• 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!

More reasons Why The penal Substitution Atonement Model is best One!

Y

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Last edited:
JonC

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
Rather than shopping for a theory on which to hang ones faith people would do better to trust in God's Word (even if they have differences in interpretation).

The paper from Masters Seminary is odd for several reasons. One is it defines PSA very lightly (any view that has Christ dying for us and taking upon Himself the consequences of human sin is PSA). Using that definition there has never existed a theory except PSA throughout history. We all believe Christ died for us and bore our sins.
But more importantly, the author takes snippets without the overall context to "prove" his point. Using his (and your) method then yes, Marytar, Luther, and N.T. Wright all advocate PSA. We all do.
 
R

Revmitchell

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
The premise of the op states the the Penal Substitution Theory is the best one. I hold to the Penal Substitution Theory. However, it is not the only one nor is it necessary to pit one theory against the others in this fashion. While i looked at each article linked to in the op I did not read them all in their entirety but it doesn't appear any of them tried to make the argument of the op. Neither did the op make the argument to fit the title. Thus far the op has failed to make its own argument even a little bit.
 
M

Martin Marprelate

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
JonC said:
Rather than shopping for a theory on which to hang ones faith people would do better to trust in God's Word (even if they have differences in interpretation).
Click to expand...
If this is the case, why have you been starting and continuing threads which concentrate on what Church Fathers thought?
 
JonC

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
Martin Marprelate said:
If this is the case, why have you been starting and continuing threads which concentrate on what Church Fathers thought?
Click to expand...
Because historical theology and the development of Christian doctrine interests me. That doesn't mean we have to confuse the two topics.

It is one thing to say I believe that through the atoning work of Christ we were set free from the powers of sin and death based on Romans 8:2 and yet another to say I believe that because this was what the early church believed.
 
Y

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Revmitchell said:
The premise of the op states the the Penal Substitution Theory is the best one. I hold to the Penal Substitution Theory. However, it is not the only one nor is it necessary to pit one theory against the others in this fashion. While i looked at each article linked to in the op I did not read them all in their entirety but it doesn't appear any of them tried to make the argument of the op. Neither did the op make the argument to fit the title. Thus far the op has failed to make its own argument even a little bit.
Click to expand...
I think that we would agree that while there are other atonement views throughout church history, and that all of them have some merit to them, the PST is the view that best lines up with the scriptures, and Calvin did not just invent it out of thin air, nor Luther or any other reformer, but they did development it further from earlier holders of it!
 
JonC

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
Yeshua1 said:
What is interesting is that several ECF actually held to some form of PST!
Click to expand...
Not really. What you are referring to PST is the simple belief that Jesus bore our sins and experienced the consequence of human sin as a redemption of mankind. It is a belief common to Christian faith, not just those who cling to PSA or Calvinism. None (not even one) expressed PSA to the degree that Jesus experienced God's wrath that the lost sinners would experience at Judgment.

Calvin’s biggest error was revising the Catholic doctrine of Atonement in such a way that Christ stood in our stead as the Father punished Him with the punishment due us for our individual sins. I understand why he made the connection, but this does not mean it was right.

What you are calling PST (when it suits you) is common Christian belief. But then you turn it around to mean something more specific to Calvin (Christ experiencing the punishment of the elect for the sins of the elect in their stead, this punishment being the separation from God the lost will experience at Judgment).

Please provide an example of an ECF expressing the atonement in this manner.
 
Y

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
JonC said:
Not really. What you are referring to PST is the simple belief that Jesus bore our sins and experienced the consequence of human sin as a redemption of mankind. It is a belief common to Christian faith, not just those who cling to PSA or Calvinism. None (not even one) expressed PSA to the degree that Jesus experienced God's wrath that the lost sinners would experience at Judgment.

Calvin’s biggest error was revising the Catholic doctrine of Atonement in such a way that Christ stood in our stead as the Father punished Him with the punishment due us for our individual sins. I understand why he made the connection, but this does not mean it was right.

What you are calling PST (when it suits you) is common Christian belief. But then you turn it around to mean something more specific to Calvin (Christ experiencing the punishment of the elect for the sins of the elect in their stead, this punishment being the separation from God the lost will experience at Judgment).

Please provide an example of an ECF expressing the atonement in this manner.
Click to expand...
Except that both Calvin and Luther, any MANY others in church history have seen this truth in the scriptures, and that if Jesus did not suffer the wrath of God directed towards sinners/sins, who did suffer it, or did receive and take it?
 
JonC

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
Yeshua1 said:
Except that both Calvin and Luther, any MANY others in church history have seen this truth in the scriptures, and that if Jesus did not suffer the wrath of God directed towards sinners/sins, who did suffer it, or did receive and take it?
Click to expand...
Most, if not all, believe Christ experienced that wrath against humanity. But what you are claiming is Calvin's theory and is very different.

Punishment is not transferable (God's wrath, per the Early Church) was against man because of sin. PSA did not exist as a theory until Calvin.
 
Y

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
JonC said:
Most, if not all, believe Christ experienced that wrath against humanity. But what you are claiming is Calvin's theory and is very different.

Punishment is not transferable (God's wrath, per the Early Church) was against man because of sin. PSA did not exist as a theory until Calvin.
Click to expand...
The wrath of God HAD to go against someone!
 
agedman

agedman

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
"Penal substitution, then, emphasizes that the punishment from God provoked by human sin was borne by Jesus Christ with His sacrificial death." Penal Substitution and Church History - The Master's Seminary

But this is just not what the Scriptures teach.

Two problems.
1) "human sin" was NOT borne by the DEATH but the blood shed. The WAGES of the sin brought death. Two (blood and death) are completely different concepts.

When Christ "became sin for us" taking upon Himself sin, it was not meeting some payment owed, or retribution earned. Rather, the sin brought death. The wages paid by sin is death.

What does the Scripture teach as far as the blood? "Without the shedding of blood...."

There is a complete difference in purpose:
Blood - remission of sin
Death - wages of sin

2) This matter of God having to "punish" his Son; that is just not found in Scriptures.
It is inconsistent with the portrayal of the Son, Father relationship.

In order for God to punish, he must rebuke.

Even in human living, the father will not punish before rebuke, unless there is father who has perverted thinking. So much less would the Heavenly Father punish before rebuke.

From the time of the Baptism, throughout the ministry, His death, His resurrection, the ascension, return ... there is not a single statement of rebuke.
 
R

Revmitchell

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
1Co 6:20 for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body.

Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top