THe Biblical Place for Penal Substitution

[JonC]

@Armchair Apologist '

An opinion – I cannot state this as fact, but it is my opinion based on several passages. It is not “fundamental doctrine” but just my view of what happens in this life.

A Jehovah Witness could be a Christian despite their doctrine. But at some point that person would be confronted with the words of God that differ from JW doctrine. That person would have to decide which to follow, God or man. After that encounter the Jehovah Witness could not remain so and be a Christian.

One could not believe in a basic doctrine of the Trinity and still be a Christian. But if that person is confronted with God’s word and continues to reject the doctrine (essentially rejecting the identity of Christ) that person would have proven him or herself lost.

The same goes with members of this board. One can hold many theories and ideas that are not true and be perfectly fine. Jesus will make them stand. But once they come to a point or place of decision between God’s words or what men think is taught by the Bible (regardless of which sect’s views) they are at a crossroad. They must choose between God or man. Several have been there on this board. Some have chosen God. Some have chosen man.

I believe that there comes a point where one can grieve the Spirit and be abandoned (the acceptable hour for them has passed).

 

[JonC]

@Armchair Apologist - I hope it helps for my reply to be in segments.

My question for you is this: Are you willing to abandon all foundational doctrine (all doctrine upon which other doctrine is built, all doctrine that establishes our faith) if it is proven to be absent from the biblical text (the actual words of God, “what is written”)?

OR if you find that such types of teachings are what men have said the Bible “really” teaches when “properly” understood, even though they are not God’s words, will you choose those teachings and dismiss God’s words?

How will you text your doctrine? By “what is written” (the biblical text)? No, you can’t because what you believe is not in the text. You have to test what you believe the Bible teaches by what you believe is taught by the Bible.

I cannot choose for you. I have made my own choice and will stand here. Each must choose for themselves who they will serve.

 

[JonC]

Maybe one that taught it for years and then decided it wasn't true after all?

No. That guy would not be a Calvinist anymore.

The worst Calvinists are the ones that are so concerned with theology and philosophy that they never get around to living a Christ-like life.

You can easily tell which ones are good and which ones are bad.

The good ones are known for their heart, their love, their Christ-like life.

The bad ones are known for their theology.

 

[DaveXR650]

The worst Calvinists are the ones that are so concerned with theology and philosophy that they never get around to living a Christ-like life.

Although it is just a label, true Calvinism simply does not allow for that.

 

[JonC]

Although it is just a label, true Calvinism simply does not allow for that.

I have seen it a lot. The worst "Christians" I have met are Calvinists. I cannot say they are not true Calvinists because they do believe Calvinism.

But some of the best people I have met are Calvinists as well. I think it may be how they hold their understanding.

 

[Ben1445]

Right. Calvinism doesn't assert that. All it says is that from God's point of view, the people who Christ died for are the same people who don't refuse to come.

That’s literally the same thing. It’s the nice way of not saying Christ didn’t die for those who refuse to come.
The whole subject is a non issue except for this.

 

[DaveXR650]

I have seen it a lot. The worst "Christians" I have met are Calvinists. I cannot say they are not true Calvinists because they do believe Calvinism.

But some of the best people I have met are Calvinists as well. I think it may be how they hold their understanding.

No. As usual you completely missed my point. It is a fact that what we call "Calvinism" teaches that the Christian life, and the pursuit of holiness is essential if one expects to be right with God. The fact that the same guys who said that also had developed a very detailed and intricate system of theology is I think a pretty good thing, but it is a false representation to try to say there is any room for a Christian life not well lived in Calvinism. If you are saying that some Calvinists are hypocrites, true. Or even that the misuse of parts of a theological system can lead to abuse, also true. But as someone who has taken the time to look fully into the theology of Calvinism, as well as being one who was drawn to what I only later discovered were Calvinists, I can tell you that they can match any other group in sound Christian doctrine and holy living.

 

[Ben1445]

To me, it is most natural and the simplest to just say that the atoning work of Christ is available to all and let it go at that.

In order to be available to all, it must atone for all. It is already done. It doesn’t happen again or as many times as someone repents. It is finished.
The difference is in imputation. How does God view us individually? Covered with the righteousness of Christ and blameless, or dead in trespasses and sins?

That's what the general Baptists, Anglicans like J.C. Ryle, and the Lutherans did, among many others. J.C. Ryle would say to people that "Jesus died for your sins" and he would say that in general to everyone who would listen. Stricter Calvinists would say "Christ has died" and if you come to Christ he will save you. The difference is subtle, and I lean all the way to Ryle, personally. But as long as the invitation to come is true and genuine I see no real difference from our point of view as sinners.

The word games I always refer to is just this. “The other side of the coin doesn’t exist in our minds if we don’t mention it.” But that can’t be.
When discussing the subject for content, I disagree with this “close my eyes to the problem and it goes away” approach. But in practice, I don’t actually care what people think God does for other people, so long as the gospel is given in good faith and without stumbling block. But even the stumbling block portion is not so much of a problem to me. God can speak by way of Balaam’s donkey. He certainly can use disobedient people.

 

[DaveXR650]

That’s literally the same thing. It’s the nice way of not saying Christ didn’t die for those who refuse to come.
The whole subject is a non issue except for this.

Ben. My only intention was to show that the tragedy of someone wanting to come to Christ and not being able to because he did not include them in the atonement is a false and fake charge. Anyone who continues to do that is deliberately misrepresenting Calvinism and I leave them in their preconceived notions. I don't believe the atonement is limited, for the 10th time. But I have taken the time to see why some of them said this and I am satisfied that all they were doing was trying to honor the Father by saying he would never, because of his love for the Son, and because of his extensive knowledge and wisdom, put any more on Christ than was absolutely necessary when he went to the cross. How do I know that? Because I read the literature pertaining to it.

 

[Ben1445]

Ben. My only intention was to show that the tragedy of someone wanting to come to Christ and not being able to because he did not include them in the atonement is a false and fake charge. Anyone who continues to do that is deliberately misrepresenting Calvinism and I leave them in their preconceived notions. I don't believe the atonement is limited, for the 10th time. But I have taken the time to see why some of them said this and I am satisfied that all they were doing was trying to honor the Father by saying he would never, because of his love for the Son, and because of his extensive knowledge and wisdom, put any more on Christ than was absolutely necessary when he went to the cross. How do I know that? Because I read the literature pertaining to it.

It’s just my take, but I don’t think Calvinism without limited atonement is Calvinism.
So I don’t think you are a Calvinist no matter how many times you say that you are.
Limited atonement is the central point of Calvinism, and that’s not just because it is the third point of five.

 

[DaveXR650]

It’s just my take, but I don’t think Calvinism without limited atonement is Calvinism.
So I don’t think you are a Calvinist no matter how many times you say that you are.
Limited atonement is the central point of Calvinism, and that’s not just because it is the third point of five.

Mostly, I am told that by Calvinists. And in the sense of discussing the TULIP as an integrated set of principles, you are right. I don't particularly care about labels. Limited atonement is not the central point of Calvinism. But they do consciously try to keep God himself as the central point, rather than man and his needs and difficulties and well being.

I also need to point out that precise theology, when discussing theology, will by it's nature lead to multiple arguments. This doesn't have to mean real animosity. Look, once again, at what Calvinists do. J.C. Ryle, who is highly thought of by Calvinists, and his books used often in studies, did not believe in limited atonement. Look at Richard Baxter, who went round and round with John Owen, and honestly, even got off track in our common protestant understanding of justification. Yet he is quoted all the time and recommended a lot by Calvinists. You know, we always like to bring up problems that Calvinistic theology leads to when in reality Calvinists should be some of the most open minded in regards to salvation, since by definition, it is "all of God".

 

[Ascetic X]

If you are saying that some Calvinists are hypocrites, true. Or even that the misuse of parts of a theological system can lead to abuse, also true. But as someone who has taken the time to look fully into the theology of Calvinism, as well as being one who was drawn to what I only later discovered were Calvinists, I can tell you that they can match any other group in sound Christian doctrine and holy living.

If you consider yourself a Calvinist, is it reasonable to shy away from examining the personality of John Calvin?

Have you looked fully into the life and character of John Calvin himself? How he approved of the execution of heretics? How he requested beheading of Michael Servetus, who was burned to death on a stake?

He routinely referred to his critics as pigs, riffraff, dogs, idiots, stinking beasts, and impudent donkeys (that last one was reserved for the peace-loving Anabaptist, Menno Simons). Is this how Jesus wants us to speak of those who disagree with us?

His cruel and arrogant treatment of his theological opponents is well known.

Luckily for another critic, Jacques Gruet, he got the “merciful” treatment and was beheaded. Jerome Bolsec was imprisoned, as was Pierre Ameaux, who was also paraded through Geneva on his knees to confess his sin of daring to disagree with Calvin.

John Calvin ruled Geneva as its leading influencer with an iron fist. Between 1542 and Calvin’s death in 1564, there were 76 banishments. In one year, there were 414 prosecutions for moral offences (which included wearing the wrong color clothing or banned hairstyles or not naming your sons after Old Testament characters).

When a plague swept through Geneva, 14 women were executed as witches for allegedly persuading Satan to send the disease.

Calvin’s own step-daughter and son-in-law were condemned for adultery and executed.

On the occasion of his wife Idelette’s death, Calvin eulogized her with, “From her I never experienced the slightest hindrance.” That was love-talk, coming from him.

Sebastian Castellio, a former friend of Calvin, who fell out with him over a point of theology, once remarked, “If Christ himself came to Geneva, he would be crucified. For Geneva is not a place of Christian liberty. It is ruled by a new pope, but one who burns men alive…”

The 18th Century Genevan philosopher, Jean Jacques Rousseau described Calvin this way:

“Who was ever more caustic, imperious, strong-willed and more divinely infallible, according to his own opinion, than Calvin? For him the least opposition, the least objection that someone dared to present was always considered a work of Satan, a crime deserving to be punished by fire.”

 

[DaveXR650]

If you consider yourself a Calvinist, is it reasonable to shy away from examining the personality of John Calvin?

I've read some of his "Institutes of the Christian Religion" and sometimes use his Bible commentary. His writing seems pretty plainly written, although of course we are reading modernized translations but what you have to remember is that most Calvinist, at least Reformed Baptist churches, don't use him much. I don't think I have ever been in a Reformed Baptist church that taught "Calvin", or for that matter, T.U.L.I.P..

Most Reformed Baptist churches are just Baptists who spiritually discerned, not by dreams, visions, or epiphanies, but by prayer and scripture, that the "felt needs", aggressive technique based "soul-winning" strategies, lack of emphasis on actually living a Christian life - was a big problem. And at the same time period, a lot of formerly not well known Puritan sermons and papers started becoming available. Some went in that direction, others went in more of an Anabaptist direction.

It's interesting to see where and how the various groups ended up but that's another subject.

Anyway, I don't follow Calvin, don't know much about his personality, and would prefer, if I had to pick someone to emulate, would prefer John Bunyan.

 

[Ben1445]

Mostly, I am told that by Calvinists. And in the sense of discussing the TULIP as an integrated set of principles, you are right. I don't particularly care about labels. Limited atonement is not the central point of Calvinism. But they do consciously try to keep God himself as the central point, rather than man and his needs and difficulties and well being.

I also need to point out that precise theology, when discussing theology, will by it's nature lead to multiple arguments. This doesn't have to mean real animosity. Look, once again, at what Calvinists do. J.C. Ryle, who is highly thought of by Calvinists, and his books used often in studies, did not believe in limited atonement. Look at Richard Baxter, who went round and round with John Owen, and honestly, even got off track in our common protestant understanding of justification. Yet he is quoted all the time and recommended a lot by Calvinists. You know, we always like to bring up problems that Calvinistic theology leads to when in reality Calvinists should be some of the most open minded in regards to salvation, since by definition, it is "all of God".

Please don’t confuse any disagreement with animus.
You have been nothing but civil and any response I give to you should not be taken as fighting words.

 

[Ascetic X]

I've read some of his "Institutes of the Christian Religion" and sometimes use his Bible commentary.

Anyway, I don't follow Calvin, don't know much about his personality, and would prefer, if I had to pick someone to emulate, would prefer John Bunyan.

You call yourself a Calvinist, but do not know much about John Calvin?

That sounds like a Marxist who does not know much about Karl Marx.

Or a Freudian who does not know much about Sigmund Freud.

Or a Christian who does not know much about Jesus Christ.

It seems like you would want to know about the person your belief system is named after.

I say this gently, not mocking you.

I myself followed a theologian Bible teacher very enthusiastically in my youth. But I lost respect for the hypocritical predatory leaders in his organization, and later discovered terrible things about the theologian’s personal sinful activities. It was not easy removing his teachings from my mind and starting all over again.

I realized that I should never again exalt any teacher as highly as I did that guy, and should never again be totally devoted to any denomination or system of theology.

 

[Armchair Apologist]

@Armchair Apologist

This (a faithfulness to God's Word) is important. When we make truth subjective by exchanging God's words for our understanding we forfeit any integrity.

This is one reason people have abandoned churches in favor of individual worship. I know this because I have heard it repeatedly.

I have spoken to people who are Christian but left all "organized religion" over PSA. A few explained that the Bible did not match what they were being taught. A couple rejected the legal philosophy at the center of PSA.


Let me ask you -

If Steve were to say homosexuality is not a sin in the Bible could you prove otherwise?

You may offer Lev 20:13. Or maybe Romans 1:27.

But what if Steve says "yea...but what is really being taught is a prohibition against prostitution, as all serious scholars know (a common defence). Or "but that was cultural and does not apply". Or "in the OT that was the same as the dietary laws".

You would have no right to argue against Steve's position because you also base your position not on "what is written" but on what you believe is "really" taught when "properly" understood.

You stand on the same subjective ground as Steve, just with a different topic.

You would never win over Steve just as I have no inclination that you will change your mind and take Scripture for what is actually stated.


Here is a suggestion- buy a new highlighter and highlight every verse in your Bible that states God punished Jesus instead of us, that Jesus suffered God's wrath, that God punished the just to clear the guilty. Afterwards you can return the highlighter for a refund because it would not have been used.

I think you are making my case for me here! We cannot just find one "smoking gun proof text" and build doctrinal truth upon it! We could do this about literally anything and in so doing, start some new religious movement! This was my point about the Trinity. You cannot find the word "Trinity" in the scriptures nor can you find one verse on its own that clearly defines the trinity - unless you care to cite the Johannine Comma (1 Jn 5:7). Yet the doctrine of the trinity is very much taught and is a critical, essential doctrine of the Christian faith. The historic doctrines of the church are developed through the comparing scripture with scripture - line upon line, line upon line, precept upon precept, etc. I'm fairly sure you agree with this right?

When talking to Steve about his homosexuality (your example here), we may cite Lev 20:13 and Romans 1:27 and perhaps even 1 Cor 6:9 but what is the real issue here? We may be able to convince Steve that the Bible says homosexuality is wrong but what good is this if he simply rejects the scriptures, rejects the gospel, and continues about with his sinful life anyway? Perhaps we should show him why mankind has such sinful desires that go far beyond the sin of homosexuality - how human depravity manifests itself in many different ways and that we all have to deal with it! Perhaps in doing so, we can speak of matters concerning his eternal soul and perhaps the gospel message may even take root!

No, I do not look for the simple, quick "proof texts" that either prove or disprove my point. I look to the whole of scripture.

I'm going to be fairly busy during the weekend and pretty much all of next week so I am not sure how much time I will have for this. It seems as if you have put a great bit of time and thought into this and I would like to answer you in kind.

In the meantime, I will share this. We often appeal to the writings of the Patristics and other historical figures in order to show that our respective position has been held consistently throughout history. You (as do others) have stated that "Ransom" and "Christus Victor" are the oldest so-called "theories" but I believe the following makes the case that at very least, the "concept" of PSA was clearly understood and articulated going all the way back to the first century AD:

“Because of the love he felt for us, Jesus Christ our Lord gave his blood for us by the will of God, his body for our bodies, and his soul for our souls.” - Clement of Rome (96 A.D.)

“Now, He suffered all these things for our sakes, that we might be saved.” - Ignatius (107 A.D.)

For to this end the Lord endured to deliver up His flesh to corruption, that we might be sanctified through the remission of sins, which is effected by His blood of sprinkling. For it is written concerning Him, partly with reference to Israel, and partly to us; and [the Scripture] saith thus: “He was wounded for our transgressions and bruised for our iniquities: with His stripes we are healed. He was brought as a sheep to the slaughter, and as a lamb which is dumb before its shearer.” - Epistle of Barnabus (A.D. 70-135)

O sweet exchange! O unsearchable operation! O benefits surpassing all expectation! that the wickedness of many should be hid in a single righteous One, and that the righteousness of One should justify many transgressors! - Epistle to Diognetus (2nd Century A.D.)

Thus the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sins of the world, became a curse on our behalf.” He then stated, “And the Lamb of God not only did this, but was chastised on our behalf, and suffered a penalty He did not owe, but which we owed because of the multitude of our sins; and so He became the cause of the forgiveness of our sins, because He received death for us, and transferred to Himself the scourging, the insults, and the dishonour, which were due to us, and drew down upon Himself the appointed curse, being made a curse for us. - Eusebius of Caesarea (A.D. 275-339)

But since it was necessary also that the debt owing from all should be paid again, for…it was owing that all should die…he next offered up his sacrifice also on behalf of all, yielding his temple to death in the stead of all, in order firstly to make men quit and free of their old trespass, and further to show himself more powerful even than death, displaying his own body incorruptible as first fruits of the resurrection of all - Athanasius (296-373 A.D.)

For even the Lord was subject to death, but not on account of sin: He took upon him our punishment, and so looseth our guilt. . .. Now, as men were lying under this wrath by reason of their original sin . . . there was need for a mediator, that is for a reconciler, who by the offering of one sacrifice, of which all the sacrifices of the law and the prophets were types, should take away this wrath. . . - Augustine (354–430 C.E.)

 

[JonC]

No. As usual you completely missed my point. It is a fact that what we call "Calvinism" teaches that the Christian life, and the pursuit of holiness is essential if one expects to be right with God.

That is because I am dealing with Calvinism as a distinctive.

All of the "isms" teache that the Christian life, and the pursuit of holiness is essential if one expects to be right with God. When we say so and so believes Jesus died and arose we do not say "that's Calvinism".


I would hope and pray that for Calvinists who are Christian it is Christianity and not their particular theology that drives then to love a holy life.


Take my expetience. I was a Calvinist for a long time. When I abandoned that philosophy I did not stop living a Christ-centeted life. If anything, when I left Calvinism the things it obscures drove me to strive for a greater Christ-likeness.

 

[Armchair Apologist]

The worst Calvinists are the ones that are so concerned with theology and philosophy that they never get around to living a Christ-like life.

Let's be perfectly clear here. I agree with this statement 100%! But I believe this statement ought to be applied to whatever their theological or philosophical bent! Living a Christ-like life should be our number one objective and our Christian character should outshine our theological position!

Thank you for the reminder.

 

[JonC]

I think you are making my case for me here! We cannot just find one "smoking gun proof text" and build doctrinal truth upon it! We could do this about literally anything and in so doing, start some new religious movement! This was my point about the Trinity. You cannot find the word "Trinity" in the scriptures nor can you find one verse on its own that clearly defines the trinity - unless you care to cite the Johannine Comma (1 Jn 5:7). Yet the doctrine of the trinity is very much taught and is a critical, essential doctrine of the Christian faith. The historic doctrines of the church are developed through the comparing scripture with scripture - line upon line, line upon line, precept upon precept, etc. I'm fairly sure you agree with this right?

When talking to Steve about his homosexuality (your example here), we may cite Lev 20:13 and Romans 1:27 and perhaps even 1 Cor 6:9 but what is the real issue here? We may be able to convince Steve that the Bible says homosexuality is wrong but what good is this if he simply rejects the scriptures, rejects the gospel, and continues about with his sinful life anyway? Perhaps we should show him why mankind has such sinful desires that go far beyond the sin of homosexuality - how human depravity manifests itself in many different ways and that we all have to deal with it! Perhaps in doing so, we can speak of matters concerning his eternal soul and perhaps the gospel message may even take root!

No, I do not look for the simple, quick "proof texts" that either prove or disprove my point. I look to the whole of scripture.

I'm going to be fairly busy during the weekend and pretty much all of next week so I am not sure how much time I will have for this. It seems as if you have put a great bit of time and thought into this and I would like to answer you in kind.

In the meantime, I will share this. We often appeal to the writings of the Patristics and other historical figures in order to show that our respective position has been held consistently throughout history. You (as do others) have stated that "Ransom" and "Christus Victor" are the oldest so-called "theories" but I believe the following makes the case that at very least, the "concept" of PSA was clearly understood and articulated going all the way back to the first century AD:

“Because of the love he felt for us, Jesus Christ our Lord gave his blood for us by the will of God, his body for our bodies, and his soul for our souls.” - Clement of Rome (96 A.D.)

“Now, He suffered all these things for our sakes, that we might be saved.” - Ignatius (107 A.D.)

For to this end the Lord endured to deliver up His flesh to corruption, that we might be sanctified through the remission of sins, which is effected by His blood of sprinkling. For it is written concerning Him, partly with reference to Israel, and partly to us; and [the Scripture] saith thus: “He was wounded for our transgressions and bruised for our iniquities: with His stripes we are healed. He was brought as a sheep to the slaughter, and as a lamb which is dumb before its shearer.” - Epistle of Barnabus (A.D. 70-135)

O sweet exchange! O unsearchable operation! O benefits surpassing all expectation! that the wickedness of many should be hid in a single righteous One, and that the righteousness of One should justify many transgressors! - Epistle to Diognetus (2nd Century A.D.)

Thus the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sins of the world, became a curse on our behalf.” He then stated, “And the Lamb of God not only did this, but was chastised on our behalf, and suffered a penalty He did not owe, but which we owed because of the multitude of our sins; and so He became the cause of the forgiveness of our sins, because He received death for us, and transferred to Himself the scourging, the insults, and the dishonour, which were due to us, and drew down upon Himself the appointed curse, being made a curse for us. - Eusebius of Caesarea (A.D. 275-339)

But since it was necessary also that the debt owing from all should be paid again, for…it was owing that all should die…he next offered up his sacrifice also on behalf of all, yielding his temple to death in the stead of all, in order firstly to make men quit and free of their old trespass, and further to show himself more powerful even than death, displaying his own body incorruptible as first fruits of the resurrection of all - Athanasius (296-373 A.D.)

For even the Lord was subject to death, but not on account of sin: He took upon him our punishment, and so looseth our guilt. . .. Now, as men were lying under this wrath by reason of their original sin . . . there was need for a mediator, that is for a reconciler, who by the offering of one sacrifice, of which all the sacrifices of the law and the prophets were types, should take away this wrath. . . - Augustine (354–430 C.E.)

I am not looking for one proof text for all of PSA.

PSA is based on many things about the Atonement, about the mind of God, and about a specific judicial philosophy being true.

You are now telling me that most of the ideas at the very heart of PSA doctrine is unbiblical (is not in the Bible). I agree.

But don't you see the problem????

I can test my faith against God's words. My belief is complete. It makes sence. It is in the biblical text itself. I believe the Bible actually teaches God's words recorded in its pages.

But you cannot test your faith against "what is written" because it is not there.

The very best you can do is test what you understand the Bible teaches against what you think is taught by the Bible. You can seek our other men (only those who agree with your understanding) for confirmation.

That is leaning on your own understanding rather than on every word that comes from God.


How could you witness to a Mormon? Like you, the Mormon believes what he understands to be taught by the Bible when "properly understood". Like you, the Mormon cannot pass the test of "what is written".


I am sorry, but your method is too subjective. You, like any other sect that follows what men have said "is really taught when properly understood", are making yourself the arbitrator of "truth". You are your own standard.


Maybe it is just that I have a greater view of Scripture. Maybe I expect too much out of God and His Word.

But I know this - despite all of my flaws I am leaning on God and "every word that comes from God" rather than my understanding.

 

[JonC]

Let's be perfectly clear here. I agree with this statement 100%! But I believe this statement ought to be applied to whatever their theological or philosophical bent! Living a Christ-like life should be our number one objective and our Christian character should outshine our theological position!

Thank you for the reminder.

I do apply it across the board.