Penal Substitution & the ECFs

[37818]

I can evidence, however, that God will not condemn the righteous.

". . . There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God." -- Romans 3:10-11.

 

[37818]

It is up to you to prove your theory - not to me to disprove it. Penal Substitution Theory states that God punished Jesus for our sins (this is why it 8s called "penal") instead of punishing us (this is where the idea of "substitution" comes from).

Penal Substitution (when placed together) is a theory because it assumes things that cannot be proven by Scripture itself. If that truth is just beyond your grasp, I understand. It seems to be more of a problem on this thread than I would have thought. But then again, our churches have struggled with biblical literacy for some time now.

I have refuted it....over and over again. If you cannot see this then perhaps this is the same issue you are having with Scripture. You can't distinguish between what is written and what you'd suppose.

It is not a theory. Isaiah 53:6.

 

[JonC]

". . . There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God." -- Romans 3:10-11.

So you believe this passage nullifies all the other passages?

Romans 3 does not support Penal Substitution Theory. It states the "problem" Penal Substitution Theory tries to solve philosophically.

Others believe God saved us my an act of "re-creation", - that men must die to sin and be made alive in Christ. Non-Penal Substitution Theory people view God as saving man by remaking man (making us new creatures, giving is new hearts, new spirits, putting His Spirit in us....etc). Penal Substitution Theory denies this to be a saving act - instead the saving act is God punishing Jesus for our sins to satisfy justice.....so that He can do all of those things).

 

[JonC]

It is not a theory. Isaiah 53:6.

Yet Isaiah 53 does not prove Penal Substitution Theory. It does show our iniquities laid on Christ - but not God punishing Jesus instead of us to pay our "sin debt". You are really reaching and covering old ground.

I take it you simply can't defend the Theory (Penal Substitution..... i.e., the words together....a type of substitution).

But even more importantly- YOU have to prove the ECFs held the Theory as it's the topic.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

No. @Martin Marprelate has simply danced around the issue, avoiding a true discussion of what the ECF's actually wrote like the plague.

On one hand he acknowledged that these ideas were articulated during a latter period, but on another he "discovered" the Theory at every turn.

It is dishonest (and I believe immoral) to represent the beliefs of the ECF's in any way except how they are recorded and explained by the ECF's themselves.

It is indeed, and it makes me wonder why you persist in doing it. I, on the other hand, have allowed the ECFs to speak for themselves by printing out their very words. I have plenty more if you would like to read them.
I still have no time to comment further, but I assure you that I will in due course, and I will be exposing your persistent terminological inexactitudes.

 

[37818]

So you believe this passage nullifies all the other passages.

No.

 

[JonC]

No.

Can you defend Penal Substitution (the penal type of substitution the theory assumes)?

In other words, can you defend the theory's philosophy....i.e., how it gets from Christ bearing our sin, God laying our sin on Christ, Christ dying for us, man being redeemed by the blood of Christ, man being escaping wrath TO God punished Jesus for our sins instead of punishing us to satisfy the demands of justice and pay our sin debt?

I'm sure (at least I hope) you are able to discern the leap from Scripture to conclusion in Penal Substitution Theory. Even if the theory is correct, the contextualization needs to be both explained and defended to prove it correct.

 

[Yeshua1]

The elements are there - but the philosophy is different. Origen looked to a purchase. Irenaeus looked to Recipitulation. Martyr looked to a freeing of the human race. Anselm to restoring honor. Abelard to an example. Aquinas to merit. Luther to a satisfaction. Calvin to a sin debt.

What makes Penal Substitution Theory is not the elements but what is done to and with the elements (the articulation and context).

No one, prior to Calvin, looked at the Atonement as God punishing (for sin) Christ to pay our "sin debt" so He could forgive men. That (not Scripture, not the elements, but the philosophy) is what distinguishes Penal Substitution Theory.

Advocates of the Theory would be better served defending it on the basis of Scripture instead of making fools of themselves rewriting history.

John Calvin got the doctrine from Pauline theology of justification found in Romans and Galatians, not from His Law books!

 

[JonC]

It is indeed, and it makes me wonder why you persist in doing it. I, on the other hand, have allowed the ECFs to speak for themselves by printing out their very words. I have plenty more if you would like to read them.
I still have no time to comment further, but I assure you that I will in due course, and I will be exposing your persistent terminological inexactitudes.

No, brother.

What you have done is take one aspect (one element) of Irenaeus away from Irenaeus' conclusions. If you had read the work as a whole, instead of extracting one part, I think you would realize this. Had you considered his statements BEFORE your quote, and his statements AFTER your quote, you would have understood that his ideas were not a jumbled mess but rather a logical presentation of his theory (Recipitulation).

And yes, his words are out there. Most of the readers here are astute enough to look at his words within his own context, using the definitions that he provides, rather than extracting a few sentences that every Christian affirms.

The reason I reply to you so much is not because I think Irenaeus correct and you wrong. I know that you are wrong and believe Irenaeus was as well.

It is dishonest (I believe morally dishonest) to extract several sentences from an ancient author and ascribe to his words a meaning that his explanations do not hold. What is worse is that you dismiss his explanation as a theological mess because you can't see the logic in his thoughts.

And to clarify (before someone gets their feelings hurt - by "dishonest" I mean not honest to the text, not dishonest in character. And I believe this a moral flaw as it demonstrates a disregard for the ideas of others (and tends to fabricate "truth").

 

[JonC]

John Calvin got the doctrine from Pauline theology of justification found in Romans and Galatians, not from His Law books!

Yes. Calvin was definitely a scholar.

I don't know that he limited himself to Pauline theology, however, It seems that he used Scripture as a whole when developing the theory.

 

[Yeshua1]

I can evidence, however, that God will not condemn the righteous.

I can evidence God will not abandon His Holy One.

I can evidence that, while God's wrath is turned against the wicked, He will for and restore them if they will turn from their ways and obey Him.

I can evidence that redemption is the righteousness of God manifested apart from the law.

I can evidence that God can set aside His wrath and be merciful to men who repent.

I can evidence that God viewed Christ on the cross as righteous and obedient.

I can evidence all of this through Scripture (literally, what the verse state). Penal Substitution Theory also affirms these passages, but not without qualifications and creating an alternate and liberal meaning (e.g., God will not abandon Christ, but Christ remained God when God abandoned Him, God cannot condemn the Righteous so He considered Jesus to be unrighteous....etc.).

When God poured out His divine wrath upon Jesus on that Cross, at that time, did God see Him as the Righteous One, pr as the sin bearer, as One who knew no sin had though became sin for us, or not?

 

[Yeshua1]

Yes. Calvin was definitely a scholar.

I don't know that he limited himself to Pauline theology, however, It seems that he used Scripture as a whole when developing the theory.

Calvin did not invent it brand new and novel, as the scriptures themselves teach it, as that was where he found and developed it!

 

[JonC]

Calvin did not invent it brand new and novel, as the scriptures themselves teach it, as that was where he found and developed it!

He contextualized the atonement (what had been taught) to his environment and articulated the theory to represent the atonement in a way it had not exactly been stated before.

If anyone believed that God punished Jesus to pay our sin debt so that He could forgive men prior to Calvin then they simply failed to write it (or, as others suggest, the Catholic Church destroyed all evidence....regardless, there is no evidence the theory was held until the Reformation).

 

[Yeshua1]

He contextualized the atonement (what had been taught) to his environment and articulated the theory to represent the atonement in a way it had not exactly been stated before.

If anyone believed that God punished Jesus to pay our sin debt so that He could forgive men prior to Calvin then they simply failed to write it (or, as others suggest, the Catholic Church destroyed all evidence....regardless, there is no evidence the theory was held until the Reformation).

Except that Calvin Himself would state that he was merely expressing what Paul held it as being!

 

[JonC]

Except that Calvin Himself would state that he was merely expressing what Paul held it as being!

I think all who authors theories believe them to be accurate to Scripture.

You have a pretty bad habit of placing words in the mouth of (and thoughts in the minds of) Paul, Jesus and Scripture. Is this another unsubstantiated idea you have or is there a quote from Calvin where he states he is merely expressing what Paul held as being?

Since Paul did not actually write down the ideas expressed in Penal Substitution, do you believe Calvin received a special revelation from God?

Or did Calvin somehow encounter Paul in a time vortex where their minds were melded into one?

Since these "thoughts" - this "secret knowledge" '- are not actually written down, how did Calvin come to know them. How did he know that Paul really believed something not recorded????

 

[37818]

Can you defend Penal Substitution (the penal type of substitution the theory assumes)?

In other words, can you defend the theory's philosophy....i.e., how it gets from Christ bearing our sin, God laying our sin on Christ, Christ dying for us, man being redeemed by the blood of Christ, man being escaping wrath TO God punished Jesus for our sins instead of punishing us to satisfy the demands of justice and pay our sin debt?

I'm sure (at least I hope) you are able to discern the leap from Scripture to conclusion in Penal Substitution Theory. Even if the theory is correct, the contextualization needs to be both explained and defended to prove it correct.

Like the term Trinity, Penal Substitution is a name of an explanation. Penal referring to the penalty of sin (Ezekiel 18:4; Romans 6:23 a). And substitution as to who is in place of the sinner (Isaiah 53:6; Romans 5:8). And it is not like you do not know this. Quite frankly I do under your view.

 

[JonC]

Like the term Trinity, Penal Substitution is a name of an explanation. Penal referring to the penalty of sin (Ezekiel 18:4; Romans 6:23 a). And substitution as to who is in place of the sinner (Isaiah 53:6; Romans 5:8). And it is not like you do not know this. Quite frankly I do under your view.

Except what is explained in the doctrine of the Trinity is literally in Scripture (depending on one's doctrine, I suppose).

There are no passages that affirm a penal type of substitution as being just - much less redemptive. That is why it is a theory (it is reasoned out without specific proof in the text itself)

And you prove it here. You find penal elements, substitutionary elements, and come out with Penal Substitution.