-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Penal Substitution Theology and the faith of those without it
- Thread starter JonC
- Start date
- Status
NT Wright would deny that the death of Jesus was done in order to enfure/face the wrath of God directed towards Him in place of sinners, as he holds that he died for wrath of Rome...
And not saying that it is ONLY way to see the atonement, but it is throughly biblcal, as both Jesus and the Apostles make that really clear to us!
And those against it claim that God was a child molester, as he forced jesus to suffer for something that he did not need to do, but the truth is that he was fully involved in the process, and agreed to come to die in our stead!
And not saying that it is ONLY way to see the atonement, but it is throughly biblcal, as both Jesus and the Apostles make that really clear to us!
And those against it claim that God was a child molester, as he forced jesus to suffer for something that he did not need to do, but the truth is that he was fully involved in the process, and agreed to come to die in our stead!
Indeed Yesua1:
It's called propitiation ...
Romans 3:25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
1 John 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.
1 John 4:10 Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.
Right on again...
John 10:17 Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again.
John 10:18 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.
HankD
Insofar as NT Wright is concerned, you are correct in what you have the man affirming, but wrong in what you have him denying (Wright does not seem to separate history and theology as we would. On that topic he is, however, fairly consistent with the early church (which I always found a bit near sighted at times). Anyway, I suggest starting a thread of his views if it concerns you so much as to bring him up on this topic (I could understand if the topic were different, but here it seems a bit off).
There is a difference between rejecting penal substitution and rejecting another person's position of Penal Substitution Theory.
https://blogs.thegospelcoalition.or...-tell-me-nt-wright-denies-penal-substitution/
Last edited:
"Everything we need for God’s forgiveness, for the removal of God’s anger, and for reconciliation with God himself can be found in Jesus."
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/getting-to-the-heart-of-atonement
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/getting-to-the-heart-of-atonement
Lots of fuzzy posts - hiding a wolf in sheep's clothing. Penal substitution holds Christ died for the specific sins of specific individuals, thus advocates Limited Atonement. This is the elephant in the room.
The other view is Christ died for the sin of the world, all mankind. When any individual is placed spiritually into Christ, their sins, past, present and future, are taken away, removed by the Circumcision of Christ. It is that simple. No need to over think it.
The other view is Christ died for the sin of the world, all mankind. When any individual is placed spiritually into Christ, their sins, past, present and future, are taken away, removed by the Circumcision of Christ. It is that simple. No need to over think it.
Penal substitution does not necessarily mean what you make it to mean, Van. You are ignoring that the Calvinistic doctrine of Limited Atonement was articulated almost a century after Penal Substitution as well as the fact that John Wesley was one if it's (PST) strongest advocates.
It is not that Penal Substitution itself is a "Trojan horse" for limited atonement but that a particular view of limited atonement grew out of inflating penal substitution to unbibical proportion. You are stereotyping, brother.
A very interesting read. I'm glad to see that Wright agrees with me that Jesus on the cross experienced separation from the Father.
But if Wright is such a big fan of PSA, will someone tell me why he wrote an enthusiastic foreword to Steve Chalke's Lost Message of Jesus in which Chalke describes PSA as 'Cosmic Child Abuse'?
I knew you'd agree with N.T. Wright sooner or later. Laugh...I actually disagree with him on several points - but not really what he said of separation (if he means taking God's wrath, not being separated from the Spirit). But if he agrees with you on the "forsaken" issue, then he definitely holds to a PSA view.A very interesting read. I'm glad to see that Wright agrees with me that Jesus on the cross experienced separation from the Father.
But if Wright is such a big fan of PSA, will someone tell me why he wrote an enthusiastic foreword to Steve Chalke's Lost Message of Jesus in which Chalke describes PSA as 'Cosmic Child Abuse'?
I have read several forwards authored by people who don't actually espouse a particular view. And I will say that some have presented PSA in what could (IMHO) be termed "cosmic child abuse". Maybe it is because Wright does not seem to separate history and theology and Chalke's view seems very similar if not identical to the writings of the early church. But I suspect it is because Wright appreciates what Chalke has to say about the view they share instead of his comments on PSA (remember, Wright focuses more on Christus Victor).
I'm also guilty of violating the same principle. I highly encourage people to read John Calvin's works on prayer (they are outstanding) but at the same time I reject his reasoning in support of infant baptism and a state-Church. I also like (really like) C.S. Lewis, but I disagree with him on many points. And Tozier...and D.L. Moody...
I don't agree with him; he agrees with me. Biggrin The article has not made me change my view of him. As I have said several times, he is all the more dangerous because he is so nearly right.
Laugh We are all a bit dangerous because we're nearly right.
I glanced at Amazon for a moment before I responded and found this interesting. J.I. Packer commended one of N.T. Wright’s books for “tweaking” distortions back into shape and “it’s first-class approach to Bible study,” “masterly throughout.” The book? “Scripture and the Authority of God: How to Read the Bible Today” (Published in 2013). I found it a bit ironic giving the climate on other threads towards the brother. Packer, Piper, and Carson disagree with N.T. Wright, but none of them seem to think he's the heretic others here seem to want him to be.
Hi Jon, lets review:
You maintain that PSA is not a Trojan horse for Limited Atonement. I am not alone in maintaining that it is.
Here are the two views:
Christ died for the specific sins of the elect.
Christ died for the sin of all mankind, elect and non-elect.
If Christ died for the specific sins of all mankind, then God is demanding "double payment" punishing Christ for the specific sins of those in hell, and punishing those in hell for their sins.
Often you will see the line, "Christ died for our sins" but "our" is not defined as all mankind or as the elect. Hence a Trojan horse, with a "hidden" agenda.
Unless you define "your" view of PSA as Christ dying for the sin of all mankind, you are pushing Limited Atonement. Please provide a quote which supports your assertion.
You maintain that PSA is not a Trojan horse for Limited Atonement. I am not alone in maintaining that it is.
Here are the two views:
Christ died for the specific sins of the elect.
Christ died for the sin of all mankind, elect and non-elect.
If Christ died for the specific sins of all mankind, then God is demanding "double payment" punishing Christ for the specific sins of those in hell, and punishing those in hell for their sins.
Often you will see the line, "Christ died for our sins" but "our" is not defined as all mankind or as the elect. Hence a Trojan horse, with a "hidden" agenda.
Unless you define "your" view of PSA as Christ dying for the sin of all mankind, you are pushing Limited Atonement. Please provide a quote which supports your assertion.
I though that I had given you a pretty good hint by pointing you to the theology of John Wesley. In short, history proves you wrong.
The narrow view of PSA that you hold is not the only view of PSA in existence. You are lumping all men into a category and then fighting that characterization.
Martin provided a good example when he appealed to the penal substitution of the Early Church Fathers. They certainly did not hold a PSA view as you imply to be the norm, but they did hold to penal and substitutionary aspects of the atonement.
Lots of folks claiming I am wrong, but note that no quote was forthcoming to say PSA refers to Christ dying for all mankind.
Here is one view: "Kenneth J. Collins in his book "The Theology of John Wesley: Holy Love and the Shape of Grace" writes, "for Wesley, Christ makes compensation and satisfies the justice of God precisely by standing in the place of sinful humanity," Note that this view refers to "sinful humanity" not "sinners" as in specific individuals.
Show me a quote that says PSA refers to Christ dying for "sinful humanity" today. That little tidbit is left out of the definitions found today. PSA today refers to the Reformed view.
Here is the Wikipedia definition: "Penal substitution (sometimes, esp. in older writings, called forensic theory) is a theory of the atonement within Christian theology, developed with the Reformed tradition. It argues that Christ, by his own sacrificial choice, was punished (penalized) in the place of sinners (substitution)...." Note the reference to specific "sinners."
Again, if you define PSA as Christ dying for all mankind, you are referring to an old and outdated view.
Here is one view: "Kenneth J. Collins in his book "The Theology of John Wesley: Holy Love and the Shape of Grace" writes, "for Wesley, Christ makes compensation and satisfies the justice of God precisely by standing in the place of sinful humanity," Note that this view refers to "sinful humanity" not "sinners" as in specific individuals.
Show me a quote that says PSA refers to Christ dying for "sinful humanity" today. That little tidbit is left out of the definitions found today. PSA today refers to the Reformed view.
Here is the Wikipedia definition: "Penal substitution (sometimes, esp. in older writings, called forensic theory) is a theory of the atonement within Christian theology, developed with the Reformed tradition. It argues that Christ, by his own sacrificial choice, was punished (penalized) in the place of sinners (substitution)...." Note the reference to specific "sinners."
Again, if you define PSA as Christ dying for all mankind, you are referring to an old and outdated view.
Limited Atonement?
1 John 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.
Some within certain groups (Reformed, Calvinist, etc.) make the statement that in 1 John 2:2 the differential reference is to the Jewish world (our sins) versus the gentile world (whole world).
However in 1 John there is no such division between Jew and gentile established anywhere in the epistle so the differential reference is highly unlikely (IMO) but simply refers to “we” versus “the whole world”.
In addition the term “elect” is not established in this epistle either.
But we do have this revelation:
1 John 5:19 We know that we are of God, and the whole world lies under the sway of the wicked one.
If limited atonement is true how then is the following verse explained?
2 Peter 2:1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.
Also, human reasoning is sometimes used making statements as – If Christ died for both the elect and the lost then Christ died in vain for those who end up in the lake of Fire.
The logic and rationale of God
Proverbs 16:4 The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.
Jesus bought the entire human race, we are all His possession to do with us whatsoever He pleases and to assign us to whatever eternal end He pleases.
Psalm 115:3 But our God is in the heavens: he hath done whatsoever he hath pleased.
HankD
1 John 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.
Some within certain groups (Reformed, Calvinist, etc.) make the statement that in 1 John 2:2 the differential reference is to the Jewish world (our sins) versus the gentile world (whole world).
However in 1 John there is no such division between Jew and gentile established anywhere in the epistle so the differential reference is highly unlikely (IMO) but simply refers to “we” versus “the whole world”.
In addition the term “elect” is not established in this epistle either.
But we do have this revelation:
1 John 5:19 We know that we are of God, and the whole world lies under the sway of the wicked one.
If limited atonement is true how then is the following verse explained?
2 Peter 2:1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.
Also, human reasoning is sometimes used making statements as – If Christ died for both the elect and the lost then Christ died in vain for those who end up in the lake of Fire.
The logic and rationale of God
Proverbs 16:4 The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.
Jesus bought the entire human race, we are all His possession to do with us whatsoever He pleases and to assign us to whatever eternal end He pleases.
Psalm 115:3 But our God is in the heavens: he hath done whatsoever he hath pleased.
HankD
Yea...I know. And we can find numerous definitions for marriage as well. Point is you would be far better off stating and defending what you believe than denouncing the views of others.
Here is a quote from Leon Morris
The Reformers agreed with Anselm that sin is a very serious matter, but they saw it as a breaking of God's law rather than as an insult to God's honor. The moral law, they held, is not to be taken lightly. "The wages of sin is death" (Rom. 6:23), and it is this that is the problem for sinful man. They took seriously the scriptural teachings about the wrath of God and those that referred to the curse under which sinners lay. It seemed clear to them that the essence of Christ's saving work consisted in his taking the sinner's place. In our stead Christ endured the death that is the wages of sin. He bore the curse that we sinners should have borne (Gal. 3:13). The Reformers did not hesitate to speak of Christ as having borne our punishment or as having appeased the wrath of God in our place.
Such views have been widely criticized. In particular it is pointed out that sin is not an external matter to be transferred easily from one person to another and that, while some forms of penalty are transferable (the payment of a fine), others are not (imprisonment, capital punishment). It is urged that this theory sets Christ in opposition to the Father so that it maximizes the love of Christ and minimizes that of the Father. Such criticisms may be valid against some of the ways in which the theory is stated, but they do not shake its essential basis. They overlook the fact that there is a double identification: Christ is one with sinners (the saved are "in" Christ, Rom. 8:1) and he is one with the Father (he and the Father are one, John 10:30; "God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself," 2 Cor. 5:19). They also overlook the fact that there is much in the NT that supports the theory. It is special pleading to deny that Paul, for example, puts forward this view. It may need to be carefully stated, but this view still says something important about the way Christ won our salvation.
Yea...I know. And we can find numerous definitions for marriage as well. Point is you would be far better off stating and defending what you believe than denouncing the views of others.
Here is a quote from Leon Morris
The Reformers agreed with Anselm that sin is a very serious matter, but they saw it as a breaking of God's law rather than as an insult to God's honor. The moral law, they held, is not to be taken lightly. "The wages of sin is death" (Rom. 6:23), and it is this that is the problem for sinful man. They took seriously the scriptural teachings about the wrath of God and those that referred to the curse under which sinners lay. It seemed clear to them that the essence of Christ's saving work consisted in his taking the sinner's place. In our stead Christ endured the death that is the wages of sin. He bore the curse that we sinners should have borne (Gal. 3:13). The Reformers did not hesitate to speak of Christ as having borne our punishment or as having appeased the wrath of God in our place.
Such views have been widely criticized. In particular it is pointed out that sin is not an external matter to be transferred easily from one person to another and that, while some forms of penalty are transferable (the payment of a fine), others are not (imprisonment, capital punishment). It is urged that this theory sets Christ in opposition to the Father so that it maximizes the love of Christ and minimizes that of the Father. Such criticisms may be valid against some of the ways in which the theory is stated, but they do not shake its essential basis. They overlook the fact that there is a double identification: Christ is one with sinners (the saved are "in" Christ, Rom. 8:1) and he is one with the Father (he and the Father are one, John 10:30; "God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself," 2 Cor. 5:19). They also overlook the fact that there is much in the NT that supports the theory. It is special pleading to deny that Paul, for example, puts forward this view. It may need to be carefully stated, but this view still says something important about the way Christ won our salvation.
It's a different topic, but Van is right that some hold a skewed view of Penal Substitution Theory which leads to another skewed view of the scope of the atonement.
Jesus did die, as Calvin insisted, for the sins of all mankind. He did, as the early church insisted, bear the sin of mankind. But that does not mean that the Cross is not for those saved something that it was not for those who are remained lost (and this by God's design). Limited Atonement and PSA falls apart when it is restricted to a ledger system of accounting sins. Doing so forms an easy to follow doctrine, but unfortunately what is being followed is far from biblical.
Jesus bore our sins, and the sins of the world. Reconciling man to Himself, Jesus bore the penalty of sin in His flesh. Jesus is the savior of all, especially those who believe. But Jesus died on the cross to redeem only those who would believe. Redemption is certainly limited. Atonement is certainly penal and substitutionary.
I have demonstrated PSA and Limited Atonement are mistaken views. I have not denounced anyone, only the "skewed view of PSA."
Spot on. Now provide a quote that supports the "unskewed" view. The Leon Morris quote referred to Christ taking "the sinners" place, the limited atonement view.
Again, when PSA is used in the modern context, it is the Reformed view, not the "unskewed" view.
- Status