Penal Substitution

I know those words weren't addressed to me, but rest assured, the only label I will use for you is "Michael". :laugh: I agree with you that we should be able to discuss things without getting heated. However, I suggest that the dividing line between getting heated, and "stating strong belief strongly" (to use a term of yours in Post 68) can be very narrow. In posts on the BB, we cannot see the writer's facial expression or body language, which could help us determine which side of that dividing line the writer is on.

Two questions arose as I read your words:
1. Who are the innoncent? In various places, God says in His Word that no one is innocent, but that all have sinned/are sinners. Just a few examples:

For there is not a just man on earth who does good And does not sin. (Ec 7:20)
​

for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, (Ro 3:23)

But the Scripture has confined all under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. (Ga 3:22)

If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us. (1Jo 1:10)

​

2. Who said these words? (I'm not suggesting you don't know - I am sure you do):

"
​

43 If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter into life maimed, rather than having two hands, to go to hell, into the fire that shall never be quenched–– 44 where ‘Their worm does not die, And the fire is not quenched.’" (Mr 9:43-44)

​

"His winnowing fan is in His hand, and He will thoroughly clean out His threshing floor, and gather His wheat into the barn; but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire." (Mt 3:12)

"Then He will also say to those on the left hand, ‘Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels:" (Mt 25:41)

​

Yes, all (and others in a similar vein) are Christ's words. In my view, the idea that the God of the Old Testament is a God of wrath, and the Godc of the New Testament a God of love is false.

The defects are in us, not in the bible. Sometimes we misunderstand words by taking them out of context, for instance. Not one of us, I am sure, would claim perfect knowledge of the bible.

 

This just simply isn't the case, and if you were as au fait with Church History as you purport to be you would know it. The 'Ransom Theory' was formulated by Origen, but was opposed by others including Gregory of Nanzianus. I have given you several quotatons from ECFs showing that they adhered to Penal Substitution. Here is another one, this time from Augustine:-

That seems perfectly clear and simple to me. Either you must deal with each of the texts which I've provided, or you must stop repeating this nonsense about P.S. being unknown before Anselm and the Reformation. If that is what you believe, you have been told a falsehood. No shame in that, but when you hear the truth you need to reject the falsehood and hold to truth.

You have had the Bible quoted to you and the Fathers. It is you who need to submit to the facts.

There is a 'ransom' (Greek lutron literally, 'a loosing') that ws paid (Matt 20:28), but it was paid, not to Satan as Origen maintained, but to the Father. Read Romans 3:23-25.

I am sorry that you find the Gospel teaching offensive, but there is an 'offense of the cross' (Gal 5:11). If you look back to the quotation I gave from Justin Martyr, you will see that it was offensive to Trypho the Jew that Christ should be made a curse. The preaching of the cross is a stumbling block to many (1 Cor 1:23), 'But to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.'

For anyone interested in researching this topic may I recommend The Cross by John Stott, or Pierced for our Transgessions by Jeffrey, Ovey and Sach (IVP ISBN 978-1-84474-178-6). This last one is a recent book by four young(ish) English theologians and is very well regarded.

Failing these, any good Systematic Theology such as The Christian Faith by Michael Horton will be able to help.

Steve

 

I believe that we are all here because we "like to discuss things" especially the difficult things of God and God's doctrines.

Concerning your label of moderate -- as that is a middle of the road position where one sometimes fails to stand for anything concrete, I will accept that you see yourself in that light. That, however, does not negate the fact that you have come here and offered to us a very liberal interpretation of the Scriptures, and more so, argued with some veracity FOR that position. Thus, we do not in particular label YOU but rather YOUR ARGUMENT as liberal.

I've yet to find anyone in Christendom who actually self-labels as "liberal" but I can find countless examples of such doctrinal stances argued.

Some, over the years, who do not understand the perspective of James (including Martin Luther) have argued that James disagrees with Paul, and with the general concept of grace through faith, and that not of works. The error here is in examining James' vantage point. While Paul and others argue forward (from God's perspective) -- we are first saved by grace through faith, James argues backward (from our perspective) that our works demonstrate that we were saved by grace through faith. In this light there is no contradiction whatsoever with James. There are many who hold this perspective -- virtually all who do not seek to take apart Scripture and make it divided against itself (and by inference, as you have aptly argued below) -- and God with it.

There can logically and doctrinally be no contradictions in Scripture unless one starts to decide which part of Scripture are "God's words" versus the whole of Scripture being "God's Word." This argument, in fact, is at the heart of the debate between liberal and orthodox Christianity and was the driving point of the SBC conservative resurgence (we are debating that issue on another thread, feel free to jump in over there).

In order to accept your premise prima facie, one would have to then eliminate EVERY occurence in the OT of God's grace in evidence and also in the NT every occurance of the wrath of God detailed. That means that the passages that prophecy Christ returning to us with sword in hand must be struck from the NT as the God of love could never divide people -- sheep from goats -- wheat from tares -- regenerate from non-regenerate -- evil from righteous, and that not of ourselves but imputed from Christ who IS our righteousness.

Even ONE example of either in either text would make your argument invalid according to the Law of Non-Contradiction, and I can easily cite dozens of cases in either text that defeat your proposition. That means that your proposition is un-true.

You so easily attribute to God (the god of the OT in your reconing, for he cannot be GOD of all) a sinful demeanor, which may in fact be nothing more than the sinful actions of a human man.

What of Christ? Can we find any examples where He cursed something? How about turning away some individual who came to Him? Both happened. We dare not forget that Christ is not JUST the "God of Love" but that He is also Just Judge and has/will (already, but not yet) be the judge of all with the power to destroy as well as to save.

There are so many differnt denominations and theological systems because we are yet under the effects of the curse of sin and because of that we do not always see clearly. To attribute such to God is to make God in our image instead of what Scripture says about God, i.e., that He is PERFECT with no shadow of darkness within Him, that He is RIGHTEOUS, with no hint of sin or degredation, that He is HOLY, utterly separated from His creation, and that He is ALL POWERFUL to accomplish His perfect will, no matter whether we like it, believe in it, follow it, or understand it.

With an enemy working against God and God's people it would be amazing and unbelievable in the extreme for there NOT to be counterfeits, usurping of God's power, misunderstanding, and direct leading away from God and God's doctrines. And, so, in observation of humanity we find that God is true, always, and that we are true once in a while when we keep our gaze afixed on God instead of God's people.

Brother, we are ALL taught by someone. You have laid out the standard liberal approach to the Scriptures whether or not you realize it, and I can take you back in the works of theology to the precise individuals who first promulgated your approach, show you how it was developped down through the ages, and also show you the results of that approach in the church (term used very loosely in this case, for once one disavows themselves of God all that is left is anthropocentrically-driven religious effort).

To suggest that you alone, of all the citizens of this earth, have arrived at these conclusions is to be disingenous to yourself first, then to the rest of us by way of your own delusion.

And, finally, we HAVE discovered that you hold standard far liberal doctrines concerning the Word of God. We can then infer that you hold them as well for other doctrines that derive from that Word, but perhaps you are heterodox only in your view of Scripture and orthodox in the balance of your doctrines, I don't know for we have yet to examine more than one or two issues. Your response now is to take the Berean track and search the Scriptures to discover the truths of God then recant and repent of your abuse of both.

 

-Jesus beating people up and whipping them in the temple.
-Jesus warning people about the Tower of Salome Disaster, saying it would happen to them as well.
-Jesus warning about the Destruction of Jerusalem in which many innocents would be killed.
-Jesus calling the Pharisees sons of vipers and every other name in the book.
-Jesus saying those who did not accept his teachings had the Devil as their father.
-Jesus introducing for the first time in scripture the concept of the lake of fire and eternal torment in flames, and talking about Hell more than any other individual in the entire Bible.

See above, regarding Jesus driving people out of the temple with a whip who he had seen as dishonoring his father's house.

 

Also, to Michael Wren, as has already been pointed out by others, Jesus quoted the O.T extensively. If he disagreed with the sometimes harsh nature of the God of the Hebrews in the Old Testament, he had ample opportunity to voice it. So if there is not a record of it, it could mean only one of two things 1) He didn't say anything against it because he wasn't against it. 2) He did say something against it, perhaps repeatedly, only the gospel writers concealed it. So if you think Jesus was really against it, you therefore think the gospels aren't reliable as well, so you have a problem with the gospels too, apparently.

 

The question to ask is: is it propitiation or expiation?

 

What bothers you about that? Jesus did die on the cross in our place. He took our punishment instead of us. "He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed." - I Peter 2:24

Here's something from Piper...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sIHCAY0squA

 

I don't find the Gospel teaching offensive, just the Calvinist adulteration of it.

Here is an excellent reply to the "Pierced for Our Transgressions authors, by an Evangelical who describes himself as being in the "radical middle"; he disagrees with both the right and the left. Here are the facts about the church fathers and penal substitution; now I admonish you to submit to the truth and relinquish your johnny-come-lately, false Reformed doctrine:

http://therebelgod.com/AtonementFathersEQ.pdf

 

David,

I thank you for your good and reasonable post. I am glad to reply to you because you do not malign me personally.

By "innocent", I mean children and those not morally responsible. I understand that all are descended from Adam and suffer the consequences of his sin; however, God clearly deals with children different from how He deals with those who have reached the age of moral responsibility and accountability.

Surely anyone must see that the way Jesus dealt with people is different from anything that came before Him, precisely because He is the exact spiritual image of God the Father.

 

If you want to see what I believe, go here; I wrote these: http://www.celtic-anabaptist-ministries.com/celtic-anabaptist-communion.html

Also, here: http://www.celtic-anabaptist-ministries.com/personal-beliefs.html

A lot of your post is good, except where you descend in to personal stuff -- but I'll let that pass.

 

For those who want to know the truth about what the church fathers taught, and about the early church's views of the atonement, here are some excellent articles:

http://theogeek.blogspot.com/2007/06/church-fathers-on-atonement.html

http://therebelgod.com/cross_intro.shtml This one is: Penal Substitution vs. Christus Victor. One of the best things I've ever read.

And the one I posted to Steve: http://therebelgod.com/AtonementFathersEQ.pdf

The facts are as I have stated: Penal Substitution was developed by the the Reformers, particularly Calvin.

I prefer to follow the scriptures, the early church, and the fathers.

 

Michael, what do you do with this verse?

Hebrews 9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

 

I have sent you a PM with the information I promised; I hope you find it helpful and enlightening.

 

Well, let me see if I can explain: My views are shaped by my strong belief that God endowed all his sentient beings with free will from the beginning, and we have that free will for all eternity. This is seen even in the example of Lucifer who rebelled -- he was endowed with the free will to remain loyal to God, or to turn away.

I believe after we die we are in the same spiritual state as we were before we died -- either loyal to God or in rebellion from him. Without getting into a long, drawn-out discourse, I believe it is possible to be saved after death. I believe 1 Peter 3: 18-20 hints at this; Jesus is said to have "preached" to the spirits in prison -- what is the purpose of preaching?

I also believe that it is possible even after death for people to turn away, just as Lucifer did.

I believe these things because freedom is a part of God's character, and I believe that at all times we have the freedom to choose to follow God, or rebel and turn away. This was so from the very beginning, and I don't see that God has changed His mind about it.

I believe God is a God of unlimited mercy and unlimited freedom.

 

that was also the "Lie" that satan and adam bought into, that we can be "gods" and freely determine our destinies!

What verses support saved after this life?

As jesus said to decide now, as after death there will be a resurrection of just/unjust, to eternal life in heaven, or in hell!

 

I believe I answered that; I said that 1 peter 3:18-20 hints at it. I know there are different interpretations of these verses, but I believe the interpretation I hold to is tenable. As I said, what is the purpose of preaching?

Further, is it not true that Adam had the freedom to choose to obey God or disobey him, and Lucifer had the freedom to stay loyal to God, or rebel and turn away?

 

Haha; I'm not surprised at your reaction. This doesn't make me a universalist, though.

 

BOTH of them had that choice to obey/rebel, after they choice wrongly, neither satan/demons/human have that 'free will" choice option left open, as now under the bondage of sin/curse from/of God!