Penal Substitution & the ECFs

[HankD]

That is my point, brother.

Most who hold to the Theory of Penal Substitution (regardless of whether they recognize it as a theory or doctrine) work through Scripture using human reasoning. When this reasoning is different, often the conclusions are different.

That said, believe the illustration apt. Here is another:

All believe that:

1. Christ bore our sins.
2. God was pleased to crush Him.
3. The wages of sin is death.
4. The gift of God is eternal life.
5. Christ is the Propitiation for our sins.
6. The Father laid our iniquities on Christ.
7. Through Christ we escape wrath.

It is dishonest, however, to take what is common Christian belief and declare Penal Substitution Theory common Christian belief because Penal Substitution Theory is more than Scripture.

What one would have to prove is that the ECF's believed that God had to satisfy the demands of divine justice by punishing the sins of men so that men could be forgiven, so God punished Jesus in our place with the wrath set aside for our sins in order to pay our "sin debt".

While the ECF's (and all Christians) affirm 1-7, none applied the human reason of retributive justice to the equation. That is why none stated the "doctrine" of Penal Substitution (none identified what makes 1-7 Penal Substitution Theory). Instead we have the Ransom Theory, Christus Victor, Recipitulation, Satisfaction, Moral Influence, and so on.

It was not until the Reformation that 1-7 produced what is called the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement.

It is human reasoning and not Scripture that makes the difference.

NIV Isaiah 53:5 But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed.

 

[JonC]

NIV Isaiah 53:5 But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed.

Yes, it does say that.

As far as I know none of the ECF's disputed that passage (although their interpretations varied).

So back to the issue -

1. Christ was pierced through for our transgressions
2. He was crushed for our iniquities
3. The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him
4. By His scourging we are healed.

Irenaeus interpreted this in terms of Recipitulation (Christ suffered all for all; every age for ever age; punishment for punishment) thereby recapitulating or reversing the effects of Adam to those in Christ.

What is missing from his view? It is not Scripture - Irenaeus affirmed those passages. But he did not interpret those passage within the same philosophical view that we often do. He explained those passages to mean something completely different from God punishing Christ to pay our sin debt so that we could be healed.

Scripture is the same. Human reasoning is different. You cannot prove Penal Substitution Theory without looking at the reasoning and ways those same verses have been interpreted.

I don't hold to Irenaeus' view. BUT I also affirm that Christ was pierced for our transgressions, crushed for our iniquities, the chastening for our well being fell upon Him and by His scourging we are healed. Yet at the same time I strongly reject Penal Substitution Theory as a corruption of Scripture and believe it to be a superficial interpretation that skews the gospel message as a whole.

I don't object to the Scripture Penal Substitution Theory uses. I reject to the human reasoning it applies. That is the difference - the philosophy, not the passages.

And that is why I believe the claims on this thread (that the ECF's held to Penal Substitution Theory) are offensive and asinine. They imply that not holding to the theory is a rejection of Scripture when, if this were an honest discussion, it would be apparent that what is different is the interpretation.

 

[Yeshua1]

I don't hold Penal Substitution Theory, but I think the point was Mary balanced out Eve. This "reversal" is the basis of Irenaeus' "Penal Substitution Theory".

It is your theory - not mine (it's up to you to explain). How is Christs work a reversal of the deception of Eve in Mary?

Did Paul ever address mary at all in his theology. as His Pauline Justification was and is the very basis of the Pst, and do not remember Mary having any part of that at all!

 

[JonC]

Did Paul ever address mary at all in his theology. as His Pauline Justification was and is the very basis of the Pst, and do not remember Mary having any part of that at all!

We are talking about Penal Substitution Theory as held by Irenaeus. The Cross was not a payment for "sin debt" but one part of the recipitulation of the human race.

Or are you now denying that Irenaeus' view (Recipitulation) is also classified as Penal Substitution Theory?

 

[Yeshua1]

We are talking about Penal Substitution Theory as held by Irenaeus. The Cross was not a payment for "sin debt" but one part of the recipitulation of the human race.

Or are you now denying that Irenaeus' view (Recipitulation) is also classified as Penal Substitution Theory?

There might be some similarities, but those 2 views are not fully holding to the same theology!

 

[JonC]

There might be some similarities, but those 2 views are not fully holding to the same theology!

Yea, I don't think so either. All theories have similarities (they are all based off the same Scriptures). But they arrive at different places (theologically).

 

[Yeshua1]

Yes, it does say that.

As far as I know none of the ECF's disputed that passage (although their interpretations varied).

So back to the issue -

1. Christ was pierced through for our transgressions
2. He was crushed for our iniquities
3. The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him
4. By His scourging we are healed.

Irenaeus interpreted this in terms of Recipitulation (Christ suffered all for all; every age for ever age; punishment for punishment) thereby recapitulating or reversing the effects of Adam to those in Christ.

What is missing from his view? It is not Scripture - Irenaeus affirmed those passages. But he did not interpret those passage within the same philosophical view that we often do. He explained those passages to mean something completely different from God punishing Christ to pay our sin debt so that we could be healed.

Scripture is the same. Human reasoning is different. You cannot prove Penal Substitution Theory without looking at the reasoning and ways those same verses have been interpreted.

I don't hold to Irenaeus' view. BUT I also affirm that Christ was pierced for our transgressions, crushed for our iniquities, the chastening for our well being fell upon Him and by His scourging we are healed. Yet at the same time I strongly reject Penal Substitution Theory as a corruption of Scripture and believe it to be a superficial interpretation that skews the gospel message as a whole.

I don't object to the Scripture Penal Substitution Theory uses. I reject to the human reasoning it applies. That is the difference - the philosophy, not the passages.

And that is why I believe the claims on this thread (that the ECF's held to Penal Substitution Theory) are offensive and asinine. They imply that not holding to the theory is a rejection of Scripture when, if this were an honest discussion, it would be apparent that what is different is the interpretation.

You have to deny that God has Wrath against sin and sinners due to Him being Holy though to deny Pst!

 

[JonC]

You have to deny that God has Wrath against sin and sinners due to Him being Holy though to deny Pst!

You may, but I don't. I completely affirm that God's wrath against the wicked is based on His holiness. Yet I deny Penal Substitution Theory.

Anabaptist theology also affirms God's wrath against sin based on His holiness. But Anabaptist theology is known for its opposition to Penal Substitution Theory.

 

[Yeshua1]

You may, but I don't. I completely affirm that God's wrath against the wicked is based on His holiness. Yet I deny Penal Substitution Theory.

Anabaptist theology also affirms God's wrath against sin based on His holiness. But Anabaptist theology is known for its opposition to Penal Substitution Theory.

Due to not thinking that God would be fair punishing Jesus for our own sins, and because of nothing that he had done?

 

[JonC]

Due to not thinking that God would be fair punishing Jesus for our own sins, and because of nothing that he had done?

No. Due to not believing retributive justice the correct context through which the Atonement should be viewed.

 

[JonC]

Due to not thinking that God would be fair punishing Jesus for our own sins, and because of nothing that he had done?

Just for clarification-

Do you think one has to believe God punished Jesus to satisfy His judgment by paying our "sin debt" to hold Penal Substitution Theory?

 

[HankD]

RE: "Sin debt" Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death...

 

[JonC]

RE: "Sin debt" Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death...

The wages of sin is death.

Does this mean that the consequences of sin is death?

Or does this mean that sin constitutes a debt that must be paid?

Those are two very different things.

Is this a spiritual death or physical death....or both? Do we escape a physical death, a physical death, or both? Has this any bearing on men having to die to sin?

The wages of sin is death BUT the gift of God is eternal life.

Scripture is the same. It does not change. It is objective. Human reasoning is not.

 

[Yeshua1]

Just for clarification-

Do you think one has to believe God punished Jesus to satisfy His judgment by paying our "sin debt" to hold Penal Substitution Theory?

I think that God poured upon Jesus the same wrath in judgement that all lost sinners will, experience and endure, but Jesus , once again, was not "punished" for anything any had done, but all for what we had done against God!

 

[Yeshua1]

The wages of sin is death.

Does this mean that the consequences of sin is death?

Or does this mean that sin constitutes a debt that must be paid?

Those are two very different things.

Is this a spiritual death or physical death....or both? Do we escape a physical death, a physical death, or both? Has this any bearing on men having to die to sin?

The wages of sin is death BUT the gift of God is eternal life.

Scripture is the same. It does not change. It is objective. Human reasoning is not.

Sin brings forth both physical and spiritual death to us!

 

[HankD]

The wages of sin is death.

Does this mean that the consequences of sin is death?

Or does this mean that sin constitutes a debt that must be paid?

Those are two very different things.

Is this a spiritual death or physical death....or both? Do we escape a physical death, a physical death, or both? Has this any bearing on men having to die to sin?

The wages of sin is death BUT the gift of God is eternal life.

Scripture is the same. It does not change. It is objective. Human reasoning is not.

I did not reason, I quoted scripture.

 

[JonC]

I did not reason, I quoted scripture.

Did you not notice? You added "sin debt".

 

[HankD]

Did you not notice? You added "sin debt".

I was quoting your quote from post 31 to give clarity to my response.

Remove my quote of your quote now that you understand if you wish.

 

[JonC]

I think that God poured upon Jesus the same wrath in judgement that all lost sinners will, experience and endure, but Jesus , once again, was not "punished" for anything any had done, but all for what we had done against God!

Do you believe Penal Substitution Theory includes the idea Jesus paid our "sin debt", and apart from this "sin debt" being paid we couldn't be forgiven?

 

[JonC]

I was quoting your quote from post 31 to give clarity to my response.

Remove my quote of your quote now that you understand if you wish.

Ok. And thanks for the clarification.

Yes - the wages of sin is death and no, this is not a sin debt that had to be paid before we could be forgiven.