standing before Nicodemus he claimed to be both in heaven and on earth at one and the same time. It should be obvious that his humanity was not in heaven but on earth and the only aspect of his nature that could be omnipresent is his divinity. Again, to deny such a clear distinction is made and must be made is rediculous as it is obvious. The fact that he is God gives him a much greater value than every sinner born and hence, the cross can be sufficient satisfaction due to the value of the Person being the object of judicial wrath. Thus justice would include the differences between who He is and who we are and what would be required to justly satisfy God's wrath against sin and sinners. It is one thing to crucify all the justly condemned sons of Adam but quite another thing to crucify the King of kings, the Creator with regard to the enormity of value one has over the other. Perfect justice would have to take into consideration that enormous difference.
If you reject that! Fine! But your rejection does not deny it is an obvious truth to those who have no hatchet to grind and no doctrine to defend.
Quote all the Catholics and Reformed Catholics you want but tradition has no value in my eyes whatsoever. To claim that secular historical sources are a complete revelation of every day and every group in history may be something you embrace but not I.
Last edited:
No. My whole argument comes down to questioning the framework through which you interpret the Atonement. You insist that the righteousness of God is a matter of the Law and fulfilling that Law by suffering the punishment that was due to those who are saved in their stead. I believe that this righteousness of God is manifested apart from the Law as Christ bore our iniquities and delivered us from the bondage of sin and death.
I have not quoted anything but Scripture in stating my view of the Atonement (unlike you, who rely heavily on Reformed theology). BUT since the topic of the thread is what people like Martyr believed don't you think it would be silly, bordering stupid, not to quote those people?????
If you don't want to discuss the beliefs of these people then you shouldn't have commented on a thread about what these people believed.
I have NEVER quoted or referred to Reformed theology or theologians - NEVER ONCE. I have ALWAYS quoted scripture just as in my last post which you completely ignored.
Romans 3:21-22 explicitly states that the righteousness revealed in the Law is the revelation of "the righteousness of God" and that Christ more perfectly reveals that righteousness than did the written Law or the prophets. You simply do not have a Biblical leg to stand on. I gave you scripture for my position and not only did I give you scripture but I broke it down and spelled it out so that anyone could plainly see the Biblical basis for PSA - but what was your response to scripture and explanation? SILENCE and change of subject.
So, I am falsely accused of not presenting scripture (which I clearly did as my whole post was a presentation of Isaiah 53:10-11). And, I am falsely accused of basing my views on Reformed traditions (which I never have or did) and yet at the same time rebuked for not talking about traditions when posting on this thread. So any way you cut it, from your perspective, I simply should not have posted anything. That is certainly a clever debate tactic but demonstrates truth is not your goal. Yes, that is the technique of a debater who simply can't respond to the Biblical evidence placed squarely in front of you. The problem is that both your traditions and your view of scriptures are wrong and that explains why you have nothing to say about my post that presents the Biblical view of the atonement.
This is a worthless debate as truth is not your goal, and so I leave you to your traditions and to those who want to waste their time and effort convincing a man who cannot be convinced regardless of what evidence is placed before him.
Last edited:
JONC
The perfect law keeping cannot be said to be absent from the scripture;
In fact....there is no gospel if this is not true, this is at the heart of the gospel itself... consider these portions....
Gal4.
4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,
5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.
Rom10
4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.
- Status