PSA...Found this on X today

[JonC]

...

John 3:36
He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but ...
Once you sinned you no longer had that sin. It was an action. Say you stole a piece of candy. Jesus did not take away "stole a piece of candy" from you. God forgave you.

You are viewing the scapegoat through the theory. The scapegoat represented sins. The people had ti make sure the goat did not return. It points to Christ.

God does not do anything with sins. God either forgives a sinnner or does not forgive a sinner.

Your use of "instead of" is, I agree, not in the Binle. It is also inaccurate. He suffered for you, on your behalf. He is a type of Adan (the second Adam...i.e., between Adam and Jesus He is the Last Adam).


I know that when you see "Cjrist bore our sins" you read "Christ bore our sins instead of us". This is what I mean by you reading the theory into Scripture (adding to God's Word ).

I was the same way. My arguments would not have changed my mind back then. No book or discussion would have changed my mind. And I do not expect, and am not attempting, to change yours.

But think of it this way - Jesus bore our infirmity. That is a very true statement. He shared in our infirmity is also true. "He bore our infirmity instead of us" is false. You are reading what is not there.

JonC. Thank you for your thoughtful reply and patience.

I agree that one can find many instances within Scripture that contrast the Law against mercy and faith. However, faith was supposed to be essential for approaching the law. While the law provided rules and regulations, it was meant to be approached out of faith and love for God.

I also agree that the Law in some form was essentially a contract or covenant with Israel. But I think one can also find how the law was for the whole world and also about mercy and faith (hence the Matt 23:23 reference). Romans 3:19 says that "whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God." The part I want to drill down on in Romans 3:19 is that the verse says the law was so that "all the world may become guilty before God". Notice here in Romans 3:19 it says "to those under the law" and then qualifies that "under the law" with "all the world". Thus, the law was given so that all the world would be under the law. So that through the “knowledge of sin” (Rom 3:20, Rom 7:7); sin is spotlighted, so in the light the “offense might abound”(Rom 5:20); therefore being a “tutor” (Gal 3:24), a guide toward the object of this world’s purposeful end, that is the Son of God. Not just for the Jews, but for "all the world" (Rom 3:19).

I think that although God made a covenant with the Jews, the Jews were also a representation within God's providential history of His divine stratagem of redemption and His desire to show that to future readers. The Jewish people and their history are shadows and insights into God's plan stemming all the way back to Genesis 3:15 and then to the Promise to Abraham. The Law, although given to the Jews to be the stewards of the Law and also a covenant to them, was a Law intended to be given to the whole world. For it literally says, "all the world" became "guilty before God" (Rom 3:19).


I disagree here. In Matt 23:23, Jesus does not chastises the scribes and Pharisees for teaching the Law. He chastises them for neglecting the most important aspects of the Law (the weightier matters). Those being justice, mercy and faith. Paul particularly chastises the concept of isolating the law from faith which results in a works based justification. The Jewish teachers had all neglected the weightier matters of the Law to the detriment of the true intent of the Law (it seems to me). To the believing, it would be holy and perfect. To the unbelieving it would be death and a curse.

1. Mercy forgives sins
2. Only actions condemned by the law of God are properly called sins.
3. Mercy can only forgive sins that are condemned by the Law.
4. Thus, mercy springs from and is part of the Law.

The problem I have with relying on the Law is that we were never under the Law. We like to break it up into bits we find applicable, but the Law cannot be divided. It is not composed of a moral Law, a ceremonial Law, etc.

I think where we would agree is in the overlap of "the Law of Christ" and the Mosaic Law. Moral standards are the same regardless of whether one is under the Law or apart from the Law because they ate based on God.

I offer one correction:

Only violations of God's direct commandment for those given the command (whether Adam eating of the tree or Jews violating the Law) are called "transgressions" because they transgress a command.

If you are under the Law and you eat a piece of bacon then you jave transgressed the Law.

This is where Paul uses "debt". The Law was a record of debt testifying against Israel.

But death spread to all men even to those who are not under the Law because all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.

Under the Law transgressions cannot be forgiven. The Law tells people what they deserve. But forgiveness is mercy, giving what is not earned.

On the Cross I believe that Jesus canceled the debt of the Law, nailing it to the tree. Jesus fulfilled the Law.

I don’t want to follow it. I am happy to have them removed.

I really don’t appreciate the artificiality of AI.

Yea....flirting can be a sin.

I also hate auto correct. Sometimes my phone makes up words that are not even words.

But that's how I know the robots won't take over. They be dumb.
[/QUOTE]

 

[Ben1445]

The problem with using "anger" is a theological one dealing with man controlling God's emotions.
The difference that I am making is that anger is typically viewed as an emotion while wrath is typically viewed as an action. But yes, these can also be synonymous.

I thought I did tell you what you were reading into the passage and why.

Jesus bore our sins, God laid our sins on Him, Jesus shared our infirmity, Jesus died for our sins.

These truths tell us what Jesus did, why He suffered. They do not point to our sins being transferred to us or Jesus dying instead of us.

If the responsibility of our actions, the guilt, is laid on Christ, they are paid for and I am guiltless. That is the transfer. It is not that Jesus became a sinner. (I am still trying to figure out exactly what you hear me saying. I am not sure that I have figured it out.)

If I said "Jesus shared our infirmity" you would not (I hope) think that to mean "instead of us".

I read infirmity as a physical attribute. Jesus became flesh. I’m think it is possible that He scraped His knee climbing trees. I’m sure growing up that he was pushed around and punched like every other little boy is. I wouldn’t be dogmatic about it. But Jesus has experienced every pain we experience. I don’t think that it means that he shares our sins. It has to do with being tempted as we are tempted. Having the same flesh as we do, yet without sin.

Yet this is another way Scripture soeaks of Jesus bearing our sins.

I disagree with this statement for reasons stated above.

You COULD also say "Jesus bore our infirmity" and not be changing Scripture unless you add "instead of us".

I would agree with you on the grammar here. If you were to say instead of us, it would mean that Jesus lives our lives for us. This is clearly not the case since here we are not having all the answers.

I agree that the "penal substitution" mindset varies. Most who say they hold the theory do not believe much of the actual theory. Many I have spoken with say they are penal substitution theorists but reject the idea that what Jesus suffered was from God rather than Satan, or that God must punish sins in order to forgive the sinner.

Satan does not punish anyone. He does attempt to cause us to fall and deserve more judgement. But he has no authority. It is his lie that props him up and makes him look like he is more important than he is. Satan is waiting his own judgement. He will not be afflicting anyone in his judgement. He himself will be judged for his own actions.
When a law is broken, restitution must be made toward the law, not to some unrelated party or to the individual who advises us to break the law.
The laws are Gods laws. We have sinned against God. Restitution is made toward God, not Satan. Jesus blood is an offering to God. Satan has nothing to do with it.

What I think you mean is that God transferred our sins from us and laid them on Jesus, punishing our sins on Him instead of punishing us. Please correct my misunderstanding of your posts.

The responsibility of our sins, the guilt of our sins and yes even the sins themselves are removed from us.
Micah 7:19
He will turn again, he will have compassion upon us;
he will subdue our iniquities;
and thou wilt cast all their sins into the depths of the sea.
Death is required to answer for sin. Jesus gave his own life and died for us as an offering for our sins. Jesus takes them from us and removes them from us. We cannot.

Yes, Jesus bore our sins (the sins of man). He often used the title "Son of Adam". He "shared in our infirmity". The wages of sin is death as sin produces death. It is because of our sins He died.

Jesus did not take your sins away from you. Sins are not material things.

Micah 7:19 says He will cast them into the sea. That is enough for me to say that they can be taken away from me. God is a Spirit. He can pick up and remove things of the spiritual realm as easily as in the physical realm. Your view is being limited by what you think must happen in the physical.

Jesus is the Lamb that takes away the sins of the world. The "takes away" is one word meaning to remove, to pick up. And it is through Him that our sins are removed, or taken away (they are forgiven you).

This statement is in direct contradiction with the last statement that you made.

Once you sinned you no longer had that sin. It was an action. Say you stole a piece of candy. Jesus did not take away "stole a piece of candy" from you. God forgave you.

That is fine. I have no difficulty in recognizing that our sins removed is the forgiveness of God.

You are viewing the scapegoat through the theory. The scapegoat represented sins. The people had ti make sure the goat did not return. It points to Christ.

The scapegoat itself represented Christ who carried the sin out of the camp. I don’t actually know the theory to be able to look through it. I’m reading the principles of Scripture in its teachings and saying that there is merit to some of the idea of penalty. I am not here to defend the theory. I just see the merit of some of the thoughts and don’t think it is worth throwing out the entire thing. What is correct should be retained.

God does not do anything with sins. God either forgives a sinnner or does not forgive a sinner.

God does “do” something with sins. Micah 7:19.

Your use of "instead of" is, I agree, not in the Binle. It is also inaccurate. He suffered for you, on your behalf. He is a type of Adan (the second Adam...i.e., between Adam and Jesus He is the Last Adam).

I will not suffer the second death. Jesus gave his life for me. His death allows His righteousness to be seen instead of mine.
There are right places and questionable places to use the word instead.

I know that when you see "Cjrist bore our sins" you read "Christ bore our sins instead of us". This is what I mean by you reading the theory into Scripture (adding to God's Word ).

I don’t see a problem with it but I am probably not using the words as strictly as you are.
Because Jesus bore my sins, I no longer do. Loosely speaking, I don’t see a problem with saying Instead of me.
Strictly speaking, whatever needed to be done, Christ did. There is therefore, now, no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus. It doesn’t really matter to me how they are gone, but that they are gone. (Not to say that there are multiple ways to have sins forgiven, just that Jesus has taken care of the underwriting and it is all done properly. It is not a matter of great concern. This is faith. Allowing Jesus to actually take care of things and not being worried about the exact how.)

I was the same way. My arguments would not have changed my mind back then. No book or discussion would have changed my mind. And I do not expect, and am not attempting, to change yours.

But think of it this way - Jesus bore our infirmity. That is a very true statement. He shared in our infirmity is also true. "He bore our infirmity instead of us" is false. You are reading what is not there.

Infirmity is the wrong word to use here. Again, infirmity is connected to our humanity. Jesus shared our humanity. He didn’t share our sin, he took them away from us (by forgiveness, by picking them up spiritually and taking them, however you want to look at it,)
Psalms 103:12
As far as the east is from the west,
so far hath he removed our transgressions from us.

 

[JonC]

If the responsibility of our actions, the guilt, is laid on Christ, they are paid for and I am guiltless. That is the transfer. It is not that Jesus became a sinner. (I am still trying to figure out exactly what you hear me saying. I am not sure that I have figured it out.)

I read infirmity as a physical attribute. Jesus became flesh. I’m think it is possible that He scraped His knee climbing trees. I’m sure growing up that he was pushed around and punched like every other little boy is. I wouldn’t be dogmatic about it. But Jesus has experienced every pain we experience. I don’t think that it means that he shares our sins. It has to do with being tempted as we are tempted. Having the same flesh as we do, yet without sin.

I disagree with this statement for reasons stated above.

I would agree with you on the grammar here. If you were to say instead of us, it would mean that Jesus lives our lives for us. This is clearly not the case since here we are not having all the answers.

Satan does not punish anyone. He does attempt to cause us to fall and deserve more judgement. But he has no authority. It is his lie that props him up and makes him look like he is more important than he is. Satan is waiting his own judgement. He will not be afflicting anyone in his judgement. He himself will be judged for his own actions.
When a law is broken, restitution must be made toward the law, not to some unrelated party or to the individual who advises us to break the law.
The laws are Gods laws. We have sinned against God. Restitution is made toward God, not Satan. Jesus blood is an offering to God. Satan has nothing to do with it.

The responsibility of our sins, the guilt of our sins and yes even the sins themselves are removed from us.
Micah 7:19
He will turn again, he will have compassion upon us;
he will subdue our iniquities;
and thou wilt cast all their sins into the depths of the sea.
Death is required to answer for sin. Jesus gave his own life and died for us as an offering for our sins. Jesus takes them from us and removes them from us. We cannot.

Micah 7:19 says He will cast them into the sea. That is enough for me to say that they can be taken away from me. God is a Spirit. He can pick up and remove things of the spiritual realm as easily as in the physical realm. Your view is being limited by what you think must happen in the physical.


This statement is in direct contradiction with the last statement that you made.

That is fine. I have no difficulty in recognizing that our sins removed is the forgiveness of God.

The scapegoat itself represented Christ who carried the sin out of the camp. I don’t actually know the theory to be able to look through it. I’m reading the principles of Scripture in its teachings and saying that there is merit to some of the idea of penalty. I am not here to defend the theory. I just see the merit of some of the thoughts and don’t think it is worth throwing out the entire thing. What is correct should be retained.

God does “do” something with sins. Micah 7:19.

I will not suffer the second death. Jesus gave his life for me. His death allows His righteousness to be seen instead of mine.
There are right places and questionable places to use the word instead.

I don’t see a problem with it but I am probably not using the words as strictly as you are.
Because Jesus bore my sins, I no longer do. Loosely speaking, I don’t see a problem with saying Instead of me.
Strictly speaking, whatever needed to be done, Christ did. There is therefore, now, no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus. It doesn’t really matter to me how they are gone, but that they are gone. (Not to say that there are multiple ways to have sins forgiven, just that Jesus has taken care of the underwriting and it is all done properly. It is not a matter of great concern. This is faith. Allowing Jesus to actually take care of things and not being worried about the exact how.)

Infirmity is the wrong word to use here. Again, infirmity is connected to our humanity. Jesus shared our humanity. He didn’t share our sin, he took them away from us (by forgiveness, by picking them up spiritually and taking them, however you want to look at it,)
Psalms 103:12
As far as the east is from the west,
so far hath he removed our transgressions from us.

Infirmity is connected to humanity because sin is connected to our humanity. That is the point. It ia not a physical attribute. Sin is the infirmity of mankind.

BUT my point remains. If Jesus bore our our attribute does not mean instead of us.

My point is you are reading into the text what is not there.

The problem I have with your statement about sins being transferred is that it is counter to Scripture.

You say the passage in Ezekiel soeaks of sin not being passed down to a child. But that is only one part of the passage. The soul that sins must die, but if the person turns from sin to God then God will forgive him. That is what you are ignoring.

How does the Bible state (a verse that you can quite stating how God forgives sins) God forgives sins?

I can think of about 20 off the tope of my head that claim God forgives based on turning from sin and to Him. I cannot think of even one that states God forgives the sinner by punishing another for that sin or guilt.

That is exactly what I mean by reading theory into Scripture and using Scripture to support that theory.

You can easily post a definition of the Penal Substitution of Atonement without using even one verse. It is essentually a stand alone theory that some Reformed have "Christianized".


Think about it. Guilt obviously cannot be transferred because, like sin, guilt is not material. The person who sins is guilty of sin. The person who eats a banana is guilty of eating a banana. The best you can do is say God treated Jesus as if He had sinned, but then you would make God guilty of sin.


Also there is no such thing as a debt of sin. Scrioture calls death the wage of sin. The closest you can get is Jesus canceling out the certificate of debt called "the Law". But this is the rules and rituals violated by those under the Law.

 

[Ben1445]

Infirmity is connected to humanity because sin is connected to our humanity. That is the point. It ia not a physical attribute. Sin is the infirmity of mankind.

BUT my point remains. If Jesus bore our our attribute does not mean instead of us.

Like I said in the previous post, infirmity is not a good example.

My point is you are reading into the text what is not there.

I have never said anything like Jesus lived our life for us so we don’t have to.

The problem I have with your statement about sins being transferred is that it is counter to Scripture.

You are still not hearing me. Jesus took our sins away from us. If you don’t want to read the verses out of the Bible that I have posted already that say that our sins are taken away from us, that’s not going to ruin my day. I don’t see how

Psalms 103:12
As far as the east is from the west,
so far hath he removed our transgressions from us

Micah 7:19
He will turn again, he will have compassion upon us;
he will subdue our iniquities;
and thou wilt cast all their sins into the depths of the sea

Doesn’t tell you that our sins are “removed” from us and are “cast” into the sea(without us going with them).

You say the passage in Ezekiel soeaks of sin not being passed down to a child. But that is only one part of the passage. The soul that sins must die, but if the person turns from sin to God then God will forgive him. That is what you are ignoring.

No i am not. There is nothing wrong with forgiveness and nothing more complete in forgiveness than to take care of the problem.
And I do believe in personal responsibility for sin, not predetermined salvation.

How does the Bible state (a verse that you can quite stating how God forgives sins) God forgives sins?

Hebrews 9:28
So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.
Ephesians 1:7
In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;
Redemption through his blood. Purchase of/by blood.

I can think of about 20 off the tope of my head that claim God forgives based on turning from sin and to Him. I cannot think of even one that states God forgives the sinner by punishing another for that sin or guilt.

“By His stripes we are healed” Jesus punishment for a crime he didn’t commit, was the agent of salvation for us.
You have missed the point. (My point. I don’t know about anyone else’s) Sins can be taken by Jesus Christ and removed from us. You throw away what Scripture says because someone includes it in PST. But if it is an example Jesus uses, we can use it as an example. If it is appropriate to use as an example, it must be like the example.

Now, if you read in that statement that Jesus is punished while removing our sin from us, you are guilty of reading the way you accuse me of reading.

That is exactly what I mean by reading theory into Scripture and using Scripture to support that theory.

It is not my theory. I am learning it from you by what you tell me I am thinking.

You can easily post a definition of the Penal Substitution of Atonement without using even one verse. It is essentually a stand alone theory that some Reformed have "Christianized".

I am not reformed. (You should hear my mother threatening me with reform school )

Think about it. Guilt obviously cannot be transferred because, like sin, guilt is not material. The person who sins is guilty of sin. The person who eats a banana is guilty of eating a banana. The best you can do is say God treated Jesus as if He had sinned, but then you would make God guilty of sin.

Guilty of carrying our sins. Guilty of showing mercy. Not guilty of sin. You have taken this too far.
So explain to me what it means that Jesus carried our sins. But does not remove them and cast them as Scripture says. Because He doesn’t take them from us even though He removes them from us. ???

Also there is no such thing as a debt of sin. Scrioture calls death the wage of sin.

It is just a perspective. Negative value is debt.
It is an example that Jesus used in Matthew 18. A fine is a penalty. A fine is a debt. Fines, debts, penalties, they are all things that must be paid. If Jesus hadn’t given His life for you and I, there would be no forgiveness. Jesus suffered death for me. The death that Jesus suffered is instead of my suffering the second death. Jesus blood for my life. It is not wrong to say it that way. Without the shedding of blood there is no remission.

The closest you can get is Jesus canceling out the certificate of debt called "the Law". But this is the rules and rituals violated by those under the Law.

If Jesus can talk about wrongdoing and compare it to debt, I don’t find it to be unscriptural.
Have you ever used an object lesson? Did you get the object lesson directly from Scripture, or was it an invention out of a sinners mind? Like the Trinity. My finger has three parts and yet it is one finger. If part of it is cut off, it is still part of the same finger.
Is that heresy? It isn’t Scripture.
Relax a little bit and take the good out of an example. Don’t add to the moral of the parable. And if you are afraid someone else might take some strange doctrine out of an example, be very clear and don’t leave people wondering what you meant to say. Let the Holy Spirit do the teaching. But don’t get upset with people who believe that their sins are removed from them when the Bible says that they are removed from them.

 

[JonC]

Like I said in the previous post, infirmity is not a good example.


Hebrews 9:28
So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.
Ephesians 1:7
In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;
Redemption through his blood. Purchase of/by blood.

“By His stripes we are healed” Jesus punishment for a crime he didn’t commit, was the agent of salvation for us.
You have missed the point. (My point. I don’t know about anyone else’s) Sins can be taken by Jesus Christ and removed from us. You throw away what Scripture says because someone includes it in PST. But if it is an example Jesus uses, we can use it as an example. If it is appropriate to use as an example, it must be like the example.

Now, if you read in that statement that Jesus is punished while removing our sin from us, you are guilty of reading the way you accuse me of reading.

It is not my theory. I am learning it from you by what you tell me I am thinking.

I am not reformed. (You should hear my mother threatening me with reform school )

I'm going to split up my reply for clarity (you kinda ventured into strawman terrority around the middle of your post).

You were wrong in your previous post. “Infirmity” is an excellent example. But I grant I was using it a bit differently.

In Scripture Jesus sharing our infirmities and bearing our diseases really means that Jesus healed the sick and drove out demons.

By your logic, however, it means that Jesus transferred the demons to Him, and Jesus transferred the diseases to Himself. I guess this would make the Pharisees correct when they claimed that He had a demon.
I never claimed that you said Jesus lived our life so that we would not have to. I claimed that He died for our sins.

I am hearing you, I just choose what God has said over what you are saying. Just because I reject your faith does not mean that I did not hear you.

Michah 9:17 does tell me that God forgives our sins. Do I believe that God takes our sins and cast’s them into the ocean? No. But neither do you.

You are no talking about forgiveness. You are talking about condemning the innocent in order to acquit the guilty. Forgiveness is foregoing a penalty or a punishment.

I agree that we have redemption through Christ’s blood. We have forgiveness. We were purchased not with gold or silver but with the precious blood of Christ. I never said otherwise.

I also agree that it is by Jesus’ stripes we area healed, the Just for the unjust. Again I never said otherwise.

You seem to be going a bit off into strawman terroritory here.

I know you did not invent the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement. It has been around for about 4 centuries. I can teach you the theory if you’d like (I held it for a long time, have a graduate degree in theology, and taught it when teaching theology).

Guilty of carrying our sins. Guilty of showing mercy. Not guilty of sin. You have taken this too far.
So explain to me what it means that Jesus carried our sins.

I wouldn’t say God is guilty of being righteous. That just is not how we typically use “guilt”. But I suppose your use is not technically incorrect.

Yes, Jesus bore our sins bodily. It is you who are taking this too far as you should have stopped with “Christ bore our sins” instead of adding to Scripture.

Bearing does not mean removing it from another person.

Here is a silly illustration: If I am a werewolf and I bite you then you become a werewolf.
You bear my curse. But this does not mean I am not also a werewolf.
You are materializing sins as things that can be collected and tossed into the ocean.

What Scripture is talking about is forgiveness. God does not actually take our sins and throw into the water. But, regardless of your theology, God does legitimately forgive.

A negative value is not a debt. -300 is not a debt. It is a number.

A fine is a penalty. A fine is not a debt unless it is a legal obligation (the government is owed, for example). And yes, this is the 16th century judicial philosophy upon which Penal Substitution Theory was built. The basic argument is that justice is an objective state, and anything that takes from this state (a crime) owes a debt that must be recouped or there is a state of injustice. A man steals a loaf of bread to feed his starving daughter. This is theft and the man must be imprisoned for a specific number of years. The judge is responsible for maintaining this state.

This was actually practiced secularly before applied to Scripture, and it continued for a couple of centuries before flaws in the philosophy were recognized. Today the only remanence of the philosophy, that I know of, is within a minority of Christian theologies.

It is Jesus’ death and resurrection for our lives. It is the Just for the unjust. I am not arguing otherwise. Without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins.

Jesus did not talk about sins as a debt. Not even Paul talked about sins as a debt to God.
I have used illustrations (I did with the silly one above). But only in certain ways and places. I would not come up with something foreign to Scripture to say this is how Christ saved us, or God forgives us. There is a reason God gave us the Bible. I believe it was to use it rather than make up our own doctrines. Do you believe that you can reveal God and His Work to man better than God Himself did?

Your explanation could be considered a heresy, but that is because there is too much to read into it, and I do not know how far your explanation goes. For the record, the cut off finger is no longer a part of your hand.
I do not get upset with what other people believe. This is especially true with Penal Substitution Theory because I held it for most of my life.

Let the Holy Spirit do the teaching.

I agree that we should let the Holy Spirit do the teaching. But I also believe that we have to be obedient to God and test the doctrine to make sure that it is actually from Him and not a deception.

Say Martin believes that the Holy Spirit led him to Penal Substitution Theory, and told him that this theory is correct. The Spirit taught him that Jesus died for our sins instead of us, and that God has forgiven man by transferring man’s sins onto Jesus and punishing them there.

Here is my experience (why I believe as I do): I held Penal Substitution Theory correct for most of my Christian life. I preached a sermon on the Atonement. All was good. I had dinner and slept well. I awoke with the conviction that I had preached a theory rather than Scripture. I wrote out the theory and all passages I could find supporting it. I then erased all passages that did not necessitate reading the theory into them. No passage was left. For the next couple of years I dove into Scripture, reading it for the first time without through the lens of this theory. I still am amazed at what Scripture says once it is not overwritten by man’s philosophy. This was the work of the Spirit. How do I know? Because of the result. It drove me to God’s Word. I realized that God’s Word made perfect sense without man’s help.

So…..here is the thing. You have Martin saying the Spirit led him to one thing and me saying the Spirit led me to another. These things are in opposition to one another. They cannot both be true.
How do we determine what is true doctrine?

We test it against “what is written” and make sure that we are leaning on “every word” that comes from God and not man’s understanding.

Like you mentioned, Penal Substitution Theory is not in the text of Scripture. No passage states that Jesus suffered God’s wrath, that Jesus died instead of us, that God punished Jesus, etc.

So we can know, at a minimum, that Penal Substitution Theory is extra-biblical. But if we are to believe that we can know how God saved us then we can also know that the Theory is incorrect (what we can know about God is what God reveals to us).

IS IT IMPORTANT is the question. My answer is absolutely. Why?

Because Penal Substitution Theory is not only extra-biblical but it also replaces what Scripture IS teaching (“what is written”). So not only are Penal Substitution theorists holding an extra-biblical faith, but they are missing what is being taught in Scripture.

There was a Pentecostal lady at my last church (she has passed on now). I have no idea why she went to a Baptist church, but she was a very godly lady. But she held a horrible theology. When a friend was diagnosed with cancer she was sure God would heal them because of her faith. When he died she had a crisis of faith and fell into depression. She had misinterpreted several passages and was sure that the reason God did not heal our friend was her lack of faith.

Not only did her misunderstanding cause her problems in life, but the misunderstanding also caused her not to understand the truths that those passages were saying.


I do not get upset with people who believe Penal Substitution Theory. I pity them because I was once in their place. That said, I do hate the theory because it is impossible for its disciples to understand so much of Scripture. I get that people like "easy believism" when it comes to doctrine. But I feel so sorry for those who are being carried away by vain philosophies.

 

[Ben1445]

I'm going to split up my reply for clarity (you kinda ventured into strawman terrority around the middle of your post).

You were wrong in your previous post. “Infirmity” is an excellent example. But I grant I was using it a bit differently.

It is not a good example for our conversation at all. You keep scolding me for things that I don’t believe and your example doesn’t apply to what I think because I reject the idea that Jesus lived our life for us.

In Scripture Jesus sharing our infirmities and bearing our diseases really means that Jesus healed the sick and drove out demons.

By your logic, however, it means that Jesus transferred the demons to Him, and Jesus transferred the diseases to Himself.

Your twisting my words to say something I haven’t and don’t intend to say.
You don’t understand what I’m thinking, that much is clear to me. To continue to use the word infirmity as if it were used for sin is a ridiculous example. Since we don’t define that word the same way and even when you use it similarly, you don’t use it like I do, there is no way you will be able to make it a good illustration.

I guess this would make the Pharisees correct when they claimed that He had a demon.
I never claimed that you said Jesus lived our life so that we would not have to. I claimed that He died for our sins.

But somehow you think that I mean Jesus had a demon?!?!
Be real.
Are we having a discussion or not?

I am hearing you, I just choose what God has said over what you are saying. Just because I reject your faith does not mean that I did not hear you.

It is not what I said. I quoted you Scripture.

Michah 9:17 does tell me that God forgives our sins. Do I believe that God takes our sins and cast’s them into the ocean? No. But neither do you.

Why not? If God said it, it is easier for me to believe that I don’t fully understand what He means than to believe that He doesn’t mean what He said.
Do I know what sea? No. Is it on this earth? I don’t know. If God says He can do it, why shouldn’t I believe Him?

You are no talking about forgiveness. You are talking about condemning the innocent in order to acquit the guilty. Forgiveness is foregoing a penalty or a punishment.

Jesus was not condemned?
Jesus was guilty of what He was condemned for?

I agree that we have redemption through Christ’s blood. We have forgiveness. We were purchased not with gold or silver but with the precious blood of Christ. I never said otherwise.

But you have lost the significance of it.

I also agree that it is by Jesus’ stripes we area healed, the Just for the unjust. Again I never said otherwise.

And you have lost the significance of it.

You seem to be going a bit off into strawman terroritory here.

I don’t know why you think that.

I know you did not invent the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement. It has been around for about 4 centuries. I can teach you the theory if you’d like (I held it for a long time, have a graduate degree in theology, and taught it when teaching theology).

I prefer to learn the way Jesus did.
Isaiah 7:15
Butter and honey shall he eat,
that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good.

I’ll take the good please. Just the good. I’m not interested in getting used to ingesting the bad.

 

[Ben1445]

I agree that we should let the Holy Spirit do the teaching. But I also believe that we have to be obedient to God and test the doctrine to make sure that it is actually from Him and not a deception.

Say Martin believes that the Holy Spirit led him to Penal Substitution Theory, and told him that this theory is correct. The Spirit taught him that Jesus died for our sins instead of us, and that God has forgiven man by transferring man’s sins onto Jesus and punishing them there.

Here is my experience (why I believe as I do): I held Penal Substitution Theory correct for most of my Christian life. I preached a sermon on the Atonement. All was good. I had dinner and slept well. I awoke with the conviction that I had preached a theory rather than Scripture. I wrote out the theory and all passages I could find supporting it. I then erased all passages that did not necessitate reading the theory into them. No passage was left. For the next couple of years I dove into Scripture, reading it for the first time without through the lens of this theory. I still am amazed at what Scripture says once it is not overwritten by man’s philosophy. This was the work of the Spirit. How do I know? Because of the result. It drove me to God’s Word. I realized that God’s Word made perfect sense without man’s help.

So…..here is the thing. You have Martin saying the Spirit led him to one thing and me saying the Spirit led me to another. These things are in opposition to one another. They cannot both be true.
How do we determine what is true doctrine?

We test it against “what is written” and make sure that we are leaning on “every word” that comes from God and not man’s understanding.

Like you mentioned, Penal Substitution Theory is not in the text of Scripture. No passage states that Jesus suffered God’s wrath, that Jesus died instead of us, that God punished Jesus, etc.

So we can know, at a minimum, that Penal Substitution Theory is extra-biblical. But if we are to believe that we can know how God saved us then we can also know that the Theory is incorrect (what we can know about God is what God reveals to us).

IS IT IMPORTANT is the question. My answer is absolutely. Why?

Because Penal Substitution Theory is not only extra-biblical but it also replaces what Scripture IS teaching (“what is written”). So not only are Penal Substitution theorists holding an extra-biblical faith, but they are missing what is being taught in Scripture.

There was a Pentecostal lady at my last church (she has passed on now). I have no idea why she went to a Baptist church, but she was a very godly lady. But she held a horrible theology. When a friend was diagnosed with cancer she was sure God would heal them because of her faith. When he died she had a crisis of faith and fell into depression. She had misinterpreted several passages and was sure that the reason God did not heal our friend was her lack of faith.

Not only did her misunderstanding cause her problems in life, but the misunderstanding also caused her not to understand the truths that those passages were saying.


I do not get upset with people who believe Penal Substitution Theory. I pity them because I was once in their place. That said, I do hate the theory because it is impossible for its disciples to understand so much of Scripture. I get that people like "easy believism" when it comes to doctrine. But I feel so sorry for those who are being carried away by vain philosophies.

So what is the right answer?
You found that PST has no basis in Scripture.
I found examples in Scripture where the concept is used as a teaching tool.
What did you find instead??

 

[JonC]

So what is the right answer?
You found that PST has no basis in Scripture.
I found examples in Scripture where the concept is used as a teaching tool.
What did you find instead??

I read that we are not to cling to our understanding but lean on every word that proceeds from God.
I knew that we are to test doctrine using the Bible.
That made sense to me.

If we test what we believe the Bible teaches against what we believe is taught in the Bible the test is pretty much meaningless. It is simply relying on our own understanding.

But if we test what we believe the Bible teaches against "what is written" in Scripture then we are as objective as we can be and can find out if the doctrine is worth holding.

I found that what distinguishes Penal Substitution Theory from other views fails the test of Scripture.

There is no passage that actually teaches that Jesus suffered God's wrath.
There are numerous passages that state God forgives based on the sinner turning from sin and to Him.
There are no passages that state that Jesus died instead of us.
There are no passages that state sins or guilt can be transferred to another.

Those were the first things I found.

The hard part was trying to read Scripture without automatically reading into it (sering the ink blot for what it really is instead instead of the bat we were told it was).

But, after time I realized Scripture is so much more deep than I knew because of the changes I has unintentionally (and unconsciously) made.

I realized the importance Scripture placed on this life, on how we live - not legalistically but with others. I realized the depth of humanity that Jesus took upon Himself. I realized the importance of all of those passages warning believers that their works here woukd be judged by God. I realized that many of my Christian heros may in fact hear Jesus say "I never knew you", that the Way is more narrow than many in Christian circles want to admit.

But most of all I realize that God reached me, that He convicted me of the mistake of Penal Substitution Theory, at precisely the right time. Looking back I can see that I was on the cusp of being carried away by the vain philosophy. I love theology. For grad school I went to seminary and got my masters in theology. But I learned that many will be carried away from the true faith by this theology I loved so much.

I also learned that while I held the Theory I continued to grow and learn on orher areas. So I suspect that God allowed the error while I was maturing in other ways. He led me away from the error at the right time in my life.

I learned more about Paul's warning to those who teach. I know that I have been forgiven, and I am grateful for the overall experience as I am not sure I would have recognized how serious an error that theory was (truths it replaced). But abandoning the theory after so many decades believing it and simply reading the Bible for what God said to us has been an amazing experience. I can't describe how much depth I have found in God's Word studying the actual text rather than reading it through the lens of a theory.

I also learned, this one from experience, that most will guard their theories and traditions even if it means neglecting God's Word. I have found that peoole generally like "camps" and choose to follow men they regard as heros in their positions. Basically, the mentality is "it was good enough for _________, so its good enough for me". But I have concluded that each person is responsible for their own choices, and they will stand or fall accordingly.

 

[Ben1445]

I read that we are not to cling to our understanding but lean on every word that proceeds from God.
I knew that we are to test doctrine using the Bible.
That made sense to me.

If we test what we believe the Bible teaches against what we believe is taught in the Bible the test is pretty much meaningless. It is simply relying on our own understanding.

But if we test what we believe the Bible teaches against "what is written" in Scripture then we are as objective as we can be and can find out if the doctrine is worth holding.

I found that what distinguishes Penal Substitution Theory from other views fails the test of Scripture.

There is no passage that actually teaches that Jesus suffered God's wrath.
There are numerous passages that state God forgives based on the sinner turning from sin and to Him.
There are no passages that state that Jesus died instead of us.
There are no passages that state sins or guilt can be transferred to another.

Those were the first things I found.

The hard part was trying to read Scripture without automatically reading into it (sering the ink blot for what it really is instead instead of the bat we were told it was).

But, after time I realized Scripture is so much more deep than I knew because of the changes I has unintentionally (and unconsciously) made.

I realized the importance Scripture placed on this life, on how we live - not legalistically but with others. I realized the depth of humanity that Jesus took upon Himself. I realized the importance of all of those passages warning believers that their works here woukd be judged by God. I realized that many of my Christian heros may in fact hear Jesus say "I never knew you", that the Way is more narrow than many in Christian circles want to admit.

But most of all I realize that God reached me, that He convicted me of the mistake of Penal Substitution Theory, at precisely the right time. Looking back I can see that I was on the cusp of being carried away by the vain philosophy. I love theology. For grad school I went to seminary and got my masters in theology. But I learned that many will be carried away from the true faith by this theology I loved so much.

I also learned that while I held the Theory I continued to grow and learn on orher areas. So I suspect that God allowed the error while I was maturing in other ways. He led me away from the error at the right time in my life.

I learned more about Paul's warning to those who teach. I know that I have been forgiven, and I am grateful for the overall experience as I am not sure I would have recognized how serious an error that theory was (truths it replaced). But abandoning the theory after so many decades believing it and simply reading the Bible for what God said to us has been an amazing experience. I can't describe how much depth I have found in God's Word studying the actual text rather than reading it through the lens of a theory.

I also learned, this one from experience, that most will guard their theories and traditions even if it means neglecting God's Word. I have found that peoole generally like "camps" and choose to follow men they regard as heros in their positions. Basically, the mentality is "it was good enough for _________, so its good enough for me". But I have concluded that each person is responsible for their own choices, and they will stand or fall accordingly.

I don’t know how to continue here.
You tell me that I am not to read into the Bible what I believe elsewhere.
But you continue to speak to me in a way that shows me that you are reading beliefs into my statements that are not there. You keep talking to me as if I believe PST. I have told you that I don’t. What I have told you is that there is a basis for using the principle of debt as an understanding of sin.

Every now and again I think we are only talking about “penal” until you start going after “substitution.” What are you actually discussing?
Do you believe in substitution?

A few more examples,
Forgive us our debts/trespasses…

If the sacrifice offering makes atonement for the offerer it is an offering for a trespass.

Mark 10:45
For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.

1 Kings 20:42
And he said unto him, Thus saith the LORD, Because thou hast let go out of thy hand a man whom I appointed to utter destruction, therefore thy life shall go for his life, and thy people for his people.

N. T. Wright (who I don’t know anything about except for what little was given in this article) says
“Substitutionary atonement is a vital element in the gospel. Miss it out, and the music of the gospel is no longer what it should be. But if you only play that note you are in danger of setting up a different harmony altogether.”

I don’t know how much I agree with anything that Wright says, but if you only have one teaching out of the Bible and don’t take into account the whole Bible, you are not walking circumspectly.

 

[JonC]

I don’t know how to continue here.
You tell me that I am not to read into the Bible what I believe elsewhere.
But you continue to speak to me in a way that shows me that you are reading beliefs into my statements that are not there. You keep talking to me as if I believe PST. I have told you that I don’t. What I have told you is that there is a basis for using the principle of debt as an understanding of sin.

Every now and again I think we are only talking about “penal” until you start going after “substitution.” What are you actually discussing?
Do you believe in substitution?

A few more examples,
Forgive us our debts/trespasses…

If the sacrifice offering makes atonement for the offerer it is an offering for a trespass.

Mark 10:45
For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.

1 Kings 20:42
And he said unto him, Thus saith the LORD, Because thou hast let go out of thy hand a man whom I appointed to utter destruction, therefore thy life shall go for his life, and thy people for his people.

N. T. Wright (who I don’t know anything about except for what little was given in this article) says
“Substitutionary atonement is a vital element in the gospel. Miss it out, and the music of the gospel is no longer what it should be. But if you only play that note you are in danger of setting up a different harmony altogether.”

I don’t know how much I agree with anything that Wright says, but if you only have one teaching out of the Bible and don’t take into account the whole Bible, you are not walking circumspectly.

I apologize. It is difficult to argue without it appearing the argument is against you rather than the theory neither of us hold. Please forgive me for that, and if I do it again.

We need to kerp in mind that Oenal Substitution Theory foes not mean penal + substitution. It is a type of substitution (a term, not two words combined to represent two aspects).


I agree with Wright as you have quoted him on that point. One cannot miss that the Atonement is substitutionary and understand anything about Christ's work. But Substitutionary Atonemrnt and Penal Substitution Atonement are not the same thing.

The entire work of Jesus in redeeming man is substitutionary (His incarnation, life, death, and resurrection).

The difference is the type of substitution.

Biblically it is representative substitution (viewing Jesus was another type of Adam, or the Son of Man)
Aquinas believed it was satisfactory substitution.
Calvin changed it to penal substitution.


I think you may have missed a very important point, and that may have contributed to us talking past one another.

Penal Substitution is not penal aspects plus substitution aspects. It is an actual term.
It is the type of substitution.

Do I believe in substitution? Yes. I believe Jesus is the "second Adam", the Son of Man. I believe in representative substitution.

Do I believe satisfactory substitution? No. I believe that type substitution is an error and isolates Chriat from man.

Do I believe in penal substitution? No. That reform of Aquinas' substitution carries over his isolation from being the "Son of Man" and adds a type of substitution foreign to Scripture.

 

[Ben1445]

There are lots of theories. They all have some kind of basis towards Scripture. (Not that that are all correct, but that they attempt to explain Scripture)
There are aspects in each that should not be isolated and taught as the strict definition of atonement. The Bible talks about satisfaction in regard to Christ’s suffering, ransom in regard to the sinner, wrath in regard to the sinner, debt in regard to the sinner, etc. It accomplishes nothing to deny any of these truths when the Bible says all of them. What people are doing is saying “I reject ransom theory,” and they don’t understand that the basis for ransom is Scripture. Instead, whatever in any theory that deviates from Scripture, they take hold of, truth included, and throw it out the window. Do sinners have a penalty for sin? It is not inaccurate to say yes. Does what Christ did remove our penalty? Yes. These are things that can’t be done away with just because someone who believes something else about them said them.
My main purpose in this conversation is what I have said before, “don’t throw out the baby with the bath water.”

 

[JonC]

There are lots of theories. They all have some kind of basis towards Scripture. (Not that that are all correct, but that they attempt to explain Scripture)
There are aspects in each that should not be isolated and taught as the strict definition of atonement. The Bible talks about satisfaction in regard to Christ’s suffering, ransom in regard to the sinner, wrath in regard to the sinner, debt in regard to the sinner, etc. It accomplishes nothing to deny any of these truths when the Bible says all of them. What people are doing is saying “I reject ransom theory,” and they don’t understand that the basis for ransom is Scripture. Instead, whatever in any theory that deviates from Scripture, they take hold of, truth included, and throw it out the window. Do sinners have a penalty for sin? It is not inaccurate to say yes. Does what Christ did remove our penalty? Yes. These are things that can’t be done away with just because someone who believes something else about them said them.
My main purpose in this conversation is what I have said before, “don’t throw out the baby with the bath water.”

I agree that several positions can be relevant as each focuses on an aspect of the Atonement


The problem I have with Penal Substitution Theory is what the theory "brings to the table" is completely false (it does not bring any legitimate observation) and denies what is actually in Scripture.

I can explain-

The initial view was Ransom theory. Some used the illustration of God paying Satan, but others emphasized this was a ransom paid but not to any entity. It is true that Christ ransomed us from sin and death.

The moral influence theory focused on following Jesus' example (Jesus taught us how to live). This is true. We are to be conformed into His image and strive to be like Him.

Those are the two most proment positions in Christianity.

Penal Substitution Theory teaches that the type of substitution Jesus suffered was penal substitution. What it teaches that is not already included in other positions is that the Father transferred our sins to Jesus and He suffered the punishment of God instead of us as divine justice demands that sins be punished, and it is in this way God forgives sins.

The first two positions are compatible with one another. Buth can be true, with each focusing on different aspects of the Atonement.

But the third, the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement, stands in opposition to the other two views. The reasons are that:

1. the other two hold that God not only can but will forgive sins based on the sinner turning from sin to God.
2. Penal Substitution Theory holds a newer judicial philosophy as Divine Justice (the 16th century judicial philosophy upon which Penal Substitution Theory is based is considered unjust and worldly by the first two views).
3. The first two views consider Christ to have suffered the punishment of the powers of this world (of Satan, which they used as the embodiment of sin snd death) while Penal Substitution Theory views this as God's punishment.
4. The first two view Christ as dying under the powers of this world and rising as the justification of God (Christ dying under the powers of sin and death and His resurrection being victory over these powers, the Father judging Him as righteous with the Assention) where Penal Substitution Theory view Christ as dying by the punishment of God and this paying the penality His justice demands on our behalf).

My point is Penal Substitution Theory is not the baby in the bath but the dirt in the water. We can toss out Oenal Substitution Theory completely and still have what is true because that is common to the Christian faith.

For example, I have no problem completely rejecting Mormonism even though Mormons believe Jesus was crucified.

This is one topic that I believe we must be very careful not to depart from Scripture. We all have an understanding, so I suppose we all depart to some degree (we see in part, as through a cloudy glass). But we should strive to stick with Scripture because what we understand of the Atonement affects so many doctrines. One error here leads to more errors in other areas.

 

[Ben1445]

I agree that several positions can be relevant as each focuses on an aspect of the Atonement


The problem I have with Penal Substitution Theory is what the theory "brings to the table" is completely false (it does not bring any legitimate observation) and denies what is actually in Scripture.

I can explain-

The initial view was Ransom theory. Some used the illustration of God paying Satan, but others emphasized this was a ransom paid but not to any entity. It is true that Christ ransomed us from sin and death.

The moral influence theory focused on following Jesus' example (Jesus taught us how to live). This is true. We are to be conformed into His image and strive to be like Him.

Those are the two most proment positions in Christianity.

Penal Substitution Theory teaches that the type of substitution Jesus suffered was penal substitution. What it teaches that is not already included in other positions is that the Father transferred our sins to Jesus and He suffered the punishment of God instead of us as divine justice demands that sins be punished, and it is in this way God forgives sins.

The first two positions are compatible with one another. Buth can be true, with each focusing on different aspects of the Atonement.

But the third, the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement, stands in opposition to the other two views. The reasons are that:

1. the other two hold that God not only can but will forgive sins based on the sinner turning from sin to God.
2. Penal Substitution Theory holds a newer judicial philosophy as Divine Justice (the 16th century judicial philosophy upon which Penal Substitution Theory is based is considered unjust and worldly by the first two views).
3. The first two views consider Christ to have suffered the punishment of the powers of this world (of Satan, which they used as the embodiment of sin snd death) while Penal Substitution Theory views this as God's punishment.
4. The first two view Christ as dying under the powers of this world and rising as the justification of God (Christ dying under the powers of sin and death and His resurrection being victory over these powers, the Father judging Him as righteous with the Assention) where Penal Substitution Theory view Christ as dying by the punishment of God and this paying the penality His justice demands on our behalf).

My point is Penal Substitution Theory is not the baby in the bath but the dirt in the water. We can toss out Oenal Substitution Theory completely and still have what is true because that is common to the Christian faith.

For example, I have no problem completely rejecting Mormonism even though Mormons believe Jesus was crucified.

This is one topic that I believe we must be very careful not to depart from Scripture. We all have an understanding, so I suppose we all depart to some degree (we see in part, as through a cloudy glass). But we should strive to stick with Scripture because what we understand of the Atonement affects so many doctrines. One error here leads to more errors in other areas.

One point I think is the dirt in the bath water is what you have called moral influence.
I do believe that Jesus is our example for how to live. I don’t think that that has anything to do with atonement. We don’t receive pardon for living like Jesus. That is works salvation.

 

[JonC]

One point I think is the dirt in the bath water is what you have called moral influence.
I do believe that Jesus is our example for how to live. I don’t think that that has anything to do with atonement. We don’t receive pardon for living like Jesus. That is works salvation.

From Philippians 2

In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:

Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
rather, he made himself nothing
by taking the very natureof a servant,
being made in human likeness.
And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
by becoming obedient to death—
even death on a cross!

The point of Moral Influence is that we need to have the same mindset as Christ, that He humbled Himself in obedience even to the death on a cross.

Now, I do not believe this should be the main focus of examining the Cross, but I would not categorize it as "dirt". I'd say they focus on a truth of Scripture but that there are others and as a theory of Atonement it is incomplete, even insignificant. But it is not false.

Just as a stand alone theory it is lacking.

The moral influence theory is typically combined with another when it comes to theology.

For example, the Orthodox Church combines Moral Influence with Recapitulation.

This is why I hold Christus Victor. I believe the "Classic" views of Atonement typically point out an aspect that should not be ignored. It is also why my view cannot be mistaken as Penal Substitution Theory (that theory, while accepting what is common Christianity, stands in opposition to all of the "Classic" views)

 

[Ben1445]

From Philippians 2

In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:

Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
rather, he made himself nothing
by taking the very natureof a servant,
being made in human likeness.
And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
by becoming obedient to death—
even death on a cross!

The point of Moral Influence is that we need to have the same mindset as Christ, that He humbled Himself in obedience even to the death on a cross.

Now, I do not believe this should be the main focus of examining the Cross, but I would not categorize it as "dirt". I'd say they focus on a truth of Scripture but that there are others and as a theory of Atonement it is incomplete, even insignificant. But it is not false.

Just as a stand alone theory it is lacking.

The moral influence theory is typically combined with another when it comes to theology.

For example, the Orthodox Church combines Moral Influence with Recapitulation.

This is why I hold Christus Victor. I believe the "Classic" views of Atonement typically point out an aspect that should not be ignored. It is also why my view cannot be mistaken as Penal Substitution Theory (that theory, while accepting what is common Christianity, stands in opposition to all of the "Classic" views)

That is a teaching for people who have atonement and not for people who need it. It does nothing to say that Jesus lived His life to show us how to act morally in order to be saved.

 

[JonC]

That is a teaching for people who have atonement and not for people who need it. It does nothing to say that Jesus lived His life to show us how to act morally in order to be saved.

I apologize if I left you the impression that the Moral Influence Theory was teaching people how to be saved

The Moral Influence Theory holds that the purpose of Jesus' death and resurrection was to show God's love and bring about a moral transformation in humanity.

It is not a good "stand alone" position. But it has the advantage over Penal Substitution Theory of being biblical.
I'd say its primary issue is focusing on one thing at the expense of others.

@Ben1445

Here is a quick timeline of the theories we have discussed:

200 AD Ransom Theory (prominent theory from 4th to 11th century AD)
1100 AD Abelard's Moral Influence Theory
1100 AD Anselm's Satisfaction Theory
1250 AD Aquinas' reform of Anselm's theory - Substitution Theory
1530 AD Calvin's reform of Aquinas' theory- Penal Substitution Theory
1931. Gustaf Aulén coined "Christus Victor" to represent the theme in Early Church theology


Now, there are many more theories - Ontological Substitution, Governmental Theory (Torrance), Total Atonement (Hastings), etc.

My view Christus Victor, which is more of a theme. The reason I like it is that it reflects Scripture without concentrating on one aspect over another. It simply holds that Christ died under the powers of this world (the powers of evil, of sin and death) to free us of its bonds. He died, was raised, and was judged righteous, gaining victory over sin and death.

I see issues with Ransom theory as a stand alone theory.
I see issues with Moral Influence Theory as a stand alone theory.

I believe Anselm departed from Scripture all together, and the reforms of his theory (Aquinas' theory snd Penal Substitution Theory) simply built on that error.

I believe it is best to take Scripture for what it states and as it comes in the biblical narrative. I believe this forms a full view of the Atonement.

 

[Paleouss]

Here is a quick timeline of the theories we have discussed:

200 AD Ransom Theory (prominent theory from 4th to 11th century AD)
1100 AD Abelard's Moral Influence Theory
1100 AD Anselm's Satisfaction Theory
1250 AD Aquinas' reform of Anselm's theory - Substitution Theory
1530 AD Calvin's reform of Aquinas' theory- Penal Substitution Theory
1931. Gustaf Aulén coined "Christus Victor" to represent the theme in Early Church theology

@Ben1445
Greetings JonC. Forgive me again for coming into your conversation with another.

I have heard, and think I understand most of your complaints about the Penal Substitution Theory (some of them I agree with). In general, we agree that the Penal Sub theory ignores the Cosmic Triumph of Christ on the cross that has overwhelming verse reference. This, in my view, is a major flaw of the Penal Sub theory. However, were we still seem to have some disagreement, or I'm just not clear, is where the Penal Substitution theory got some things right that the Ransom theory ignored. That being the Law.

Below, I attempt to provide a step by step guide to how I think God has shown us how there are two hurdles that Christ's work on the cross must (or did) address. I don't claim these to be the only hurdles.

1. Prior to the Moral Law, sin ran rampant, causing alienation and bringing unlawful death (Rom 5:14), for “the wages of sin is death” (Rom 6:3). This sting that is sin was left unchecked because “sin is the transgression of the law” (1John 3:4) but “where no law is, [there is] no transgression” (Rom 5:14 KJV), and “sin is not imputed when there is no law” (Rom 5:13).
2. Thus, one purpose of the Moral Law was therefore to bring law and order to lawlessness (1John 3:4) by condemning the lawless sinner so “all the world may become guilty before God” (Rom 3:19, Gal 3:11). One purpose of the law was therefore to confine and define all sin as transgression, through the “knowledge of sin” (Rom 3:20, Rom 7:7) the Moral Law spotlights sin so in the light the “offense might abound” (Rom 5:20); therefore being a “tutor” (Gal 3:24) to those blinded within the kingdom of darkness.
3. It then follows that after the giving of the Moral Law, mankind continues to be (A) a slave of sin (John 8:34) and slaves within the kingdom of darkness (Col 1:13) unto death (Rom 6:23, 1Cor 15:56) and even in death (Rom 14:8-9, Act 2:36, Rom 6:9, 1Cor 15:55, 1Pet 3:19, Matt 16:18, Luke 16:23, Act 2:27,31, Rev 1:18, Rev 6:8, Rev 20: 13-14). This enslavement continued even after the Moral Law was given which then made (B) “all the world..guilty before God” (Rom 3:19) unto death (Rom 7:1). Therefore, lawless sin leads to death and the Moral Law now brings strength to this and condemns the sinner to death, for it is written, “the strength of sin [is] the law” (1Cor 15:56).
4. Although the Moral Law brings lawful justice to lawlessness, mankind now has a double whammy, if you will. There are two structures of dominion in which mankind is now under. They continue to be slaves to the dominion and power of sin (Rom 6:14), death (Rom 6:9) and Hades (Act 2:27,31, 1Cor 15:55), and they are also condemned to death under the dominion of the Law for that sin (Rom 7:1).
5. There are therefore two accomplishments that Jesus Chirst would seem to need to accomplish on the cross that have been presented from the Holy Scripture so far. (1) Overcoming and conquering the dominion of darkness (Col 1:13) which is the very power of sin (Rom 8:3, 6:14), death (1Cor 15:26, Heb 2:14), hades ((Matt 16:18, Luke 16:23, Act 2:27,31, 1Cor 15:55, Rev 1:18, Rev 6:8, Rev 20: 13-14, Rom 6:9), and the devil (1John 3:8, Heb 2:14, Col 1:13-14); and the other accomplishment being (2) the fulfillment and dealing with the law in some way that brought “all the world…guilty before God” (Rom 3:19, Gal 3:11); that which lawfully condemns all sinners to death.
   
   In other words, to be fully reconciled, Jesus’ Atonement must address the fact that mankind is (1) slaves and members of the dominion of the powers of darkness AND (2) the fact that mankind is already condemned and guilty before God under the Law for their sins.
   
   I have fallen back on this verse many times. The main reason is I really think it is speaking to this very topic and God's desire that for those that seek Him, He will teach us how He pleased to do it. That verse being that of (Rom 3:26 NKJV) "26 to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus." In other words, God is most certainly the justifier for He is Lord over all. But He wants us to know that through this whole process He has before ordained, it is a "just" process. And how can we measure or understand how it is just? One need only look at God's Law and how the process worked through it. Thus, Christ did something through the law regarding those that believe and do not believe.

In more other words, Christ did something on the cross that pertained to the law (as well as the Cosmic Triumph). What exactly is that?

As an added note: I remember you making statements like 'the Penal Sub theory' doesn't think God can forgive sins' (I think this was you). In response to this, although God can most certainly do as he pleases. The fact of the matter is, God decided to do what He pleased a certain particular way. That certain particular way is a "just" way. Therefore, justice and mercy (the weightier matters of the Law) is how He would have seemed to 'so please'. The question becomes, how exactly does the Bible show us that His forgiveness worked through the Law in a just way?

Peace to you brother

 

[JonC]

@Ben1445
Greetings JonC. Forgive me again for coming into your conversation with another.

I have heard, and think I understand most of your complaints about the Penal Substitution Theory (some of them I agree with). In general, we agree that the Penal Sub theory ignores the Cosmic Triumph of Christ on the cross that has overwhelming verse reference. This, in my view, is a major flaw of the Penal Sub theory. However, were we still seem to have some disagreement, or I'm just not clear, is where the Penal Substitution theory got some things right that the Ransom theory ignored. That being the Law.

Below, I attempt to provide a step by step guide to how I think God has shown us how there are two hurdles that Christ's work on the cross must (or did) address. I don't claim these to be the only hurdles.

1. Prior to the Moral Law, sin ran rampant, causing alienation and bringing unlawful death (Rom 5:14), for “the wages of sin is death” (Rom 6:3). This sting that is sin was left unchecked because “sin is the transgression of the law” (1John 3:4) but “where no law is, [there is] no transgression” (Rom 5:14 KJV), and “sin is not imputed when there is no law” (Rom 5:13).
2. Thus, one purpose of the Moral Law was therefore to bring law and order to lawlessness (1John 3:4) by condemning the lawless sinner so “all the world may become guilty before God” (Rom 3:19, Gal 3:11). One purpose of the law was therefore to confine and define all sin as transgression, through the “knowledge of sin” (Rom 3:20, Rom 7:7) the Moral Law spotlights sin so in the light the “offense might abound” (Rom 5:20); therefore being a “tutor” (Gal 3:24) to those blinded within the kingdom of darkness.
3. It then follows that after the giving of the Moral Law, mankind continues to be (A) a slave of sin (John 8:34) and slaves within the kingdom of darkness (Col 1:13) unto death (Rom 6:23, 1Cor 15:56) and even in death (Rom 14:8-9, Act 2:36, Rom 6:9, 1Cor 15:55, 1Pet 3:19, Matt 16:18, Luke 16:23, Act 2:27,31, Rev 1:18, Rev 6:8, Rev 20: 13-14). This enslavement continued even after the Moral Law was given which then made (B) “all the world..guilty before God” (Rom 3:19) unto death (Rom 7:1). Therefore, lawless sin leads to death and the Moral Law now brings strength to this and condemns the sinner to death, for it is written, “the strength of sin [is] the law” (1Cor 15:56).
4. Although the Moral Law brings lawful justice to lawlessness, mankind now has a double whammy, if you will. There are two structures of dominion in which mankind is now under. They continue to be slaves to the dominion and power of sin (Rom 6:14), death (Rom 6:9) and Hades (Act 2:27,31, 1Cor 15:55), and they are also condemned to death under the dominion of the Law for that sin (Rom 7:1).
5. There are therefore two accomplishments that Jesus Chirst would seem to need to accomplish on the cross that have been presented from the Holy Scripture so far. (1) Overcoming and conquering the dominion of darkness (Col 1:13) which is the very power of sin (Rom 8:3, 6:14), death (1Cor 15:26, Heb 2:14), hades ((Matt 16:18, Luke 16:23, Act 2:27,31, 1Cor 15:55, Rev 1:18, Rev 6:8, Rev 20: 13-14, Rom 6:9), and the devil (1John 3:8, Heb 2:14, Col 1:13-14); and the other accomplishment being (2) the fulfillment and dealing with the law in some way that brought “all the world…guilty before God” (Rom 3:19, Gal 3:11); that which lawfully condemns all sinners to death.
   
   In other words, to be fully reconciled, Jesus’ Atonement must address the fact that mankind is (1) slaves and members of the dominion of the powers of darkness AND (2) the fact that mankind is already condemned and guilty before God under the Law for their sins.
   
   I have fallen back on this verse many times. The main reason is I really think it is speaking to this very topic and God's desire that for those that seek Him, He will teach us how He pleased to do it. That verse being that of (Rom 3:26 NKJV) "26 to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus." In other words, God is most certainly the justifier for He is Lord over all. But He wants us to know that through this whole process He has before ordained, it is a "just" process. And how can we measure or understand how it is just? One need only look at God's Law and how the process worked through it. Thus, Christ did something through the law regarding those that believe and do not believe.

In more other words, Christ did something on the cross that pertained to the law (as well as the Cosmic Triumph). What exactly is that?

As an added note: I remember you making statements like 'the Penal Sub theory' doesn't think God can forgive sins' (I think this was you). In response to this, although God can most certainly do as he pleases. The fact of the matter is, God decided to do what He pleased a certain particular way. That certain particular way is a "just" way. Therefore, justice and mercy (the weightier matters of the Law) is how He would have seemed to 'so please'. The question becomes, how exactly does the Bible show us that His forgiveness worked through the Law in a just way?

Peace to you brother

Hey Brother.

God gave the Law through Moses.
God said it applied specifically to the Hebrews at that time (not to their forefathers) and to their descendants.
The Law was a covenant between God and Israel.
The Jews could not fulfill the requirements of the Law, therefore the Law served as a certificate of debt.
It showed them their transgressions, kinda like a teacher teaches students.

Here is what Jesus did in regard to the Law:

Jesus fulfilled the Law. He was completely obedient to the will of the Father, even to death on a cross.
Jesus canceled the debt of the Law, nailing it to the tree.

While the Law served to show the Jews their sins the purpose of the Law was to point to Jesus.

 

[Paleouss]

God gave the Law through Moses.
God said it applied specifically to the Hebrews at that time (not to their forefathers) and to their descendants.
The Law was a covenant between God and Israel.

Greetings brother JonC

Do you then disagree that the Moral Law given to Moses so that "every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God" (Rom 3:19)?

Peace to you brother

 

[JonC]

Greetings brother JonC

Do you then disagree that the Moral Law given to Moses so that "every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God" (Rom 3:19)?

Peace to you brother

Greetings.

No. I am saying that the Law did not apply to those from Adam to Moses and Gentiles (Romans 5:13, Deuteronomy 5:3).

Yet sin reigned even before the Law, for all have sinned. (Romans 5)

The Law cannot be split into pieces, like the moral law, the ceremonal, etc. (James 2) . It is one covenant. .God gave the Law as a covenant. It is a whole.

Romans 3:20 needs to be included in your post. Paul was arguing that men were not made righteous by the Law.

The Jews held that they were the people of the Law (the only ones who could be righteous before God if they fulfilled the requirements of the Law). Every mouth was stopped. All of the world (Jews and Gentiles) were guilty.

The "moral law" is simply God's moral standard. Yes, it was reflected in the Law because God gave the Law. It is also fulfilled when we abide by the Law of Christ because He is God.

But the Law was a covenant. It cannot be divided. God did not give the Moral Law but the Law (the Mosaic Law, or the Law given through Moses). There were moral aspects of the Law, but they were reflective of how we would act apart from the Law if we loved God.

But yes, Jesus' work fulfilled the Law and canceled out that "certificate of debt". At the same time He did much more as He addressed sin even for those who were "apart from the Law". He freed us from the bondage of sin and death - although we die yet shall we live.

This is why Scriputure addresses our redemption as "God's righteousness manifested apart from the Law". Mankind was reconciled to God in the person of His Son. Christ did what the Law could not because of human weakness.

My issue with the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement is not merely that it is extra-biblical. We all believe extra-biblical things. We all have questions not even addressed in the Bible. But Penal Substitution starts with a theory and goes to Scripture trying to support it, ripping God's Word apart in the process. My problem with the theory is that many of the truths found in Scripture it destroys.