Penal Substitution.

[37818]

. . . Sins can be transferred. (Leviticus 16:21; 2 Corinthians 5:21). . . .

Well an interpretation of the meaning of transferred. The Leviticus reference is svmbolic. The Corinthians reference is an act of God. Neither actually removed the sins from the other to make those sins to be actually absent [1 John 1:8 and 1 John 1:10.] There are standings that God does for us. Psalms 103:12. Jeremiah 31:34.

 

[Revmitchell]

He made Him who aknew no sin to be bsin on our behalf, so that we might become the crighteousness of God in Him. 2 For 5:21

Scripture is clear this verse without doubt says that Jesus became the sin we were guilty of. This act made is righteousness through faith.

He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we fmight die to sin and glive to righteousness. hBy his wounds you have been healed. 1 Peter 2:24 His suffering paid the debt for our sin as He took on our sin, became guilty of our sin, died for our sin. That act propitiated the Father, satisfied His wrath and considered out offense paid for.

Jesus became our sin and took our punishment. Anything contrary to that is pure heresy. It is heresy because it goes to the heart of the gospel.

 

[JonC]

He made Him who aknew no sin to be bsin on our behalf, so that we might become the crighteousness of God in Him. 2 For 5:21

Scripture is clear this verse without doubt says that Jesus became the sin we were guilty of. This act made is righteousness through faith.

He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we fmight die to sin and glive to righteousness. hBy his wounds you have been healed. 1 Peter 2:24 His suffering paid the debt for our sin as He took on our sin, became guilty of our sin, died for our sin. That act propitiated the Father, satisfied His wrath and considered out offense paid for.

Jesus became our sin and took our punishment. Anything contrary to that is pure heresy. It is heresy because it goes to the heart of the gospel.

I agree....if you add to Scripture.

Fortunately we have a rich Christian history of faithful believers who did not add to Scripture to draw upon.

The problem is rather than defending, or even offering an explanation for, the presuppositions inherent in the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement those who hold that view imagine it is the main view held by Christians. But it is not.

In fact, the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement was not articulated until the Protestant Reformation. Prior to the Theory was another - Substitution Theory, but that theory went to great pains to explain Christ was not punished for our sins.

Without John Calvin and his studies in Humanistic Law (particularly his commentary on De Clementia) the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement would not exist today.

 

[unprofitable]

If Christ did not take on our sins and die for them in our stead, then why did the Father forsake him? Hab 1:13, says, "Thou are of purer eyes that to behold evil, and cast not look on iniquity..." The Father separating himself from the Son is evident in his forsaking him. This would not have been necessary had Christ not taken our sins upon him.

The very self existent Son being separated from the very self existent Father is a punishment/wrath/darkness for sin beyond our comprehension.

 

[SavedByGrace]

The question Christians need to correctly understand. What is the difference between what is deemed to be a false teaching of Penal Substitution Theory from the Biblical penal substitution?

here we go again!

there are certain folk on here, who simply do not grasp that Penal Substitution is the ONLY Biblical Teaching on the Death of Jesus Christ. they will continue to reject and deny the CLEAR Bible passages that Teach this great Truth!

Why the need for yet another thread is beyond me

 

[Martin Marprelate]

The Leviticus reference is symbolic.

Leviticus 16:21. 'And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins, putting them upon the head of the goat, and shall send him away by the hand of a fit man into the wilderness.' The sins are not symbolically placed on the goat; according to the text they are actually put there. The text is typical rather than symbolic.

The Corinthians reference is an act of God. Neither actually removed the sins from the other to make those sins to be actually absent [1 John 1:8 and 1 John 1:10.]

2 Corinthians 5:21. 'For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.' Christ is made sin; we are made righteousness. This is what Luther called the 'great exchange.' He takes our sin upon Himself and pays the penalty for it; we receive His righteousness imputed to us. 1 Peter 2:24. 'Who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree.' How could our Lord bear our sins in His body unless they were somehow transferred to Him? 1 John 1:8, 10 have nothing to say on this. But 1 John 1:9 states that God is faithful and just to forgive us our sins. How can He be just and forgive sins without punishment? He doesn't. Christ has paid the penalty for them in full.

There are standings that God does for us. Psalms 103:12. Jeremiah 31:34.

Psalms 103:12. 'As far as the east is from the west, so far has He removed our transgressions from us.' Amen! But Exodus 34:7 tells us that God is 'by no means clearing the guilty.' It is only because the Lord Jesus Christ has Himself removed our transgressions from us by paying the penalty Himself that God is able to be 'just and the justifier of the one who believes in Jesus.'

 

[Martin Marprelate]

There is actually no such thing as 'Penal Substitution Theory.'
There is a Doctrine of Penal Substitution which states that 'God gave Himself i the person of His Son to suffer instead of us the death, punishment and curse due to fallen humanity as the penalty of sin' ('Pierced for our Transgression' by Ovey, Jeffery and Sach, IVP, 2007). Although this is a modern definition, the gist of these words has ben upheld by most of the Church Fathers.

There is a 'theory of penal substitution theory' which makes certain incorrect statements about Penal Substitution such as:
1. God was angry with Jesus. This is not so. God is angry with sinners (Psalms 5:4-6)..
2. God punished Jesus. This is not so. God punished sin; The Lord Jesus was made the sin bearer (Isaiah 53:6; 2 Cor. 5:21).
3. The Lord Jesus was an unwilling participant at the cross. This is not so. Psalm 40:8; John 10:17-18; Philippians 2:5-8.

 

[JonC]

If Christ did not take on our sins and die for them in our stead, then why did the Father forsake him? Hab 1:13, says, "Thou are of purer eyes that to behold evil, and cast not look on iniquity..." The Father separating himself from the Son is evident in his forsaking him. This would not have been necessary had Christ not taken our sins upon him.

The very self existent Son being separated from the very self existent Father is a punishment/wrath/darkness for sin beyond our comprehension.

The Father forsook Christ to suffer and die. This was Christ becoming a curse for us, sharing our infirmity, etc. Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53 tells us the Father did not leave, or turn from, His "Righteous One" and did indeed deliver Him.

What does Scripture tell us?

1. Christ is of purer eyes that to behold evil, and cast not look on iniquity.

2. God will not punish the Righteous and acquit the wicked. Both are equally abominations in His sight.

So we know from Scripture that the interpretation God punished Christ instead of punishing us is wrong.

But what if the Early Church was right?

What if John Calvin did not discover a truth about the atonement that was hidden since Christ was resurrected?

 

[JonC]

There is actually no such thing as 'Penal Substitution Theory.'
There is a Doctrine of Penal Substitution which states that 'God gave Himself i the person of His Son to suffer instead of us the death, punishment and curse due to fallen humanity as the penalty of sin' ('Pierced for our Transgression' by Ovey, Jeffery and Sach, IVP, 2007). Although this is a modern definition, the gist of these words has ben upheld by most of the Church Fathers.

There is a 'theory of penal substitution theory' which makes certain incorrect statements about Penal Substitution such as:
1. God was angry with Jesus. This is not so. God is angry with sinners (Psalms 5:4-6)..
2. God punished Jesus. This is not so. God punished sin; The Lord Jesus was made the sin bearer (Isaiah 53:6; 2 Cor. 5:21).
3. The Lord Jesus was an unwilling participant at the cross. This is not so. Psalm 40:8; John 10:17-18; Philippians 2:5-8.

This is a false statement.

The Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement is a theory because it is not stayed in Scripture. It is also a doctrine because it is taught by men who believe it is true.

Same with the Moral Influence Theory of Atonement, Recapitulation, the Government Theory, etc. They are all theories of the Cross, and they are all doctrines insofar as they are taught.

And this is what I mean when I pointed out that some adherents of Penal Substitution Theory are willfully blind to its presuppositions so they pretend they do not exist, that the only view is Penal Substitution Theory.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

The Doctrine of Penal Substitution has ben taught since the earliest days of the Church. The ECFs were very taken up arguing with Gnostics and others about the nature of Christ, but when they do write about PSA, they support it.

Clement of Rome. 'In love the Ruler took us to Himself. Because of the love He had towards us, Jesus Christ our Lord gave His blood for us by the will of God, His flesh for our flesh, His life for our life' [Epistle to the Corinthians XLIX]
Irenaeus. 'The Lord redeemed us by His blood and gave His life for our life, His flesh for our flesh, and poured out the Spirit of the Father to unite us and reconcile God and man' ['Adversus Haereses,' v, i, 1-2]

It is also quite wrong to say that Calvin was the first of the Reformers to write about Penal Substitution. Luther and Tyndale taught the doctrine before Calvin. Probably Bucer as well, but I don't have his works in front of me.

Penal Substitution is so clearly and so prominently taught in Scripture that it is a wonder that anyone would deny it.

 

[JonC]

The Doctrine of Penal Substitution has ben taught since the earliest days of the Church. The ECFs were very taken up arguing with Gnostics and others about the nature of Christ, but when they do write about PSA, they support it.

Clement of Rome. 'In love the Ruler took us to Himself. Because of the love He had towards us, Jesus Christ our Lord gave His blood for us by the will of God, His flesh for our flesh, His life for our life' [Epistle to the Corinthians XLIX]
Irenaeus. 'The Lord redeemed us by His blood and gave His life for our life, His flesh for our flesh, and poured out the Spirit of the Father to unite us and reconcile God and man' ['Adversus Haereses,' v, i, 1-2]

It is also quite wrong to say that Calvin was the first of the Reformers to write about Penal Substitution. Luther and Tyndale taught the doctrine before Calvin. Probably Bucer as well, but I don't have his works in front of me.

Penal Substitution is so clearly and so prominently taught in Scripture that it is a wonder that anyone would deny it.

No, it has not. We have been down this road before.

You assume Christ giving His life for our life means those people believed Penal Substitution Theory.

But those who reject the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement believe Christ died for us, the Just for the unjust.

I am not sure that you are able to see what you add to those early Christians. I am not sure you see what you add to Scripture.

But others have.

I thought these discussions were worthless, but over the years three have told me they came to see Penal Substitution Theory as an error based on the dialogue between you and me. Three is not a lot, but that is three people who have moved towards Scripture.

So to others who may read this thread -

Read @Martin Marprelate 's quotes, the ones he says proves Penal Substitution Theory was held by the ECF's:


Clement of Rome. 'In love the Ruler took us to Himself. Because of the love He had towards us, Jesus Christ our Lord gave His blood for us by the will of God, His flesh for our flesh, His life for our life' [Epistle to the Corinthians XLIX]

Irenaeus. 'The Lord redeemed us by His blood and gave His life for our life, His flesh for our flesh, and poured out the Spirit of the Father to unite us and reconcile God and man' ['Adversus Haereses,' v, i, 1-2]


All Christians, even those who reject Penal Substitution Theory, affirm the two quotes @Martin Marprelate offered.

Now look at Martins definition of Penal Substitution Theory :

'God gave Himself i the person of His Son to suffer instead of us the death, punishment and curse due to fallen humanity as the penalty of sin.

@Martin Marprelate is probably an honest man, but he is not trustworthy when it comes to handling quotes as he sees what is not there.

 

[JesusFan]

That is easy.

What you and I are talking about in agreement....what you call "penal substitution"...is God laying our iniquities on Christ, Christ laying down His life for us, Christ ransoming us, Christ becoming a curse for us, Christ being made sin for us, us being healed by His stripes, Christ being the Last Adam, the Firstborn of many brethern, the Propitiation in Whom we escape the wrath to come, etc....that is biblical.

Where things go off the reservation and into philosophical (and unbilical) carnal "wisdom" is in the amalgamation of Christianity with paganism called the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement.

The difference between what you and I agree upon (what you call penal substitution) and the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement is the Theory is based on a lie (it is based on a humanistic idea of justice popular in the 16th century). Penal Substitution theorists agree with us, but then they add that Christ suffered God's wrath, God punished Jesus instead of punishing us, sins can be transfered from a person to another person, God condemned the Righteous to acquit the guilty, etc.

What you and I agree on (what you call penal substitution) is biblical. But calling it penal substitution can lead others to think we hold to another gospel by believing the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement correct.

We agree with Pauline Justification, while you reject it!

 

[Revmitchell]

The Doctrine of Penal Substitution has ben taught since the earliest days of the Church. The ECFs were very taken up arguing with Gnostics and others about the nature of Christ, but when they do write about PSA, they support it.

Clement of Rome. 'In love the Ruler took us to Himself. Because of the love He had towards us, Jesus Christ our Lord gave His blood for us by the will of God, His flesh for our flesh, His life for our life' [Epistle to the Corinthians XLIX]
Irenaeus. 'The Lord redeemed us by His blood and gave His life for our life, His flesh for our flesh, and poured out the Spirit of the Father to unite us and reconcile God and man' ['Adversus Haereses,' v, i, 1-2]

It is also quite wrong to say that Calvin was the first of the Reformers to write about Penal Substitution. Luther and Tyndale taught the doctrine before Calvin. Probably Bucer as well, but I don't have his works in front of me.

Penal Substitution is so clearly and so prominently taught in Scripture that it is a wonder that anyone would deny it.

So did :

Clement of Rome:

"Because of the love he felt for us, Jesus Christ our Lord gave his blood for us by the

Ignatius


"Now, He suffered all these things, for our sakes that we might be saved"

Epistle of Barnabas


"For to this end the Lord endured to deliver up His flesh to corruption, that we might be sanctified through the remission of sins, which is eifected by His blood of sprinkling. For it is written concerning Him, partly with reference to Israel, and partly to us; and [the Scripture] saith thus: "He was wounded for our transgressions, and bruised for our iniquities: with His stripes we are healed. He was brought as a sheep to the slaughter, as a lamb which is dumb before its shearer



There are more.

Look once someone says that Jesus took on our since and suffered because of them, then they try to make the case that it doesn't mean Penal substitution they have lost all credibility.

 

[JesusFan]

The Doctrine of Penal Substitution has ben taught since the earliest days of the Church. The ECFs were very taken up arguing with Gnostics and others about the nature of Christ, but when they do write about PSA, they support it.

Clement of Rome. 'In love the Ruler took us to Himself. Because of the love He had towards us, Jesus Christ our Lord gave His blood for us by the will of God, His flesh for our flesh, His life for our life' [Epistle to the Corinthians XLIX]
Irenaeus. 'The Lord redeemed us by His blood and gave His life for our life, His flesh for our flesh, and poured out the Spirit of the Father to unite us and reconcile God and man' ['Adversus Haereses,' v, i, 1-2]

It is also quite wrong to say that Calvin was the first of the Reformers to write about Penal Substitution. Luther and Tyndale taught the doctrine before Calvin. Probably Bucer as well, but I don't have his works in front of me.

Penal Substitution is so clearly and so prominently taught in Scripture that it is a wonder that anyone would deny it.

Any who reads Stott the Cross of Christ and Morris the Apostolic Preaching of the Cross and the Atonement its meaning and significance , would have to agree with Psa!

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I do not know anything about the mythical 'Penal Substitution Theory.'
If Christ gives 'His life for our life and His flesh for our flesh' That is Penal Substitution. He takes the penalty instead of us.

 

[JesusFan]

I do not know anything about the mythical 'Penal Substitution Theory.'
If Christ gives 'His life for our life and His flesh for our flesh' That is Penal Substitution. He takes the penalty instead of us.

Strange are there were FEW who argued against psa from either the reformed or Baptist tradition until very recently, when the concept of wrath of God became something seen as "pagan!"

 

[JonC]

We agree with Pauline Justification, while you reject it!

If by Pauling justification you mean Scripture, then you are incorrect. We can disagree on interpretation, but my view is expressed in the actual text of God's Word while yours is not.

Therefore it falls on you to defend the ideas you add to "what is written". You can say that is what is taught, but until you demonstrate your ideas as actually being taught you are an irrelevant voice.

What you mean is I do not believe Pauline Justification as presented by the Reformers in the 16th century. And you are correct. But it does not matter because I do hold Pauline Justification as found in the epistles of Paul.

 

[JonC]

Strange are there were FEW who argued against psa from either the reformed or Baptist tradition until very recently, when the concept of wrath of God became something seen as "pagan!"

This is somewhat of a false statement, but there is some truth in it as well.

Christians have opposed the Penal Substitution Theory since it was invented during the Reformation. Many Christians stood against the Reformers complaining they did not go far enough and instead remained too caught up in RCC dogma.

But more and more there are Christians who traditionally affirmed the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement seeking a more biblical position. This is true in Calvinism as a couple of movements are seeking to reform the Reformed.

The reason is the fallacies presupposed by the Theory are more obvious. We can read Calvin and see where his ideas originated.

 

[unprofitable]

The Father forsook Christ to suffer and die. This was Christ becoming a curse for us, sharing our infirmity, etc. Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53 tells us the Father did not leave, or turn from, His "Righteous One" and did indeed deliver Him.

What does Scripture tell us?

1. Christ is of purer eyes that to behold evil, and cast not look on iniquity.

2. God will not punish the Righteous and acquit the wicked. Both are equally abominations in His sight.

So we know from Scripture that the interpretation God punished Christ instead of punishing us is wrong.

But what if the Early Church was right?

What if John Calvin did not discover a truth about the atonement that was hidden since Christ was resurrected?

When Christ took our sins, he took them all, including our going after the gods of the nations in the form of believing/ perverting judgment and justice by the errors of their doctrinal systems. The main point of Israel being forsaken because they went after the gods of the nations is mentioned repeatedly in the old testament Deut 28:20, Jud 10:10, 1 Sam 8:8, 2 Kgs 22:17 are just a few of the examples. The Father said that because Israel had forsaken him, he would forsake them.

1. Christ is of purer eyes than to behold evil and canst not look upon iniquity means he will not justify the wicked works (failing to do judgment and justice by perverting the law) as did the scribes, lawyers and Pharisees. He refused to do judgment according to their wicked interpretations of the law.

2. Indeed God will not punish the righteous and acquit the wicked because he will always do judgment and justice. Christ willingly took our sins knowing what would be the cost and that was not just dying a physical death on the cross. To be separated from the Father would be an even greater wrath. Or do you not believe that Christ was separated from the Father?

3. Christ asking the Father, "Why has thou forsaken me?" is Christ making a definitive statement of fact. He did not ask, "Please do not forsake me." In paying for the sins of his people, as mentioned above, Christ had to pay for their sins of unbelief causing them to forsake the Father. He stood in their/our stead and was separated/forsaken by the Father as the Father had said he would do to them. Christ witnesses plainly that the Father indeed forsook him.

4. Christ also witnessed that the Father had already given him the power to lay down his life and the power to take it up again
The Father indeed did deliver him.

5 The early church knew the truth of penal substitution. John Calvin did not discover anything that the early church did not already know. Eph 3:10 says, "...that it might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God." It was already revealed

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Clement of Rome. 'In love the Ruler took us to Himself. Because of the love He had towards us, Jesus Christ our Lord gave His blood for us by the will of God, His flesh for our flesh, His life for our life' [Epistle to the Corinthians XLIX]
Irenaeus. 'The Lord redeemed us by His blood and gave His life for our life, His flesh for our flesh, and poured out the Spirit of the Father to unite us and reconcile God and man' ['Adversus Haereses,' v, i, 1-2]

All one has to do is read what the extracts say. There is a penalty, and Christ pays it on our behalf.
That these are very short comments is true. As I have said, the ECFs had other things on their minds. There is a lot more to the Doctrine than just a few lines, but nevertheless, it is there in embryo.