Penal Substitution Atonement Theory

[5 point Gillinist]

The World's wrath is the powers of sin and death, the principles, rulers, and powers that we were warned to guard against.

No. Tge sin and guilt offerings are definitely not rendered incoherent. The difference is how they are perceived (i.e., the difference between the Jewish leaders and the teachings of Christ).

The reason the sin offerings are not incoherent is they foreshadow Christ (they are not rules Christ had to follow but spoke of Christ and ate fulfilled in Him).

There is the "wrath to come" (which is the Judgment....which is Christ-centered).

Though I disagree with your view on the atonement, I would be interested to research it so as to have a better grasp on it - what is the theory's name to which you subscribe?

 

[JonC]

Though I disagree with your view on the atonement, I would be interested to research it so as to have a better grasp on it - what is the theory's name to which you subscribe?

I guess Ransom - Christus Victor. This seems to be the prevailing theme in Scripture. I believe that Scripture is very literal when it comes to foundational doctrines.

I believed, studied, and taught Penal Substitution Theory for decades. I held this view all through seminary (it was a Baptist seminary). One Sunday I was a guest preacher (pulpit supply) and preached a sermon of the Cross. The sermon was well received and I felt that it was a very good sermon. Went to bed feeling good about it. Woke up convicted that I had exceeded Scripture.

I bought a couple of dry erase boards and put them on the walls of my office. I wrote out the passages that support Penal Substitution Theory. Then over the next few months I erased all passages that did not actually teach the Theory without adding to them. No passages were left.

What bothered me was that all Christians affirmed the passages that I had listed, but within Christianity Penal Substitution Theory has either not existed or has been a minority view.

I would suggest trying that experiment (the one with whiteboards). Write down every passage that "teaches" Penal Substitution Theory and see if there are any that actually state that God was punishing Christ instead of punishing us for our sins. There are none.

But you will find that it is an abomination to punish the righteous and to acquit the guilty. You will find that God's wrath never falls on the Righteous.

So whatever view is correct has to incorporate those truths along with dealing with the "sin problem".

But to get a "grasp", I'd recommend studying one of the Christus Victor views (not modern Mennonite views, but perhaps Anabaptist theology during the Reformation).

 

[ntchristian]

Did Christ die for all humanity, those to be saved and those never to be saved? Yes 2 Peter 2:1.

PSA is a Trojan horse for the false doctrine of Limited Atonement.

Why would Christ died for all humanity, if those to be saved was predetermined? He would not. Thus individual election for salvation before creation is false doctrine.

Did Christ's death on the cross result in the opportunity for reconciliation to humanity? Yes. But to receive the reconciliation a person's faith must be credited as righteous by God alone, thus salvation is monergistic because God chooses whose faith to credit or not, thus the dirty rag faith does not merit or earn salvation.

Van, may I ask what is your view of the atonement?

 

[37818]

I think you pointed it out.

All Christians believe the LORD laid on Christ the iniquity of us all, it "pleased God to crush Him", Christ was "made sin for us", by His stripes we are healed, the chastisement of our peace was on Him, etc.

But Penal Substitution Theorists add human philosophy to Scripture. They believe God was wrathful to Christ, that God was punishing Jesus with the punishment for our sins instead of God punishing us, that God looked upon Christ as if He were a sinner, etc.

Also Isaiah 53:12 refers to it being the atonement with the words, "because he hath poured out his soul unto death: . . ." [Leviticus 17:11, ". . . For the life{soul} of the flesh is in the blood: . . ."]

 

[Van]

Van, may I ask what is your view of the atonement?

Christ died as a ransom for all people, those to be saved and those never to be saved. The word "atonement" was used in the KJV to translate a word now translated as reconciliation. But Christ dying did not reconcile anyone, but provided the means of reconciliation for everyone. When God alone chooses an individual, by way of their credited faith, He puts them into Christ spiritually, where they undergo the washing of regeneration, and arise in Christ a new creation, made alive together with Christ.

This view is consistent with all scripture.

 

[ntchristian]

Here are some excellent articles discussing Isaiah 53 and PSA theory. I won't comment on them now, just post the links:

Punished “for” or “by” our sins – The Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53 - Santo Calarco

The Rebel God: A non-penal understanding of Isaiah 53

Penal Substitutionary Atonement Theory - A Sad Substitute

 

[ntchristian]

Christ died as a ransom for all people, those to be saved and those never to be saved. The word "atonement" was used in the KJV to translate a word now translated as reconciliation. But Christ dying did not reconcile anyone, but provided the means of reconciliation for everyone. When God alone chooses an individual, by way of their credited faith, He puts them into Christ spiritually, where they undergo the washing of regeneration, and arise in Christ a new creation, made alive together with Christ.

This view is consistent with all scripture.

My views are consistent with that. Thank you for answering.

 

[JonC]

Also Isaiah 53:12 refers to it being the atonement with the words, "because he hath poured out his soul unto death: . . ." [Leviticus 17:11, ". . . For the life{soul} of the flesh is in the blood: . . ."]

Yes. I agree.

 

[kyredneck]

Went to bed feeling good about it. Woke up convicted that I had exceeded Scripture.

How many times have I went to bed one way and woke up considering the other way? Many, many times. Or, many times I've gone to bed pondering a problem and wake up with possible solution to the problem.

 

[37818]

Linked articles can be a good thing to supplement an simple case argument made here. But I do not see any better presentations being made here. Only claimes what I understand is not really correct. I am not going to wast my time reading what I find is false in my current understanding. Telling me my view is not correct does not change my mind. Clear presentation from a few clear Scriptures, I would think, that would be possible here. None given is not helpful.

 

[JonC]

Linked articles can be a good thing to supplement an simple case argument made here. But I do not see any better presentations being made here. Only claimes what I understand is not really correct. I am not going to wast my time reading what I find is false in my current understanding. Telling me my view is not correct does not change my mind. Clear presentation from a few clear Scriptures, I would think, that would be possible here. None given is not helpful.

There is a problem with your request. The issue with Penal Substitution Theory is that what differentiates it from pre-Reformation Christian faith is not in the Bible. How can you be provided with passages saying what is not there? This is what is meant by requesting to prove a negative being a logical fallacy. It can't be done.

That said, you could consider that it is an abomination for God to acquit the guilty and condemn the righteous. You could also consider that God's wrath is never allocated to the righteous.

 

[ntchristian]

I think this has been a good thread. I have enjoyed reading the responses, even those I disagreed with.

 

[37818]

How can you be provided with passages saying what is not there?

There exists concepts. It should have some kind Biblical basis. Biblical terms like, eternal Sonship, Trinity are not found in the Bible, but these term's concepts are.

Sometimes some of the concepts are there. And even after prsenting the Scriptures which support them, those concepts are not believed or understood by some.

This is what is meant by requesting to prove a negative being a logical fallacy. It can't be done.

I am not asking one to prove a negative. But the positive being claimed. Yet what I am hearing is the positive I believe is being denied. And I believe I showed from Scripture that positive being denied is true.

Now claiming a certian positive is false because another positive is true, it must be shown those two claimed truths from Scripture disallow one or the other. Or maybe both must be accepted as true. [Like the Son being both not God and the Son being God being the Son of God. And not all Trintarians like to hear the not God part.]

 

[JonC]

There exists concepts. It should have some kind Biblical basis. Biblical terms like, eternal Sonship, Trinity are not found in the Bible, but these term's concepts are.

Sometimes some of the concepts are there. And even after prsenting the Scriptures which support them, those concepts are not believed or understood by some.



I am not asking one to prove a negative. But the positive being claimed. Yet what I am hearing is the positive I believe is being denied. And I believe I showed from Scripture that positive being denied is true.

Now claiming a certian positive is false because another positive is true, it must be shown those two claimed truths from Scripture disallow one or the other. Or maybe both must be accepted as true. [Like the Son being both not God and the Son being God being the Son of God. And not all Trintarians like to hear the not God part.]

You are talking about names and titles. If, for example, you cannot find verses that (even combined) speak of Christ's eternal nature or of the Godhead then you should hold it as secondary and as opinion.

For me, I can find verses that speak of the Father, Son, and Spirit as God. I can see where in Romans where Paul speaks of the Godhead. I can find passages that speak of the eternal nature of the Son.

I will give you a positive statement of what is being claimed. Nowhere in Scripture is God said to have punished the Righteous One (Christ), nowhere is God said to condemn the righteous and acquit the guilty. In fact, another positive statement is that it is an abomination for God to condemn the Righteous and acquit the wicked.

Our forgiveness is not an acquittal. We still suffer the wages of sin, which is death. But our sins are not counted against us at the Judgment because there is no condemnation in Christ - yet those who are condemned are so because they have rejected Christ. All judgment is given to Christ.

The point, of course, is that there is absolutely no support for Penal Substitution Theory in Scripture (other than passages that support all other views). Penal Substitution Theory is a humanistic philosophy that resulted from interpreting Scripture through a legalistic and secular system in an attempt to reform Roman Catholic doctrine.

 

[ntchristian]

Here is a crucial question I would ask Protestants, particularly those who hold to sola scriptura (I would have a different question for Roman Catholics): How do you justify holding to an interpretation that was not held by the NT-era church, an interpretation that was unknown for the first 1500 years of the church? If you seek to get back to the teaching of the apostles as written in the NT and believed by the first Christians, you simply cannot hold to PSA, or for that matter any of the theories developed in the Western branches of the church. My conclusion, and I believe the only valid one, is that if these theories were not held by the earliest Christians and not held for multiple centuries after Jesus, then they could not and are not found in the NT. The early believers read the same scriptures that we read but did not see PSA or any of the later Western theories of the atonement there.

 

[37818]

Nowhere in Scripture is God said to have punished the Righteous One (Christ), nowhere is God said to condemn the righteous and acquit the guilty.

That has three parts. Making it a complex issue. The first part Isaiah 53:6 says, "the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all." Understanding the "him" as Righteous and understanding the us as the guilty. I thought this was understood. I am not understanding your view.

 

[JonC]

That has three parts. Making it a complex issue. The first part Isaiah 53:6 says, "the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all." Understanding the "him" as Righteous and understanding the us as the guilty. I thought this was understood. I am not understanding your view.

I understand the passage to be saying that God laid on Christ the iniquity of us all. He bore our sin in His body.

I am not sure that there is another way to understand the passage.

 

[DaveXR650]

My conclusion, and I believe the only valid one, is that if these theories were not held by the earliest Christians and not held for multiple centuries after Jesus, then they could not and are not found in the NT. The early believers read the same scriptures that we read but did not see PSA or any of the later Western theories of the atonement there.

Your conclusion could be wrong.
Penal Substitution in the Early Church

Everyone doesn't agree that penal substitution theory was unheard of until the reformers. Now to me, the scriptures that have already been given are more important that the early Church fathers - they should be judged by scripture, not the reverse.

 

[JonC]

Your conclusion could be wrong.
Penal Substitution in the Early Church

Everyone doesn't agree that penal substitution theory was unheard of until the reformers. Now to me, the scriptures that have already been given are more important that the early Church fathers - they should be judged by scripture, not the reverse.

It isn't. Over the past couple of decades there has been a push within Calvinistic churches to reexamine Penal Substitution Theory. That has caused others to defend the theory without true engagement. It is almost a taboo issue.

But the claims of early Penal Substitution Theorists falls short. The explanation is typically along the lines of "if they were alive today they'd hold the theory".

Here are "proofs" of early Penal Substitution Theorists from your link:

Clement wrote, “Because of the love that he had for us, Jesus Christ our Lord, in accordance with God’s will, gave his blood for us, and his flesh for our flesh, and his life for our lives” (1 Clem. 49:6).

“In this he shows that Christ, being apart from all sin, will receive the sins of men on himself. And therefore he will suffer the penalty of sinners, and will be pained on their behalf; and not on his own” (Proof of the Gospel, 3.2 Eusebius).

You redeemed us from the curse and from sin, having become both on our behalf. You have crushed the heads of the serpent who had seized man in his jaws because of the abyss of our disobedience. You have opened up for us a path to the resurrection, having broken down the gates of hell and reduced to impotence the one who had power over death. (Macrina the Younger)

But none of those are Penal Substitution Theory. Not only that, but all of them are common Christian beliefs.

It is not the 95% of truth but the 5% of error that makes Penal Substitution Theory false. That 5% is of vital importance.

But every time this is discussed here advocates of Penal Substitution Theory offer commonly held beliefs that do not address the distinction of the theory as "proof". This is why I said earlier I doubted a legitimate discussion could be had.

 

[DaveXR650]

But none of those are Penal Substitution Theory. Not only that, but all of them are common Christian beliefs.

It is not the 95% of truth but the 5% of error that makes Penal Substitution Theory false. That 5% is of vital importance.

Jon. I don't claim any expertise in this area but honestly you owe it to explain exactly what you mean is wrong with PSA before you make a claim that meaningful discussion cannot be had here. The piece I sited above is by someone who has some credentials. I understand you do too. All I ask is that you explain what exactly you mean. To just dismiss an article like that out of hand without any reason could be an indicator of why meaningful discussion doesn't occur. I also reject the idea that you can claim 95% of something as true then say the overall theory is wrong because 5% is wrong.