Penal Substitution and the Trinity (again)

[JonC]

Then what should these two truths, put togeather be called? What is its error? . . . For the wages of sin is death, . . . _ . . . while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. . . . Add, . . . All we like sheep have gone astray. Everyone has turned to his own way; and Yahweh has laid on him the iniquity of us all. . . .

Romans 6:23. Romans 5:8. Isaiah 53:6.

I understand how you see Penal Substitution Theory in those verses, but what you are seeing is an interpretation. Penal Substitution Theory is not in the text of Scripture.

This is what I get out of those three passages:

God demonstrated His love towards us in that while we were sinners Christ died for us. We have been justified by His blood and will be saved from the wrath of God through Him. We now have received the reconciliation.

When we were slaves of sin we were free in regard to righteousness. But now having been freed form sin and enslaved to God, wew derive our own benefit resulting in sanctification and the outcome, eternal life. For the wages of sin is death but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus.

Christ bore our griefs and our sorrows He carried. We esteemed Him stricken, Smitten of God and afflicted, but He was pierced through for our transgressions and crushed for our iniquities. The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him and by His scourging we are healed.

All of us like sheep have gone astray, but the Lord has caused the iniquity of us all to fall on Him.

 

[37818]

I understand how you see Penal Substitution Theory in those verses, but what you are seeing is an interpretation. Penal Substitution Theory is not in the text of Scripture.

This is what I get out of those three passages:

God demonstrated His love towards us in that while we were sinners Christ died for us. We have been justified by His blood and will be saved from the wrath of God through Him. We now have received the reconciliation.

When we were slaves of sin we were free in regard to righteousness. But now having been freed form sin and enslaved to God, wew derive our own benefit resulting in sanctification and the outcome, eternal life. For the wages of sin is death but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus.

Christ bore our griefs and our sorrows He carried. We esteemed Him stricken, Smitten of God and afflicted, but He was pierced through for our transgressions and crushed for our iniquities. The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him and by His scourging we are healed.

All of us like sheep have gone astray, but the Lord has caused the iniquity of us all to fall on Him.

I hear an understanding which you are saying is not what the text is saying. There is what a text says. And there is interpretations of the text. You have not separated the two for me.

 

[JonC]

I hear an understanding which you are saying is not what the text is saying. There is what a text says. And there is interpretations of the text. You have not separated the two for me.

I do not understand that they are different. But I'll try.

I believe that God showed His love towards mankind by offering His own Son as a sacrifice for us - to be born, live a life of obedience and suffering, and to die - for us at a time when we were sinners. It is through this that we are justified and have received reconciliation with God, and how we will escape the wrath to come. In the past we were slaves of sin but we were free in terms of righteousness, but now we are slaves to God and freed from sin in Christ Jesus because of His work. While man (spiritually blind/ dead men) esteemed Christ as stricken and smitten of God, and afflicted the opposite was true - for He was bearing our griefs and our sorrows, he was pierced for our sins and crushed for our iniquities. The chastening for our benefit, our salvation, fell upon Christ and by this suffering we are healed.

What is your interpretation of the text?

 

[37818]

I do not understand that they are different. But I'll try.

I believe that God showed His love towards mankind by offering His own Son as a sacrifice for us - to be born, live a life of obedience and suffering, and to die - for us at a time when we were sinners. It is through this that we are justified and have received reconciliation with God, and how we will escape the wrath to come. In the past we were slaves of sin but we were free in terms of righteousness, but now we are slaves to God and freed from sin in Christ Jesus because of His work. While man (spiritually blind/ dead men) esteemed Christ as stricken and smitten of God, and afflicted the opposite was true - for He was bearing our griefs and our sorrows, he was pierced for our sins and crushed for our iniquities. The chastening for our benefit, our salvation, fell upon Christ and by this suffering we are healed.

What is your interpretation of the text?

What seems missing one's sin, leads to one's eternal death.

I still hear God's Son taking a death for sinners.

 

[JonC]

What seems missing one's sin, leads to one's eternal death.

I still hear God's Son taking a death for sinners.

I think the implications of eternal condemnation due to sin in the "wrath to come" (in those passages).

Jesus dying a sinners death I think is also implied (God laid our iniquities upon Him... And elsewhere He shared in our infirmity, it pleased God to crush Him).

 

[atpollard]

All of us like sheep have gone astray, but the Lord has caused the iniquity of us all to fall on Him.

Isn’t this the core of Penal Subsitution?
Our guilt (“iniquity”) falling on Christ.

 

[JonC]

Isn’t this the core of Penal Subsitution?
Our guilt (“iniquity”) falling on Christ.

No. Most other theories of the Atonement include the exact same idea.

I, for example, reject Penal Substitution Theory. But I believe that our guilt (our iniquity) fell onto Christ and He died for our sins.

I'd say the core of Penal Substitution Theory (what makes it differ from its predecessor) is its shift to justice and how it handles the concept of divine justice.

 

[atpollard]

No. Most other theories of the Atonement include the exact same idea.

I, for example, reject Penal Substitution Theory. But I believe that our guilt (our iniquity) fell onto Christ and He died for our sins.

I'd say the core of Penal Substitution Theory (what makes it differ from its predecessor) is its shift to justice and how it handles the concept of divine justice.

Terrific, it is “Limited vs Unlimited Atonement” all over again. Everyone agrees on WHAT God did and wants to argue about GOD’S MOTIVES for doing it.

I pass.

 

[JonC]

Terrific, it is “Limited vs Unlimited Atonement” all over again. Everyone agrees on WHAT God did and wants to argue about GOD’S MOTIVES for doing it.

I pass.

I do not understand your post. This is not about God's motives. It is about what is actually in Scripture and how different interpretations come about.

This is about what Scripture says God did and what the different theories say God did.

 

[JonC]

Members,

When it comes to basic beliefs we can all get defensive. So much stands on our understanding of the Atonement. Historically this has not been an easy topic.

Going forward any insults and ad hominem (on this thread) will be deleted or edited.

If you cannot honestly discuss the topic then please refrain from posting.

Off topic posts and ad honinem will be removed from view for administrative review in an attempt to allow discussion of this topic.

 

[Iconoclast]

The bottom line is I hold a Christus Victor view and you Penal Substitution Theory, and because of that you have tried for years to have me and anyone who disagrees with you silenced. You have been banned several times here and on another board.

I know you do not engage other people to learn and explain (iron sharpening iron) but to slander and defeat.

Not all Calvinists here are like you. Most are not. But you make yourself known by insulting rather than honestly discussing doctrine.

I do not care what view you hold.
I am concerned with being open and honest which looks like a concern we do not share.
I am discussing things with several posters who do not agree with me. That is part of what takes place here.
You can show no support for your false witness.
Covenater asked you to prove your false allegations against MM...you did not.
Your lie about me trying to get anyone silenced is just that.
You cannot be open and upright.

 

[JonC]

Where we stand is people view Scriptures differently.

Scripture is not the determining factor in these differences (something @37818 brought up - the difference is in the interpretation of Scripture).

So it does no good to say "this passage proves my theory" because it proves your theory only to those who interpret the passage the same as you. Those who disagree with you affirm the exact same Scripture but do not interpret it the same as you interpret.

What needs to be discussed is these differences in interpretation and the reasons each side interpret Scripture as they do.

This means asking rather than assuming.

 

[atpollard]

No. Most other theories of the Atonement include the exact same idea.

I, for example, reject Penal Substitution Theory. But I believe that our guilt (our iniquity) fell onto Christ and He died for our sins.

I'd say the core of Penal Substitution Theory (what makes it differ from its predecessor) is its shift to justice and how it handles the concept of divine justice.

Everyone agrees on WHAT God did and wants to argue about GOD’S MOTIVES for doing it.

I pass.

I do not understand your post.

OK, let me clarify. Let us call the two sides PS and NonPS.

Does the PS group believe that “Christ died for our sins”?
Does the Non-PS group believe that “Christ died for our sins”?
Does the PS group believe that “God is Just”?
Does the Non-PS group believe that “God is Just”?

I am willing to bet a rhetorical Dollar that the answer to all four questions is “Yes.”

Therefore, there is no fundamental disagreement about WHAT God did:

• Our guilt was placed on Christ
• Christ died for our sin
• God upholds justice (He punishes the guilty)
• God grants mercy to His children

Therefore, the disagreement is primarily centered on WHY God did what God did ... that makes it a discussion about God’s motives for doing what all agree God has done.

Limited Atonement and Unlimited Atonement is a similar debate because (strawman arguments aside) both sides agree that Christ’s blood washes away sin. The “discussion” centers on “who was God thinking about when He died for their sin” ... all men (sheep and goats), or just “His sheep”? It is a discussion centered on the motives of God rather than His actual actions (which are agreed upon by all).

Personally, I find such discussions rank right up there with “how many angels can fit on the head of a pin”, so I avoid speculating above my pay grade (“God does X because ...” is way above my pay grade.)

 

[JonC]

OK, let me clarify. Let us call the two sides PS and NonPS.

Does the PS group believe that “Christ died for our sins”?
Does the Non-PS group believe that “Christ died for our sins”?
Does the PS group believe that “God is Just”?
Does the Non-PS group believe that “God is Just”?

I am willing to bet a rhetorical Dollar that the answer to all four questions is “Yes.”

Therefore, there is no fundamental disagreement about WHAT God did:

• Our guilt was placed on Christ
• Christ died for our sin
• God upholds justice (He punishes the guilty)
• God grants mercy to His children

Therefore, the disagreement is primarily centered on WHY God did what God did ... that makes it a discussion about God’s motives for doing what all agree God has done.

Limited Atonement and Unlimited Atonement is a similar debate because (strawman arguments aside) both sides agree that Christ’s blood washes away sin. The “discussion” centers on “who was God thinking about when He died for their sin” ... all men (sheep and goats), or just “His sheep”? It is a discussion centered on the motives of God rather than His actual actions (which are agreed upon by all).

Personally, I find such discussions rank right up there with “how many angels can fit on the head of a pin”, so I avoid speculating above my pay grade (“God does X because ...” is way above my pay grade.)

I think I understand what you are saying.

You are claiming the idea Christ took our punishment instead of us is meaningless or of no consequence because both sides agree Christ suffered to redeem us.

I have never thought of it that way, and I am not sure the difference is that minimal. But I agree ultimately both sides of the issue are saved through the work of God.

I certainly could affirm a Penal Substitution Theory that rejected Christ took upon Himself the cup of God's wrath, that God punished Him instead of punishing us, that divine wrath had to be satisfied by Christ being punished for our sins. I also agree this ideas are no more valuable than how many angels can dance in the head of a pin.

But I am not sure that topics like Christ dying for us vs instead of us, or suffering God's wrath vs suffering the under the curse/ powers of darkness are that inconsequential. They may seem small at the start but they have serious implications in one's understanding.

Just a few thoughts anyway.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

If you are suggesting the Father was wrathful to the Son then I agree with the member who accused you of holding a doctrine that is anti-biblical.

The Lord Jesus never ceased to be the beloved Son of the Father. God's wrath is against sin and those who commit it.. The Lord Jesus was made the sin-bearer (Isaiah 53:6; 1 Peter 2:24) and God's wrath against sin was spent upon Him (Isaiah 53:5).

 

[Yeshua1]

No. I am not. I am saying it is not in the Bible, not that it is unorthodox.

The teachings of someone like NT Wright not found in the Bible, is he orthodox?

 

[Yeshua1]

What is funny is that this we have been down this path before and it has been demonstrated that Penal Substitution Theory is not in the text of Scripture. What people have done in the past is offer passages that do not prove the theory and claim victory. In the past they childishly say "Penal Substitution Theory is true because Isaiah 53, or Romans 6:23" when those verses do not come anywhere close to proving the theory.

It is funny because you are doing it here again, as if saying the same thing over and over makes it true.

Here is how we know Penal Substitution Theory is wrong - Psalm 22, isaiah 53, and Romans 5-6. Do you deny those Passages?

No, we see the Pst as being the heart of the atonement of Jesus Christ, and the scriptures prove that position!

 

[Yeshua1]

Orthodox Christianity are those doctrines consistent with historical Christianity as a whole. No one gives a rat's tail about what you personally and subjectively hold as true.

Penal Substitution Theory is not in the Bible (although I am sure it is in your interpretation of the Bible), but it is one of the orthodox theories. Just one among many, and a fairly new one at that.

It is good that it is starting at least to fade. Even Calvinists are revising the theory (which I found surprising as they typically hold fast to 16th century dogma and tradition). It was never the main theory, but it has been with Baptists. Now at least some are trying to move towards a more biblical faith.

Do you refer to the bad theology of someone like NT Wright?

 

[Yeshua1]

Absolutely! This is an excellent observation.

I have held Penal Substitution Theory for most of my life. As a Baptist, this is what we are taught and what we assume to be true. It is actually how we read Scripture because it's principles become presuppositions. Even in seminary (a Baptist seminary) the theory was never actually challenged. We studied all of the main theories and identified what was lacking on the others. But we never touched on what is supposed in Penal Substitution Theory.

That is one reason the topic always goes south on the BB. Just look at @Iconoclast . I say that I do not believe Penal Substitution Theory to be in the text of the Bible and I do not believe it is correct. He calls me immature, working through personal struggles, pretends I am the only one to hold my position (which he does not even know), and asks for people to pray for me. That is the maturity of people I've encountered on this forum.

I apologize that I may have assumed you were going to be just as insulting as Icon. You may be willing and able to discuss the topic as a Christian and an adult. I am so used to a little group following me around harassing me.

It was wrong of me to put you in that group, and I am sorry. But that is the reason for the tone of my initial reply.

The pst View of the atonement is the ONLY view that allows God to remain Holy and Just to forgive and justify lost sinners!

 

[JonC]

The Lord Jesus never ceased to be the beloved Son of the Father. God's wrath is against sin and those who commit it.. The Lord Jesus was made the sin-bearer (Isaiah 53:6; 1 Peter 2:24) and God's wrath against sin was spent upon Him (Isaiah 53:5).

I agree that Penal Substitution Atonement (PSA) does not present God as ceasing to love Christ (or even that God looked on His Son with hatred).

What we have to remember when dealing with PSA is that in the big picture it is picturing God as taking this wrath (this punishment) Himself. Sometimes it can be taken as the Father punishing the Son (or punishing our sin laid on the Son). But in the end it is saying that God takes our punishment Himself rather than inflicting it on us.

Arguments that associate PSA with "cosmic child abuse" are unfair and inaccurate (they are strawmen arguments).

Personally I hold a different position, Christius Victor, which is often diminished by those who disagree with my view as just Christ achieving victory (because of the name "Christus Victor"). So I have some experience with being unfairly weighed.

I believe it is fair to disagree with PSA (just as it is fair for people to disagree with my position). But we have to be very careful to let our disagreements be honest ones.