Penal Substitution Atonement Theory

[agedman]

There are some who on another thread are wanting to present that the PSA theory is Scriptural.

I have therefor started this thread that those of all Christian denominations may also be permitted to attend to the debate (discussion).

Why do you think the PSA theory is Scriptural?

https://www.theopedia.com/penal-substitutionary-atonement

 

[kyredneck]

Redundancy is a constant on the BB.

 

[JonC]

Redundancy is a constant on the BB.

You can say that again.

 

[kyredneck]

Redundancy is a constant on the BB.

 

[JonC]

There are some who on another thread are wanting to present that the PSA theory is Scriptural.

I have therefor started this thread that those of all Christian denominations may also be permitted to attend to the debate (discussion).

Why do you think the PSA theory is Scriptural?

https://www.theopedia.com/penal-substitutionary-atonement

Since this is a debate (discussion), count me on the side that does not believe the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement biblical.

That is not to say the theory refrains from using scripture. But what separates the theory from the rest is not scripture but philosophy.

@kyredneck has a point, and I suspect we know where this will end up.

Typically these discussions never get to defending Penal Substitution Theory. I am no prophet, but here is what I have learned from past attempts to discuss Penal Substitution Theory:

1. There will be some who ate content to argue it is not a theory therefore it is true.

2. You will get a lot of passages all agree on alongside the claim it "proves" Penal Substitution Theory.

3. Somebody will argue that only those who hold Penal Substitution Theory to be true holds a doctrine that necessitates the cross.

4. Somebody will insist the "normal" reading of Scripture affirms the Theory even though it is not present in the Bible.

5. Ultimately the ideas that separate Penal Substitution Theorists from Christians who do not hold the Theory will never be discussed.

That said, the discussion is worth having.

 

[ntchristian]

There are some who on another thread are wanting to present that the PSA theory is Scriptural.

I have therefor started this thread that those of all Christian denominations may also be permitted to attend to the debate (discussion).

Why do you think the PSA theory is Scriptural?

https://www.theopedia.com/penal-substitutionary-atonement

Those who contend that it is scriptural have to try to explain why then the early church did not hold it, and why it was unknown in the church for 1500 years. Of course they'll try to contend that the early church did believe it and maybe try to drag in some quotes from early Fathers as supposed evidence. That evidence does not exist. The Fathers did not teach PSA, nor even Satisfaction as taught by Anselm 1000 years later.

So, the central question remains: If PSA is scriptural, why did the early church not teach it? PSA is a Western, Latin theory invented by the Western Protestant church. It comes from a Western, Latin legalist mindset unknown in scripture and the early church. The same way that Satisfaction is a Western, Latin theory invented by the RCC.

I contend that if anyone wants to understand and interpret the Gospel correctly, the context in which it was written must be accounted for. And that context was an Eastern one. Not saying that all Western theology is in error, but much of it is. I am an Eastern (not Eastern Orthodox anymore) Christian. The Western views of the Gospel cause me much consternation, as I don't believe they are the Gospel taught by Jesus and the early church.

 

[agedman]

My personal thinking.

Penal Substitution Atonement is a THEORY it is not a doctrine, but a way of considering some Scripture statements.

It was developed from the RC Substitution view by those who desired a more judicial portrayal. However, in doing so, the presentation went beyond the Scriptures.

The Atonement is graphically portrayed in the temple sacrificial system, and even in the construction. In brief, at no time were the sacrifices to be brutalized in their treatment prior to their death. Yet, our Lord was!

Certainly, to fulfill prophecy as a testimony of He was brutalized by humankind. However, such prophecy was not to show a peculiar death, but the manner of death.

There was nothing done to the Christ that was not consistent with Roman interrogation and crucifixion. This statement, alone, takes the statements of the prophets into a different presentation. A presentation not of punishment but of purposed fulfillment.

“He was wounded. Why? “For our transgressions.”
“He was bruised.” Why? “For our iniquities.”
His chastisement brought our peace
His stripes brought our healing

It was not for God’s sake “He bore our sins and our sorrows and made them His very own.” It was for us.

God did not pour His wrath out on the Son, for that is universalism.

God did not turn His back on the Son, for God cannot deny God, such teaching is blasphemy.

What then was God’s reaction? Look at the picture of Christ appearing before the throne as a lamb slain. With authority He takes the scroll from the hand of God and begins to break the seals to open the contract.

Now this is a start. I suggest that those who cling to PSA present their thinking.

 

[kyredneck]

Do you consider yourselves to be in the Christus Victor camp?

@JonC, @agedman, @ntchristian

 

[JonC]

Do you consider yourselves to be in the Christus Victor camp?

@JonC, @agedman, @ntchristian

I don't. I believe we should take Scripture as it comes.

That said, I probably would fit in the Christus Victor camp as an overarching theme of Scripture. But not necessarily as a theory.

I also find merit in Athanasius' Ransom Theory.

 

[kyredneck]

theme of Scripture

Theme. I like that. There's several 'themes' in the scriptures, IMO.

 

[agedman]

Those who contend that it is scriptural have to try to explain why then the early church did not hold it, and why it was unknown in the church for 1500 years. Of course they'll try to contend that the early church did believe it and maybe try to drag in some quotes from early Fathers as supposed evidence. That evidence does not exist. The Fathers did not teach PSA, nor even Satisfaction as taught by Anselm 1000 years later.

So, the central question remains: If PSA is scriptural, why did the early church not teach it? PSA is a Western, Latin theory invented by the Western Protestant church. It comes from a Western, Latin legalist mindset unknown in scripture and the early church. The same way that Satisfaction is a Western, Latin theory invented by the RCC.

I contend that if anyone wants to understand and interpret the Gospel correctly, the context in which it was written must be accounted for. And that context was an Eastern one. Not saying that all Western theology is in error, but much of it is. I am an Eastern (not Eastern Orthodox anymore) Christian. The Western views of the Gospel cause me much consternation, as I don't believe they are the Gospel taught by Jesus and the early church.

Would you graciously do a compare and contrast so that more can be discussed?

 

[ntchristian]

Here is an article which refutes the claim that any of the early church fathers held to PSA. The article was referred to me by an Anglican friend of mine. It's an excellent article:

https://therebelgod.com/AtonementFathersEQ.pdf

 

[agedman]

Here is an article which refutes the claim that any of the early church fathers held to PSA. The article was referred to me by an Anglican friend of mine. It's an excellent article:

https://therebelgod.com/AtonementFathersEQ.pdf

(Imo) This is a good presentation of the early church’s thinking.

I would that we had more. Something from John Mark and Polycarp would be great.

Did not Paul state that He was an ambassador, working two bring folks into understanding the reconciliation Christ brought between God and Man?

Restorative rather then retributive.

 

[Revmitchell]

Anyone who says psa is not acdoctrine doesnt kniw what one is.

 

[JonC]

Here is an article which refutes the claim that any of the early church fathers held to PSA. The article was referred to me by an Anglican friend of mine. It's an excellent article:

https://therebelgod.com/AtonementFathersEQ.pdf

Another point with the early church is they address Christ dying as a ransom for the human family. Doing so they use the same passages that Penal Substitution Theory advocates use, but within a stricter biblical view (they do not make more modern assumptions).

It is probablly impossible for Penal Substitution Theory to have existed in the first millennia of the Christian Church as the philosophy was not present.

 

[JonC]

Anyone who says psa is not acdoctrine doesnt kniw what one is.

Good point. Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement is a doctrine. People have taught it for hundreds of years.

Of course, the Theory of Evolution is also a doctrine.

I think what @agedman may be pointing out is the fact that the Penal Substitution Theory is a theory as opposed to a doctrine stated in Scripture.

 

[DaveXR650]

"Bearing shame and scoffing rude.
In my place condemned he stood.
Sealed my pardon with his blood-
Hallelujah! What a Saviour!"
(Song by P.P.Bliss)

Would this be Penal Substitutionary Atonement?

 

[Cathode]

Many theological errors come from the fact that people forget that God is Love.

“ God so loved the world “

If people look at the Cross and only see a brutal act of vengeance to be inflicted on an innocent victim to satisfy a wrathful, vengeful Father, they know not the Father.

“ No one can take my life from me. I sacrifice it voluntarily. For I have the authority to lay it down when I want to and also to take it up again. For this is what my Father has commanded.”

The Father commanded that Jesus had the authority to lay down His Life voluntarily.

From the time Adam and the Fall, man fell silent in that reciprocated total Love for God.

Jesus work on the Cross reconciled God and man by saying to man “ This is how much I Love you, and the Perfect man saying in Christ Jesus to The Father “ This is how much I Love you “. Total self Sacrifice to man and total self Sacrifice to the Father, an emphatic act of Love that no party could ever argue with. It stands for all time and All Eternity.

Sacrifice is a demonstration of Love not vengeance and punishment. The Father allowed Jesus full capacity and authority to voluntarily demonstrate His Love by Sacrifice. As both God and Man, only He could reconcile both in Love and Covenant.

The Cross says another thing to mankind as well. “ This is what sin does to you “, Love me and hate sin which separates us from each other.

Many think that The Eternal Father is wrathful, angry and eager to punish. Wrong, God’s ways are so far above man’s ways, as Loves ways are above hates ways.

The Eternal Father is the Most Loving and Most Gentle of Fathers, He is the Father from which all fatherhood comes, Goodness and Love Itself. And in saying that, it is an understatement.

The debt that was paid was one of Love, not vengeance. The Love lost in Adam was restored under Christ Jesus our Saviour.

Our God is not like the gods of the pagans, vengeful, fickle and wrathful, but a God of Love we need an Eternity to understand.

 

[JonC]

"Bearing shame and scoffing rude.
In my place condemned he stood.
Sealed my pardon with his blood-
Hallelujah! What a Saviour!"
(Song by P.P.Bliss)

Would this be Penal Substitutionary Atonement?

Perhaps. It depends on how the song is interpreted.

Christ did bear shame and scoffing. He did stand condemned and in the place of men. Our forgiveness is sealed by His blood.

If the sing were to be taken that God condemned Christ instead of condemning us by punishing Jesus instead of punishing us....then it would be Penal Substitution Theory.

If it were taken that Christ bore the shame of men, the wages of sin as our representative, esteemed striken by the men He came to save, yet bearing their sins, sharing their infirmary....then it would be biblical... but not Penal Substitution Theory.

 

[Cathode]

Perhaps. It depends on how the song is interpreted.

Christ did bear shame and scoffing. He did stand condemned and in the place of men. Our forgiveness is sealed by His blood.

If the sing were to be taken that God condemned Christ instead of condemning us by punishing Jesus instead of punishing us....then it would be Penal Substitution Theory.

If it were taken that Christ bore the shame of men, the wages of sin as our representative, esteemed striken by the men He came to save, yet bearing their sins, sharing their infirmary....then it would be biblical... but not Penal Substitution Theory.

If people want to see the Cross as how much God hates them and wanted to give them what they deserve. They missed the entire point of Christianity and need to hand in their cards.