THe Biblical Place for Penal Substitution

[Armchair Apologist]

Yes!!! That is the first clear view of Christus Victor we have, and it still speaks volumes.

He will crush your head,
and you will strike His heel.

Keep going...

Genesis 3:21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.

Now, unless you want to assume that these "coats of skin" appeared out of nowhere, it should be implicit to the reader that a couple of animals lost their lives in order for Adam and Eve to be clothed in a manner that was satisfactory to God and thus replacing their unacceptable fig leaf aprons. This clearly illustrates a "Substitutionary Atonement" and although I am intentionally leaving out the term "Penal," it seems clear that these animals paid the immediate penalty that Adam and Eve were worthy of (Gen 2:17). This is further illustrated with Abel's offering which was accepted and Cain's which was rejected. From here, you can drill down through the entirety of the Books of Moses (Genesis to Deuteronomy) and understand that a substitutionary atonement was central to God's plan for the redemption of mankind.

One does not have to say one atonement theory is false in order for the other to be true. I am becoming more and more convinced that all these "atonement theories" are theological constructs for the purpose of academic discussion and a few righteous "Theological Bar-fights!"

And not to worry, I WILL be answering your previous responses...

 

[JonC]

Keep going...

Genesis 3:21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.

Now, unless you want to assume that these "coats of skin" appeared out of nowhere, it should be implicit to the reader that a couple of animals lost their lives in order for Adam and Eve to be clothed in a manner that was satisfactory to God and thus replacing their unacceptable fig leaf aprons. This clearly illustrates a "Substitutionary Atonement" and although I am intentionally leaving out the term "Penal," it seems clear that these animals paid the immediate penalty that Adam and Eve were worthy of (Gen 2:17). This is further illustrated with Abel's offering which was accepted and Cain's which was rejected. From here, you can drill down through the entirety of the Books of Moses (Genesis to Deuteronomy) and understand that a substitutionary atonement was central to God's plan for the redemption of mankind.

One does not have to say one atonement theory is false in order for the other to be true. I am becoming more and more convinced that all these "atonement theories" are theological constructs for the purpose of academic discussion and a few righteous "Theological Bar-fights!"

And not to worry, I WILL be answering your previous responses...

Umm...no. God was not punishing the animals. But yes, things did change. Death entered the world. God subjected all Creation to futility (but in hope).

Here is the verse:

The Lord God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them. And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.”

Saying God making them clothes of skin means God killed animals which means God was sacrificing the animals for man which points to God punishing those animals which means God poured out His wrath on Christ instead of us... do you know what eisegesis means?

That is what you are doing.


It is true that not all atonement theories have to be false for one to be true.

But at the same time, if what Jesus experienced was God's wrath then all other positions have to be false.


Have you read about the early Chriatians faith when they faced persecution and death? They looked to the Cross and Resurrection. Do you know why?

Sure you do if you really read all thise writings you quoted.

They viewed Jesus as unjustly suffering persecution and death under the power of Satan, but God never abandoned Him. Instead of punishing Jesus the role of the Father - in their Atonement view - was to vindicate Jesus, completely destroy the power of Satan, and raise Him from the dead.
They - as you know since you read the actual works you quote - viewed the Cross as an example of faithfulness of God to save them even though they suffer the same evils in this World.

That simply is inconsistent with PSA.

You can believe PSA is correct. To do so is to dismiss a lot of Scripture, but that is your right.

You do not have the right to water down other views to claim they are compatible with PSA.


You still have not given even one verse that actually states any of the points that make PSA different from other views.

Lets go for a simple one.

Just provide a passage that states (without you having to explain what it "really" means) that Jesus experienced God's wrath.

 

[Armchair Apologist]

Umm...no. God was not punishing the animals. But yes, things did change. Death entered the world. God subjected all Creation to futility (but in hope).

Here is the verse:

The Lord God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them. And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.”

Saying God making them clothes of skin means God killed animals which means God was sacrificing the animals for man which points to God punishing those animals which means God poured out His wrath on Christ instead of us... do you know what eisegesis means?

That is what you are doing.

Yes, I know what eisegisis means and no, this is not what I am doing. I am reading this passage in a manner that is consistent with the rest of the Mosaic writings. This is about as far from eisegesis as you can get. Some insist the skins must have came from nowhere, that God made them appear by magic. They make such a logical leap because the passage does not clearly state that animals died in order for Adam and Eve to be clothed. Is this your position here?

Others say that Adam and Eve didn't actually have skin to begin with so God gave them skin in order to cover their bones and other vital organs. I am hoping you do not believe such nonsense but little suprises me these days...

The fact of the matter is that God doesn't do or say something for no particular reason. These coats of skin mean something. If you think I got it wrong, do tell. Not keeping score here but I believe I have the majority view. Everything here at the beginning sets the direction for everything else that follows. This is why we believe in the literal Genesis account of creation and a literal Adam and Eve. The passage does not stand apart from everything else.

It is true that not all atonement theories have to be false for one to be true.

But at the same time, if what Jesus experienced was God's wrath then all other positions have to be false.

I still fail to see this. The onus is upon you to make the case.

A substitutionary atonement is clearly shown throughout the OT scriptures leading straight to Calvary where Christ became the "Once for all" atonement for sin.

This does not mean that Christus Victor was wrong (that Christ triumphed victoriously over sin and death) or that the Ransom view was wrong (that Christ gave himself a ransom for many), that the recapitulation view is wrong (Christ the Second Adam succeded where the First Adam failed) and so forth. What I do reject is how certain "theories" are misapplied in order to support other heretical views such as using Christus Victor in order to turn Jesus into a "Social Justice Warrior" and so forth.

There are no crusades being waged against the other theories but PSA seems to be anathema among certain circles. Why is this?

Have you read about the early Chriatians faith when they faced persecution and death? They looked to the Cross and Resurrection. Do you know why?

Of course.

They viewed Jesus as unjustly suffering persecution and death under the power of Satan, but God never abandoned Him. Instead of punishing Jesus the role of the Father - in their Atonement view - was to vindicate Jesus, completely destroy the power of Satan, and raise Him from the dead.

Christ suffered unjust persecution on our behalf. For our sakes he became poor that ye through his poverty might become rich (2 Cor 8:9). Christ was certainly justified after becoming the sinless Son of God and the righteous lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

They - as you know since you read the actual works you quote - viewed the Cross as an example of faithfulness of God to save them even though they suffer the same evils in this World.

I made the citations I made in order to demonstrate that one may cite the patristics to make them say pretty much whatever you want. Of course they did not hold specifically to PSA nor did I believe they championed any particular theory over another! I haven't the time, energy, or interest in doing a deep dive into the writings of all the patristics in order to understand every sort of nuance they held regarding the atonement. Even if I were to do a Doctoral dissertation, it would be something else far more substantive that would be worth my time.

That simply is inconsistent with PSA.

We have fellowship with his sufferings. We have such because we have been made alive in Christ through faith in his blood.

You can believe PSA is correct. To do so is to dismiss a lot of Scripture, but that is your right.

And I would say you have to dismiss so much more in order to reject PSA.

You do not have the right to water down other views to claim they are compatible with PSA.

It is my responsibility to prove all things against the authority and sufficiency of the scriptures.

You still have not given even one verse that actually states any of the points that make PSA different from other views.

And I do not think that I will. I am done playing this game.

Lets go for a simple one.

Just provide a passage that states (without you having to explain what it "really" means) that Jesus experienced God's wrath.

What was the "Cup" that Jesus was speaking of in the garden?

 

[kyredneck]

But let's not hijack the thread and start arguing over Calvinism shall we?

Lol, the CDS bunch will go into withdrawal....

 

[kyredneck]

A "biblicist" is a person who holds a strict view of the Bible

 

[JonC]

View attachment 14068

Yep. The definition varies depending on where you go.

Biblicist
in American English
(ˈbɪbləsɪst)
noun
1. a person who interprets the Bible literally
2. a Biblical scholar

Biblicistin British English​

(ˈbɪblɪsɪst ) or Biblist
noun
1.
a biblical scholar
2.
a person who takes the Bible literally

Biblicism is an approach that regards the Bible as the exclusive source for formulating Christian belief and practice - ultimate authority lies with the written revelation from God expressed through his chosen prophets and apostles—the Bible.

noun
An expert on the Bible.
A person who takes the words of the Bible literally.
A Biblical scholar or expert.


BONUS - The earliest evidence for biblicist is from 1765, in a translation by Archibald Maclaine Presbyterian minister and historian.

 

[JonC]

Yes, I know what eisegisis means and no, this is not what I am doing. I am reading this passage in a manner that is consistent with the rest of the Mosaic writings.

No, in that instance you were engaged in eisegesis.

You could interpret that passage to point to God's provision, or to His care. But you read a lot into that verse and made too many assumptions for it to be considered "reading" or "interpretation". It was eisegesis.

I could look at Isaac and hos desire for the red stew. Jacob offered it to him. Jacob is Israel. Often Israel represents Christ. Christ is the Son of God. Israel (Jacob) is the Son of Isaac. Isaac liked the red stew. Blood is red in color. This points to the Father's plan that Christ cleans us by His blood.

Eisegesis.

The fact of the matter is that God doesn't do or say something for no particular reason. These coats of skin mean something. If you think I got it wrong, do tell.

Yes. You got it wrong. It shows God's provision. We can make up or read anything into that. But the verse itself shows that God provided for Adam and Eve.

I still fail to see this. The onus is upon you to make the case.

The writers you quoted made the case already (just not in the parts you quoted).

PSA holds that Christ suffered God's wrath as the punishment for our sin.

The classic views hold that Christ suffered the wrath of Satan as the death is the wage or consequence produced by sin (this being the domain of the devil).

The most of the other latin views are focused on substitution.

But Satisfaction Atonement sees Christ as a representative substitute restoring God the honor He was robbed.

Satisfactory Substitution Atonement views the issue as being merit, Jesus suffering a non-penal (a satisfactory) punishment that is acceptable to God.

The only way to hold PSA with any other theory is to destroy the other theory and accept only parts that can fit.

The reason is every other view contradicts PSA.

You can hold multiple classic views, you just shift the focus. But you canmot hold multiple Latin views because each view was a revision of previous views.

PSA, for example, is a revision of Substitution Atonement. You cannot hold PSA with what PSA views as error it corrected.

 

[JonC]

A substitutionary atonement is clearly shown throughout the OT scriptures leading straight to Calvary where Christ became the "Once for all" atonement for sin.

I agree. The difference is what kind of substitution. Christus Victor (Ransom Atonement) holds to substitutionary atonement. Christ is the representative substitute for mankind (the second Adam).

There are no crusades being waged against the other theories but PSA seems to be anathema among certain circles. Why is this?

I think there are several reasons.

PSA is the newest of the views, which makes it questionable to some. It is also based on Roman Catholic doctrine which many have come to reject.

I think the primary reason is that it is not in the Biblical text. It is a result of reforming RCC doctrine, which calls into question aspects that were carried into PSA.

Another primary reason is the judicial philosophy (16th century legal philosophy) at the heart of PSA is largely rejected when it comes to justice. When implemented it failed. Ultimately it was unjust because it fid not take into account the criminal or the victim.

 

[JonC]

And I would say you have to dismiss so much more in order to reject PSA.

No, there are no passages that have to be dismissed to reject PSA. What is rejected is what PSA adds (what PSA theorists say a passage "really teaches when properly understood".

You, for example, posted several passages but not one that those who reject PSA dismiss. What is dismissed is what PSA theorists say is really taught. But what if what the Bible really teaches is "what is written"? Then PSA is wrong. God would not punish the just to clear the guilty because, per God's words, that is evil.

It is my responsibility to prove all things against the authority and sufficiency of the scriptures.

EXACTLY!!! That is my point. It IS your responsibility. BUT you do not do it. You prove what you think is taught in Scripture by what you think the Bible teaches - NOT by Scripture itself.

Scripture is not your authority, that has slready been established.

If something you believe - a foundational doctrine - is not in the biblical test will you abandon it even if your sect says "that is that it really teaches"?

 

[JonC]

What was the "Cup" that Jesus was speaking of in the garden?

In Scripture the "cup" means what is to come. It has referred to blessings, wrath, salvation, and suffering.

Since Jesus said James and John would share this cup it refers to suffering, oppression, and persecution.

Applying this to Jesus, the "cup" refers to the suffering He would experience on the cross.

 

[DaveXR650]

PSA is the newest of the views, which makes it questionable to some. It is also based on Roman Catholic doctrine which many have come to reject.

It does require that you put scriptures together. For instance, if you are a person who would read Ephesians 2:8-9 and conclude that since there is no mention of atonement it must mean that there is no direct connection of Christ's death to you being saved, then you have a point.
It's a wrong conclusion, but you have a point.

You can hold multiple classic views, you just shift the focus. But you canmot hold multiple Latin views because each view was a revision of previous views.

That's not what the post Reformation theologians did in fact. Once again, Owen had more than one view of the atonement. You are making a logical demand here that, if it works for you, fine, but others, at least as astute as you, simply did not do this. That's why it's important, when the charge is made that things the ECF's said are not taking into account all they said and thus the point is that the whole story isn't being told, are also bogus claims. True, other things are said that were left out - but the logical demand that thus those things had to contradict what was said about Christ taking our sin upon Himself is a standard you have set up arbitrarily because you have decided that PSA must be wrong.

A substitutionary atonement is clearly shown throughout the OT scriptures leading straight to Calvary where Christ became the "Once for all" atonement for sin.

I don't think it would go too far to say that this is indeed the overwhelming theme of the whole Bible, at least in regards to the theme of how we can relate to a Holy God.

 

[JonC]

It does require that you put scriptures together.

All of these positions require you put passages together.

But PSA requires a lot more than putting scriptures together.

What I find wrong in PSA is not the passages it uses or the scriptures it puts together. What I find wrong is those things that are central to PSA yet are not in the scriptures it uses.

I agree that substitutionary atonement is central to the Atonement.

You guys keep on saying that BUT every Christian believes that substitutionary atonement is vital to understand the Atonement.

The majority of Christians reject, however, that this substitutionary aspect is penal substitution.

As we converse the most popular view is satisfactory substitution (some type of divine satisfactory punishment but not wrath against or punishment for our sin experienced by Christ as our substitute).

The oldest view is representative substitution (Christ as another type of man representing a new kind of human race, the "Second Adam" idea). This is my position.

The newest type of substitution in Christianity is penal substitution (Christ experienced God's wrath or punishment due our sins in our place).

Representative Substitution is one term (not aspects of representation and aspects of substitution).

Satisfactory Substitution is one term (not satisfaction and substitution).

Penal substitution is one term (not penal and substitutionary aspects).

These are types of substitution.

So by going back to substitutionary atonement you are trying to include all of Christianity by ignoring differences. That can be good in some things, but not when advocating one difference over others.

 

[Jerome]

Genesis 3:21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.

Now, unless you want to assume that these "coats of skin" appeared out of nowhere, it should be implicit to the reader that a couple of animals lost their lives in order for Adam and Eve to be clothed in a manner that was satisfactory to God and thus replacing their unacceptable fig leaf aprons. This clearly illustrates a "Substitutionary Atonement" and although I am intentionally leaving out the term "Penal," it seems clear that these animals paid the immediate penalty that Adam and Eve were worthy of...

Clearly illustrates?
Yet even your guy John Calvin missed it?

His commentary on that scripture:

"Moses here, in a homely style, declares that the Lord had undertaken the labor of making garments of skins for Adam and his wife. It is not indeed proper so to understand his words, as if God had been a furrier, or a servant to sew clothes. Now, it is not credible that skins should have been presented to them by chance; but, since animals had before been destined for their use, being now impelled by a new necessity, they put some to death, in order to cover themselves with their skins, having been divinely directed to adopt this counsel; therefore Moses calls God the Author of it. The reason why the Lord clothed them with garments of skin appears to me to be this: because garments formed of this material would have a more degrading appearance than those made of linen or of woolen. God therefore designed that our first parents should, in such a dress, behold their own vileness, — just as they had before seen it in their nudity, — and should thus be reminded of their sin. In the meantime, it is not to be denied, that he would propose to us an example, by which he would accustom us to a frugal and inexpensive mode of dress. And I wish those delicate persons would reflect on this, who deem no ornament sufficiently attractive, unless it exceed in magnificence. Not that every kind of ornament is to be expressly condemned; but because when immoderate elegance and splendor is carefully sought after, not only is that Master despised, who intended clothing to be a sign of shame, but war is, in a certain sense, carried on against nature."

 

[JonC]

Owen had more than one view of the atonement.

John Calvin held Augustine in high regard. But Augustine did not hold PSA. He held a classic Ransom theory (one I think was very flawed...the Satan trap...).

I love reading Owen even though Owen did not hold Christus Victor.

We can learn from other people without adopting their beliefs as our own.

But yes, we all have many views of the Atonement. All of these doctrines we have been discussing have many views.

We can hold aspects of opposing doctrines if we find those aspects correct. But we cannot hold PSA and any other one.


I believe every passage PSA theorists have posted on this site. But that dies not mean I hold PSA. I do not believe what PSA theorists bring into the doctrine. I do not agree that the judicial philosophy they have chosen is divine justice or in the secular world applicable to moral justice at all.

 

[DaveXR650]

I love reading Owen even though Owen did not hold Christus Victor.

From Owen's larger catechism:
Q. 10. How did the oblation of Christ redeem from death and hell?
A. First, by paying a ransom to God, the judge and lawgiver, who had condemned us; secondly, by overcoming and spoiling Satan, death, and the powers of hell, that detained us captives, (Followed by numerous scripture references for all you biblicists, which Owen was one also).

So there you have numerous elements not speaking directly of penal substitution. Some elements of Christ as Victor.
It also has come up that PSA must stand alone but in addition to the above you have what follows, regarding the atonement as being a ratification of the new covenant. (In other words, PSA can't be true because the purpose of the shedding of blood was really to ratify the new covenant).
Q.12. How was the new covenant ratified in his blood?
A. By being accompanies with his death; for that, as all other testaments, was to be ratified by the death of the testator. (Followed by scriptural references).

Elsewhere: This work of God, with respect unto him is expressed in the scriptures two ways: -- First, it is called the spoiling of him, and unto his power and prey that he had taken. The "strong man armed" was to be bound, and his goods spoiled. The Lord Christ, by his death "destroyed him that had the power of death, that is, the devil." He "led captivity captive, "spoiling principalities and powers, triumphing over them in his cross. So Abraham when he smote the kings, .... and so on. Later he added, "For this cause was the Son of God manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil." The spoils which he had in his own power were taken from him, and the works which he had erected in the minds of men were demolished. The web which he had woven to clothe himself withal, as the god of this world, was unravelled to the last thread. And although all this seems to represent a work of power, yet was it indeed an effect of wisdom and righteousness principally. For the power which Satan had over mankind was in itself unjust. (and he goes on and on as Owen always does.)

Sorry for the long quote but the point here is that in a few paragraphs he ties this in to how Satan got this power and how Christ fixed this for us and then he gets into other aspect of penal substitution, and even reparation to God's honor.

In other words, multiple atonement facets.

 

[JonC]

From Owen's larger catechism:
Q. 10. How did the oblation of Christ redeem from death and hell?
A. First, by paying a ransom to God, the judge and lawgiver, who had condemned us; secondly, by overcoming and spoiling Satan, death, and the powers of hell, that detained us captives, (Followed by numerous scripture references for all you biblicists, which Owen was one also).

So there you have numerous elements not speaking directly of penal substitution. Some elements of Christ as Victor.
It also has come up that PSA must stand alone but in addition to the above you have what follows, regarding the atonement as being a ratification of the new covenant. (In other words, PSA can't be true because the purpose of the shedding of blood was really to ratify the new covenant).
Q.12. How was the new covenant ratified in his blood?
A. By being accompanies with his death; for that, as all other testaments, was to be ratified by the death of the testator. (Followed by scriptural references).

Elsewhere: This work of God, with respect unto him is expressed in the scriptures two ways: -- First, it is called the spoiling of him, and unto his power and prey that he had taken. The "strong man armed" was to be bound, and his goods spoiled. The Lord Christ, by his death "destroyed him that had the power of death, that is, the devil." He "led captivity captive, "spoiling principalities and powers, triumphing over them in his cross. So Abraham when he smote the kings, .... and so on. Later he added, "For this cause was the Son of God manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil." The spoils which he had in his own power were taken from him, and the works which he had erected in the minds of men were demolished. The web which he had woven to clothe himself withal, as the god of this world, was unravelled to the last thread. And although all this seems to represent a work of power, yet was it indeed an effect of wisdom and righteousness principally. For the power which Satan had over mankind was in itself unjust. (and he goes on and on as Owen always does.)

Sorry for the long quote but the point here is that in a few paragraphs he ties this in to how Satan got this power and how Christ fixed this for us and then he gets into other aspect of penal substitution, and even reparation to God's honor.

In other words, multiple atonement facets.

You misunderstood my post.

I did not say that one cannot hold PSA and other atonement elements. In fact, I said the exact opposite.

My claim, however, was that one canmot hold PSA and another Atonement theory.

PSA stands alone. Elements? Yes. But only PSA with external elements.

One can hold the Doctrine of Ransom Atonement and the Doctrine of Moral Influence Atonement.

One can hold the Doctrine of Moral Influence Atonement and the Doctrine of Recapitulation (the Orthodox Church does).

One can hold Satisfaction Atonement and elements of Christis Victor (Lutherans do). Or PSA and elements of Christus Victor (most PSA theorists do).

But one cannot hold PSA and Satisfaction Atonement, or PSA and Substitution Atonement, or PSA and Christus Victor.


These positions are not just elements one can pick and choose.

If you take away Jesus suffering God's punishment for our sins from PSA it is no longer PSA.

Same with other views.

If you take away God's faithfulness to never punish the just and never clear the guilty (what Israel often appealed to as "God's righteousness") then you no longer have Christus Victor.

If you take away the rejection of Christ suffering the punishment due our sin then you do not have Satisfaction Atonement.

If you take away Christ's suffeting and death solely by Satan as a trial faced to restore lost honor then you do not have Substitution Atonement.

But absolutely, each of these positions hold truths others accept.

 

[JonC]

@DaveXR650

Each of these doctrines, even PSA, are more concise than you seem to think.

PSA does not mean that "Jesus died for our sins". It means more. It means that Jesus was a penal substitute for us.

Christis Victor does not hold that Christ suffered under the powers of Satan, God is sovereign over Satan, so Hesus suffered under God. That would be a heresy if it existed at the time.

You cannot say Steve molested a child, God is sovereign over Steve, so God molested the child.

Here it goes to the nature of Christ's suffering and death. It was the sum of all evil, the ultimate act of Satan against God.

Christis Victor does not place God as the author of evil (although many Calvinists have argued He is).

We cannot change one position so that we agree with it and then say we hold that position.


That is why, although I agree with every verse you have posted, do not affirm PSA. It is a complete theory, not just bits and pieces and one can pick up a couple to claim they hold PSA.

 

[DaveXR650]

You misunderstood my post.

I did not say that one cannot hold PSA and other atonement elements. In fact, I said the exact opposite.

My claim, however, was that one canmot hold PSA and another Atonement theory.

PSA stands alone. Elements? Yes. But only PSA with external elements.

That is a meaningless statement. All you are saying is that while it's OK to believe any element of any theory, if you say that this particular theory if THE theory then that is not OK. So you can't say this is the one and only theory. I'll give you that.

But, it is true that the atonement is not going to be completely explained by one facet of the atoning work of Christ. If your beef with penal substitution is that some advocates make the mistake of, when you say "atonement" meaning the actual sacrificial death of Christ and it's acceptance as a propitiatory sacrifice by the Father at the moment it happened and that the only thing that it relevant is the removal of our sin - then yes, that falls short if you demand it stand alone. But as I showed you with Owen, that is not the case with well taught Christians.

I think some of the pushback comes from the perception (and maybe with some truth) that in Christian circles we can become so reductive that we frame all of Christianity as the understanding that Jesus can remove our sins by his sacrificial death and then we are all OK, and the whole thing is involved with getting other people to assert this truth. I would agree that that falls far short of what it means to be a Christian. However; I just want to point out that denying this, as opposed to teaching the whole truth, is not the answer either and is a fatal error in fact.

If you take away God's faithfulness to never punish the just and never clear the guilty (what Israel often appealed to as "God's righteousness") then you no longer have Christus Victor.

This is where you go completely off track over and over. This is a Socinian error and belief in it is a good indicator of a deconstructing of your faith. You keep bringing this up as if it is your check mate point against penal substitution. When in fact it is the reason why the Godhead used the plan of Christ suffering the penalty of our sin in our place. The reason this was done in this manner was precisely that God is not only God, but is the supreme ruler of the universe. And he is stating there his inviolate principle. We are truly guilty and cannot be cleared, no matter how much God likes us personally, because he has a role as supreme governor and judge. We can, as God could, simply forgive someone of a personal offense if we choose - but to do so as a proper judge is despicable. The Father and Son have a special unity that allowed Jesus uniquely to be able to suffer a just penalty on our behalf, take on our guilt (and God's wrath), satisfy all God's just claims against us. Rather than violating this principle you keep bringing up - this principle is actually the reason for PSA.

 

[JonC]

That is a meaningless statement. All you are saying is that while it's OK to believe any element of any theory, if you say that this particular theory if THE theory then that is not OK. So you can't say this is the one and only theory. I'll give you that.

But, it is true that the atonement is not going to be completely explained by one facet of the atoning work of Christ. If your beef with penal substitution is that some advocates make the mistake of, when you say "atonement" meaning the actual sacrificial death of Christ and it's acceptance as a propitiatory sacrifice by the Father at the moment it happened and that the only thing that it relevant is the removal of our sin - then yes, that falls short if you demand it stand alone. But as I showed you with Owen, that is not the case with well taught Christians.

I think some of the pushback comes from the perception (and maybe with some truth) that in Christian circles we can become so reductive that we frame all of Christianity as the understanding that Jesus can remove our sins by his sacrificial death and then we are all OK, and the whole thing is involved with getting other people to assert this truth. I would agree that that falls far short of what it means to be a Christian. However; I just want to point out that denying this, as opposed to teaching the whole truth, is not the answer either and is a fatal error in fact.

This is where you go completely off track over and over. This is a Socinian error and belief in it is a good indicator of a deconstructing of your faith. You keep bringing this up as if it is your check mate point against penal substitution. When in fact it is the reason why the Godhead used the plan of Christ suffering the penalty of our sin in our place. The reason this was done in this manner was precisely that God is not only God, but is the supreme ruler of the universe. And he is stating there his inviolate principle. We are truly guilty and cannot be cleared, no matter how much God likes us personally, because he has a role as supreme governor and judge. We can, as God could, simply forgive someone of a personal offense if we choose - but to do so as a proper judge is despicable. The Father and Son have a special unity that allowed Jesus uniquely to be able to suffer a just penalty on our behalf, take on our guilt (and God's wrath), satisfy all God's just claims against us. Rather than violating this principle you keep bringing up - this principle is actually the reason for PSA.

Ummm....no....that is nothing like what I posted.

I am saying three things:

1. You cannot logically hold contradicting theories.

2. Each theory is more than a collection of individual elements.

3. Holding aspects of an Atonement theory is not holding that theory.

I do not understand why that confuses you as we have discussed it when you said my view sounded like PSA. It was when I told you what I do not believe that you realized my view is not PSA.

How could somebody hold PSA and Christis Victor when Christus Victor holds that Christ suffered and died solely under the power of Satan, under Satan's wrath against humanity, with those involved in the crucifixion doing so under his influence?

You hold PSA. Do you also believe that Christ's suffering and death was the culmination of Satan's power, that God allowed this to occur because it was His plan to vindicate Christ?

You have already answered "no", which is fair as you never claimed to hold any of the ckasdic views, much less Christus Victor.

But you are demanding I believe John Owen would have resoundingly shouted "Yes!!!".

I have read all of Owen's works that I know of, and it sounds to me you are doung to him what you have done to other writings.

 

[JonC]

... that Jesus can remove our sins by his sacrificial death ... I just want to point out that denying this, as opposed to teaching the whole truth, is not the answer either and is a fatal error in fact.

I agree. I never once thought or posted that we can be cleansed from our sins except by Christ's sacrificial death.

You are making a strawman argument.

In fact, I insisted very strongly that it is His blood that clesnses us from all iniquity.

I am not sure why you would make such arguments, but I disagree with your statement we all see Christisns denying that truth.

At the very center of the Christian faith stands Christ's sacrifice and His cleansing blood.

You are reaching here, and grasping at straws.

We are truly guilty and cannot be cleared

I agree. God will NEVER clear the guilty. They will perish.

.We can, as God could, simply forgive someone of a personal offense if we choose - but to do so as a proper judge is despicable.

I agree. I am unaware of any serious Christian movement that presents God as simply forgiving.

When I say that God forgives sins as opposed to punishing them on Christ - that God can and does actually forgive sins - I was not advocating for simple forgiveness.

In fact, PSA holds something much closer to simple forgiveness than other views.

PSA holds that we are forgiven because Jesus paid our debt of sin in full.

That is simple forgiveness with the exception that it is not actually forgiveness by definition. In reality it is a way for God to clear the guilty, for them to escape punishment. But it is not forgiveness (God still punishes the sins, just on Christ).

That said, you again bringing up "simple forgiveness" is just another strawman argument. I never once claimed such a thing.

One difference here is I believe Christ's death is effectual. His sacrifice itself did something eternally significant.


But the main issue with PSA, no matter how you try to work it out, is it is foreign to Scripture.

You cannot provide any passage that states those things that make PSA different from other views.

I can provide passages for every essential point of my faith.

I don't mean saying "Jesus died for our sins....this really means...". I have absolutely no interest in adopting your understanding. While perhaps interesting, I do not care what you think is true. I care about what God has said because I know it is true. That is how I know PSA is false.

Like I said before, everybody has to decide for themselves who to follow. I choose God and His words. You choose men who agree with your understanding about what the Bible teaches when properly understood. We can't both be right.