I do, and have written extensively about it here.
I hope that all of our testimonies sound subjective. It is the God behind these experiences that is objective.
You can find my post. It is titled "my belief".
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
THe Biblical Place for Penal Substitution
- Thread starter Martin Marprelate
- Start date
I hope that all of our testimonies sound subjective. It is the God behind these experiences that is objective.
You can find my post. It is titled "my belief".
Armchair Apologist
Member
Our testimony may be subjective but when you formulate a biblical position, you should be able to objectively defend it.
Then Aaron shall lay both of his hands on the head of the live goat, and confess over it all the iniquities of the sons of Israel and all their transgressions in regard to all their sins; and he shall lay them on the head of the goat and send it away into the wilderness by the hand of a man who stands in readiness. The goat shall bear on itself all their iniquities to a solitary land; and he shall release the goat in the wilderness.[Leviticus 16:21-22]
Here we see the doctrine of expiation at work. The removal of guilt from one’s account. As Jesus bore our sin, guilt, and punishment, He also undertook the Father’s wrath in doing so. Seeing that no sin will ever go unpunished, someone has to pay for them. Jesus took that upon Himself when He stood in His ppl‘s place.
Here we see the doctrine of expiation at work. The removal of guilt from one’s account. As Jesus bore our sin, guilt, and punishment, He also undertook the Father’s wrath in doing so. Seeing that no sin will ever go unpunished, someone has to pay for them. Jesus took that upon Himself when He stood in His ppl‘s place.
Ben1445
Well-Known Member
Atonement theory arguments seem to be a waste of time to me.
So…
Could someone please explain to me why we must know the way Christ atoned for us?
Why is it not okay to use certain words and illustrations? Several of the ones that get the hardest time have similar terms used in Scripture.
One example that I have been bothered about is that I say Christ paid for sin. I have had people take me to task for this asking for proof that Jesus paid for sins. It is there. But I don’t see the purpose in splitting hairs. What are the implications of penal substitution, or any other theory, and what makes them so terrible? Why can they not be used as object lesson to explain Christ?
Tell me why this is a big deal. I’m tired and I can’t figure it out. Help me please.
And in the end, we are talking theory here, not heresy.
So if one of these theories is heretical, explain why.
So…
Could someone please explain to me why we must know the way Christ atoned for us?
Why is it not okay to use certain words and illustrations? Several of the ones that get the hardest time have similar terms used in Scripture.
One example that I have been bothered about is that I say Christ paid for sin. I have had people take me to task for this asking for proof that Jesus paid for sins. It is there. But I don’t see the purpose in splitting hairs. What are the implications of penal substitution, or any other theory, and what makes them so terrible? Why can they not be used as object lesson to explain Christ?
Tell me why this is a big deal. I’m tired and I can’t figure it out. Help me please.
And in the end, we are talking theory here, not heresy.
So if one of these theories is heretical, explain why.
I am sorry, did you concur that PSA is a Trojan horse for Limited Atonement? Or do you believe Christ died only for those supposedly chosen individually before creation? If we can determine what we believe, then perhaps we can engage in a discussion and not simply talk past each other.
Of course I believe Christ died for all humanity, those to be saved and those never to be saved. Of course I believe we must "receive" the reconciliation provided by Christ's sacrifice. Of course I believe when we receive the reconciliation is when Christ removes our sin burden, what God held against us. Of course I believe the lost have an actual opportunity to believe and be saved, that is why we have the ministry of reconciliation.
No I do not believe in man-made speculation, I believe what scripture teaches. It is a simple concept, Christ died as a ransom for all, but only those whose faith God credits as righteousness are transferred by God alone into Christ's spiritual body, where the washing of regeneration occurs, removing the sin burden of only those transferred.
PSA is simply a Trojan horse for Limited Atonement, that denies Christ died as a ransom for all.
You are assuming (actuallu, you are reading your theology into the passage).
It is true that the goat to Azazel symbolized something, but what it symbolized was the cleansing that took place when the blood was sprinkled. We see the same type of ritual in Leviticus 14 with the two birds (one effected cleansing, the other symbolized the cleansing).
But that is neither here nor there.
What verse describes Christ taking on God's wrath?
That is not in the OT sacrifice system.
The applied Lamb's blood at the Passover kept Israel, but they were delivered from Egypt (which symbolized the adversary, not God).
Too many assumptions. I think you can rework this in a way to both respect God's Word and prop up your understanding.
Oh...I can biblically defend my position. I was explaining why I left PSA after so long teaching and preaching.
I was not offering my biblical position. Just why I left an unbiblical (not in the text of Scripture) position.
I finally got to read your paper. I liked much of it.
I thought you did a fair job at some of the theories (although a bit brief and popular in nature). I also thought that you presented your view well.
But there are things that can be improved upon.
First, when examining theological positions you should remain more objective (not allow your understanding to betray your examination) and honest to opposing views.
The reader should not know your preference until the end, and then only by a brief explanation of why you prefer one theory over another.
When dealing with these positions you need to do so fairly. Either call all of them doctrines (they are) or all theories (they are with the exception of Christis Victor, and I will explain why in a bit.
The reason that Penal Sunstitution, Ontological Substitution, Satisfactory Substitution, etc are theories rather than facts is that they are not in the biblical text (they are the result of men reasoning out Scripture). Penal Substitution is dependent on several issues and philosophies that the adherent may assume is true, but with theology the presupposition shpuld be God's infallible Word.
For example, there is not a verse in the entire Bible that states Jesus suffered God's wrath, that what Jesus suffered was divine punishment, or technically even that our sins constitute a debt to God.
Ransom Theory is not a theory because it is absent from Scripture but because it assumes the focus is a random. The "paid a ransom to Satan" was illustrating (obviously, as this was Origen who typically used less than perfect illustrations). But others who held Ransom theory did so very differently. It became a ransom to Satan by the middle ages (by the laity). This was Anselm's complaint.
If you are going to use "theory" with one then the only possible way to do so is to do so with all.
Second, I mentioned Christus Victor not being a theory. In a way it could be the same way Ransom throry is (the focus). But it is not a doctrine. It is a theme under which several Atonement theories existed (the first being Random Theory). Christus Victor is poorly suited to be a doctrine.
Third, PSA cannot be a linchpin to the other theories as every other theory stands in contrast with PSA (if PSA is true then every other view is false).
The theories under Christus Victor (the Classic view) can coexist. You can hold Ransom Theory and Recapitulation, for example. But you cannot hold a Classic view and a Latin view because the approach and framework is opposite.
But you also cannot hold two Latin views (PSA and Satisfaction Theory, for example) because one alters the other into a different theory.
There are blends (like Luther's view, which borrowed satisfactionary substitution from Anselm within a Christus Victor motif....his "Götterdämmerung"). But ultimately this is not the positions combined. It is borrowing aspects to form another view.
I can continue if you would like. It has been awhile since I taught any theology and I do not want to presume you were serious rather than trying to support a camp (I am not sure you wanted a legitimate critique).
What is lacking is conversations with thise who hold opposing views to make sure you accurately represented their positions and their objections.
If you were simply wanting to cheer on the choir, that is fine too.
Armchair Apologist
Member
I do not concur that PSA is a Trojan horse for "Limited Atonement." I thought this was an outlandish statement and that we really should leave the Calvinism/Armninian debate out of this discussion. You should bear in mind that Charles and John Wesley both held to PSA. There is no need to treat PSA as being exclusively Calvinist.
It appears as if the rest of your response is in regards to your position on the "Limited Atonement." As I mentioned to others here, I am Calvinistic in my soteriology but tend to "pussy-foot" around with the "L" meaning I acknowledge its weakness plus it seems if God will hold a man responsible for rejecting the gospel message, it stands to reason that the atonement would be sufficient to save them had they responded accordingly. Quite a few twists and turns that would most certainly follow such a statement but perhaps we should just leave this for another day?
PSA does not fall into a Calvinism/ Arminianism debate (Arminianism grew from Calvinism and shares PSA).
I do not believe @Van is correct if he means that was by design as PSA came before Limited Atonement, but it is not an outlandish claim. PSA is used as a Trojan horse for Limief Atonement.
The reason is that Limited Atonement is the logical conclusion of PSA (excluding any divergence).
If God has to punish our sins on Jesus for us to escape His wrath then all, and only, those people who had their sins laid on Jesus are saved. These are the only people who can be saved, the lost still owe a debt.
This is an argument many Calvinists have made, and it is logical.
In fact, if PSA is true then logic demands that unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace, perseverance of the saints and reprobation must be true.
That said, religion does not always follow logic, and is not always consistent.
DaveXR650
Well-Known Member
Somewhere, maybe it was the Lutheran guy Dr. Cooper, but I can't remember for sure, but he made the point that "wrath" in the case of God's wrath as used in scripture, was what happens when a Holy God meets sin. Or you might say it is God's reaction to sin. If that is true then is would certainly be reasonable to say that Jesus suffered God's wrath, especially while he was bearing our sin in his own body on the tree.
Armchair Apologist
Member
I will accept these criticisms, thank you for pointing them out. I could've been a little more objective and I guess I was a little snarky with the "Penal Subtutionary Fact" quip!
Perhaps I am not fully understanding PSA from a scholarly standpoint hence my difficulty in understanding your objections. I did not base my argument upon writings of the reformers so much as the busload of scriptures I was citing.
Regarding God's wrath, the scripture are clear that the wages of sin is death (Rom 6:23) and he that believes not the Son shall not have life but the wrath of God abides in him (Jn 3:36) and that we were by nature the children of wrath even as others (Eph 2:3). Christ took upon ourselves what should have been for us. This should be undeniable! 2 Cor 5:21 says that "He was made sin for us who knew no sin that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. If this is not a substitutionary atonement, I really do not know what to say!
I do not believe that you are a heretic or anything, I am certain there has to be some sort of disconnect here, perhaps a misunderstanding based upon semantics?
Origen was far from perfect and I believe we can both acknowledge this. I was going to bring up the "Ransom to Satan" but you beat me to the punch. Most of the EOC guys I have interacted with this say they hold to the ransom theory which suprised me because I was assuming they would have said 'Christus Victor.'
Thank you for the constructive criticism. Perhaps it was the way I had read it from my sources?
Christus Victor is somewhat interesting. It is attributed to Gustaf Aulen and his book was published in 1931 so you would think it a "Johnny Come Lately" theory? He regarded it as being the "classic view" that was held in antiquity and of course cited patristic writings as does everyone else! Would you agree with my statement that much of Christus Victor can be found among the "Social Gospel" and "Liberation Theology" types?
If you will note, I tried to articulate my position independent of all the "theories." Perhaps I was a little "Loosey Goosey" in the definitions but I made the observation that there was some "truth" to be found in each of these theories but no one theory gives the complete, overarching truth related to Christ. the reason I stated that PSA was the "linchpin" is because it address the primary, principle reason for Christ's redemptive work. I am very much a "biblicist" and therefore look to the scriptures far more than I do some of these "Dead Theologians" who often spent more time studying Plato or Aristotle rather than doing a serious deep-dive into the scriptures! This is where each of these theories eventually go a little wonky!
I am therefore scratching my head somewhat where you are saying that every other theory stands in contrast with PSA. According to my understanding, it was not the theories themselves but those who hold to one theory over the other who are raising the contention. Abelard opposed both the Ransom and Satisfaction theories but we can still acknowledge that Christ was a "Moral Example" that we are to emulate. He failed to acknowledge that Christ was set forth as a propitiation for our sins though and without this, what good was his moral example? you can believe both. You can believe at Christ was offered as a ransom for many because the scriptures say so. You can say that Christ rose victorious over the grave because he most certainly did. Romans 5 and 1 Cor 15 speak of Christ being the "Second Adam" and on and on we go...
My main objective was to ferret out your objections so they could be better discussed. I believe this is a good excercise for the both of us. As I said, I do not think of you as being a heretic, perhaps just an argument over semantics?
I completely agree, this is the first time I have received input from someone having a differing view. My Seminary professor simply patted me on the head, gave me an A and said "Good Job!" I want to accurately represent that of which I am making objections so this is a very valuable exercise and I do appreciate it.
Its fun to "Preach to the Choir" and have everyone cheer you on but real learning happens when you place yourself in the hot seat!
Last edited:
DaveXR650
Well-Known Member
Maybe not a linchpin, but if you make the claim that "if PSA is true then every other view is false" you will have to go against guys your, yourself have recommended, like Torrance. In addition, it you get on the Mennonite forum they don't seem to have a problem with using a wide range of views, not that they show total agreement, but I don't think they would agree with that statement.
Armchair Apologist
Member
Perhaps there are a few surly Calvinists out there who would use it as such. I would not.
I fail to see any correlation.
Sounds like this is assuming that the Calvinists are correct that Christ only died for his elect. While I am sympathetic to a "Definite Atonement," I do not see Christ's redemptive work as having no impact on those who not saved. It ought to be a foregone conclusion that those who die in their sins do not have their sins atoned for. Calvinists are quick to point this out but I believe things are better understood when we see the Intent, Extent, and Application of the atonement. I believe there is room for dissenting views here.
Many of the Arminians later adopted the "Government Theory" which to me seems to go hand-in-hand with "Corporate Election" and a "libertarian free will" that Leighton Flowers and his ilk seem to promote. As I said, this is inconsequential to the topic at hand. Perhaps another day!
I guess I would need to have you show me the correlation here. I have had my views of the substitutionary atonement long before I ever dipped my toes in the "Calvinist" pool! You said that you were a Calvinist once upon a time. Perhaps this is the reason you cannot separate the two?
Calvinism hinges on PSA.Perhaps there are a few surly Calvinists out there who would use it as such. I would not.
I fail to see any correlation.
Sounds like this is assuming that the Calvinists are correct that Christ only died for his elect. While I am sympathetic to a "Definite Atonement," I do not see Christ's redemptive work as having no impact on those who not saved. It ought to be a foregone conclusion that those who die in their sins do not have their sins atoned for. Calvinists are quick to point this out but I believe things are better understood when we see the Intent, Extent, and Application of the atonement. I believe there is room for dissenting views here.
Many of the Arminians later adopted the "Government Theory" which to me seems to go hand-in-hand with "Corporate Election" and a "libertarian free will" that Leighton Flowers and his ilk seem to promote. As I said, this is inconsequential to the topic at hand. Perhaps another day!
I guess I would need to have you show me the correlation here. I have had my views of the substitutionary atonement long before I ever dipped my toes in the "Calvinist" pool! You said that you were a Calvinist once upon a time. Perhaps this is the reason you cannot separate the two?
Like you, I believed PSA long before I was a Calvinist. That is a non-issue.
I will try to explain, but first I need to explain exactly why I resent statements that decades ago would not need an explanation.
To a great extent theology is dead. This is due to the internet. We have "armchair theologians" who believe they can acquire the formal education in theology that took me 8 years to obtain. But where I had to limit myself to complete original source materials, take theological writings within context of an author's total explanation, take a few years of Koine Greek, study under professors, etc. they simply digest popular writings and apologists who support their understanding.
Sometimes I do resent explaining. This would have needed no explanation several decades ago because we have the original source materials (we have exactly how Calvin developed and articulated PSA in its current form in the writings of Calvin himself).
Several decades ago this was common knowledge (at least within a theological setting).
An example of how this is frustrating-
Suppose you studied for 8 years, got an undergraduate degree and completed your graduate degree in nuclear physics.
Now suppose somebody who never formerly studied nuclear physics but has read online articles and books is arguing with you about the external dangers of alpha radiation. They demand you prove that alpha is not an external danger. You could easily prove this, but the "armchair" guy has read otherwise so he will never accept your proof.
That is how I feel here. Calvin's development of PSA (granted, based on past theological developments...not in isolation) was known and accepted decades ago. But today PSA wants to rewrite history.
Why? Because they cannot function within a theological setting (they cannot take into account history, objectively examine doctrines factually and defend their positions). They instead look to writings... rarely complete original source materials, rarely academic...just popular writings saying what they want to hear.
It is frustrating because we never get to the meat of the topic as we constantly have to argue about what was once commonly known.
Anyway...sorry for the rant
.I must have woke up on the wrong side of the bed. This issue has bothered me for dome time and I do not mean it directed at you alone. Just expressing frustration with how far theology has declined. I believe it is dying and being replaced with pseudo-theology as much is now based in partial and reinvented history.
I will try to explain today. I am at work and should have time in a few hours.
DaveXR650
Well-Known Member
Imagine. Trying to look into history by looking at writings. Everyone is guilty of using modern sources which say what they want to hear, whether it be a Gospel Coalition article by a 26 year old YRR guy or a modern confused young fella that shows up on a YouTube video wearing a Pink Floyd tee shirt and thinks he's an Anabaptist. But when someone does quote an actual early church father do you listen or just dismiss it because it doesn't actually say "penal substitutionary atonement"? When a writer you recommend like Torrance, or a group you recommend (like the Anabaptists) also have a wide ranging view of the atonement, that does include penal substitution, do you recognize that or ignore it?
Armchair Apologist
Member
Some good observations here! I have taken an interest in Historic Theology during my thesis work and I intend to explore this further in my teaching ministry in the future. What I have learned is that theology is not static nor does it exist in a vacuum. We can study and cite earlier sources but did they have a clearer picture then or do we have a "more sure word of prophecy" today? I often cite Acts 1:6 as a proof text for my own premillennial position and I am convinced this was, in fact the position of the apostles but did they get it right? They obviously had no idea that the church would be looking for Christ's appearing over 2000 years later nor did they see the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD! Augustine wrote from his vantage point in the fourth century and the amillennial position was borne largely from his "City of God" treatise. Why do we give so much weight to Augustine's writings?
I don't have a Pink Floyd T-Shirt but I think I still have an old Led Zeppelin T-Shirt
When you use secondary sources that are trying to support a position for their sources you fail. Period.
If we want to know what a person believed then we have to look at their explanation of what they believed.
Do I recognize that Torrance had a wide range of views? Yes. He is interesting, but I would not recommend him to others (I used him as an example).
Do modern Anabaptists hold to PSA? Probably some, but then they woukd not be Anabaptist (to affirm PSA they would have to change other views and that change would be a departure from Anabaptist theogy).
What you are asking me, essentially, is something like "can't you acknowledge that Baptists are a diverse group which also rejects believers baptism?". Some, perhaps. But then they would not be Baptist.