THe Biblical Place for Penal Substitution

[DaveXR650]

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".

Fair enough if you are only discussing a particular distinctive.
"In like manner, they see no consistency between the satisfaction of Christ and the necessity of holiness or obedience in them that do believe. Hence they continually glamour, that by our doctrine of the mediation of Christ we overthrow all obligations unto a holy life."

What Owen is saying here when he was debating claims of the Socinians, was that they were making the charge that by putting such a high premium on the satisfaction of Christ in our salvation, they were causing a deemphasis upon actually living the Christian life. Are you saying that you do not agree with that charge regarding Calvinism? It seems, in the past that that is one of your objections. And that the objection came from the actual doctrinal teaching of Calvinism.

What I am saying is that it would be a mistake to make the same argument that the Socinians did, regarding the necessity of living a holy life, and then turn around and after making that charge against "Calvinism" in general, claim that it is only the distinctives that are meant. True enough, many groups believe living a holy life is important - but if a group is going to be accused of neglecting a holy life, when in fact they teach it to the point of usually being considered legalistic - it would seem less than genuine to try to claim that their distinctives are what contribute to a lax life.

If this is not what you are claiming then say so but all the claims of "I only follow Christ" and it's more important how you live than what you believe would be pertain to this discussion no matter who makes them. Living a holy life is indeed essential, and a doctrine of self reformation is fatal, if Christianity is true. The idea of salvation being based on the satisfaction provided by Christ, and the teaching that actually living a holy life as essential is indeed a Calvinist distinctive. One cannot pull them apart and then claim a valid argument against Calvinism.

 

[JonC]

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:

You are not handling your source materials honestly. I actually thought better of you (this is one thing that I absolutely hate – people tearing apart the writings of other men to make them say something different). We see this in politics all the time.

But here it is worse. These men are no longer living. All we have to know them by, and all we have to understand what they believed, is their writings. You were very wrong and disrespectful to take snippets of their works and reinvent their ideas when they expressed their actual beliefs very well.

We all agree with the quotes you offered (they are common to the Christian faith, not unique to PSA).

BUT why did you stop where you did? Why did you leave out so much of their own explanations??????

Ignatius is known as “the father of Christus Victor” because of his teaching that it was by Christ willingly submitting Himself to the power of Satan that He gained victory. Satan caused Christ’s suffering and death, but it was through this death (Christ’s passion”) that He conquered the spiritual powers of evil, destroying the inventor of sin and liberating man from his power. YOU LEFT THIS OUT.

The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians is structured verse by verse. BUT you chose to quote one little section you thought sounded like PSA (we all, actually, believe that. It is not PSA).

BUT YOU IGNORED Clement’s discussion of the cross itself IN THAT SAME SECTION. You had to have seen it, but chose to skip over the parts that make it NOT PSA. He was denying that it was a legal type of transaction. Christ offered Himself for humanity as a whole that they may be made alive through His act of love. What was this act of love? Christ suffered and died by the power of Satan to free us from his grasp. We now are active participants in His life (which is why his view is sometimes summarized as participatory atonement).

Same with the Epistle of Barnabus. We all agree with the quote you gave. BUT WHY did you leave so much out? Is it because he taught Jesus’ death was via evil powers? Is it because if you included that it would no longer “sound” like PSA to you?

You quote Athanasius – a quote we would all accept as true. BUT AGAIN you stop short!!! You leave out that Jesus experienced man’s existence, but did so perfectly. That Jesus experienced the suffering and death under the powers of evil and by His suffering destroyed the power of death itself. You IGNORE Athanasius view of atonement all together.

 

[DaveXR650]

You are not handling your source materials honestly. I actually thought better of you (this is one thing that I absolutely hate – people tearing apart the writings of other men to make them say something different). We see this in politics all the time.

I wondered how long it would take to get to the "you're being dishonest". Next will follow threatened sanctions. Your premise that if something else is also mentioned about an aspect of the atonement other than PSA, then it necessarily means that it can't also include PSA, is wrong. (I'll stick with "wrong" for now rather than go straight to "dishonest").

If for instance I were to say when asked "How did the oblation of Christ redeem from death and hell"? And then post the answer that "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." Would you say that was an early church father, or someone who taught PSA? Fact is. It is from Owen's "Greater Catechism".

The point being that just claiming that there was some nefarious method to obscure the meaning of early church fathers quotes which indicate a belief in penal substitution - because they are cut to the pertinent sections for clarities sake is ridiculous. To make such a case you would have to show some ECF's refuting the elements of PSA. I would be interested in seeing those.

 

[JonC]

I wondered how long it would take to get to the "you're being dishonest".

@Armchair Apologist 's handling of the writings he referenced was not honest. That is not saying he is a dishonest person. It is saying he should have also included the parts that contradict PSA (like Christ willingly suffeting and dying under the power of Satan).

Those parts of what he read is more significant to the discussion than what he posted (every Chriatian believes the parts he quoted is true...but PSA theorists do not believe the parts he left out are true).

It is an integrity issue.

For example, @Armchair Apologist HAD to have read about 1/4 of Clement's writing to get to that quote! Why leave out the stuff that would contrafict PSA???

Why leave out Athanasius explanation that Christ came under the power of the devil and experienced our suffering and death without sin to undo death????

Why leave out Ignatius' teaching that Jesus suffered and died under the power of Satan to destroy Satan's power???


Look...I do not care if somebody's thology matches the Early Church writings. They did express, in writing, my position of the Atonement. But I do not appeal to the ECF's. I was happy to read my belief in their writing because when I studied them in seminary they did not make much sense (I was a PSA theorist then). But if they did not express my belief it would not have mattered to me.

This "let's use these saints to our advantage even if we have to misrepresent them" attitude by the PSA crowd is disgusting.


That said - there may be a reason @Armchair Apologist left out so much of what they said about the atonement (the parts that contradict PSA) without it being an issue of character. I just cannot think of any possibilities.


It has been the same for over 20 years here. So far he has followed the "lead" of a couple of orhers who engage this topic:

1. Question the validity of testing doctrine against "what is written".
2. Say it is unfair to ask that individual points PSA hinges on be in Scripture.
3. Challenge the idea that the doctrine of the Trinity is biblical (the elements are found in verses).
4. Link the opposing view to Jehovah Witnesses while ignoring that PSA's view of justice is at the center of Mormon Atonement.
5. Misquote the saints who have gone before by choosing only what they find unobjectionable.
6. Pretend statements and passages common to every Christian are exclusive to PSA.
7. Dishonestly refer to my position (and others who hold it) as being an individual view.
8. Dishonestly pretend Ransom Theory centered on Christ's Victory is a new or novel view.
9. Just post a bunch of passages and quotes from Calvinists.
10. Just start insulting.

I think @Armchair Apologist is on #7. Better watch it....he may catch up with you.

 

[JonC]

If this is not what you are claiming then say so but all the claims of "I only follow Christ" and it's more important how you live than what you believe would be pertain to this discussion no matter who makes them.

It is not what I am claiming.

I am claiming that doctrine and Christian living go hand in hand. But both - TOGETHER - mean "I only follow Christ".

My claim is simple. What the Bible teaches is "what is written" itself.

There is plenty of room for interpretations BUT these are interpretations of what is actually written.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Ransom Theory........... or Christus Victor....... Origen........ by the 12th Century......... Anselm .......... In the 13th Century Aquinas......... Calvin ........ Anabaptists ......... Cur Deus Homo

There are very few of us biblicists today.

 

[JonC]

I get your confusion.

A "biblicist" is a person who holds a strict view of the Bible (it could also mean a strict interpretation, or a literal interpretation....so it is a bit subjective).

I hold it to foundational doctrines (central doctrines or doctrines upon which other doctrines are built).

What that means is I believe if a doctrine is central to the Christisn faith then it is not a matter of conscious but is instead in the actual Word of God.

So where you test doctrine against your own ideas or the understanding of men who share your understsnding I test doctrine against "what is written".


This does not mean, as you seem to think, that I will not read books other than the Bible. But it does mean that I do not adopt foundational beliefs from other men who write what I want to hear.

I do not hold anything against those, like you, who do. But to me that is too subjective a belief. I think our faith should be built on a more solid foundation than other men's (or even our own) understanding.


But no, just because I have a higher regard for Scripture that does not mean I am disinterested or unaware of Church history or historical theology. I actually have a nice collection of Puritian writings, Anabaptist writings, and Early Church Writings (and a good collection of Spurgeon notes).

 

[DaveXR650]

I am claiming that doctrine and Christian living go hand in hand. But both - TOGETHER - mean "I only follow Christ".

My claim is simple. What the Bible teaches is "what is written" itself.

There is plenty of room for interpretations BUT these are interpretations of what is actually written.

I agree. And I think most on here would too. But for heaven's sake give some credit that maybe others try to follow Christ too. The Calvinists I read list one scripture after another and are also claiming that scripture is the final authority. I don't always agree with them but I don't try to pretend that only my own view of the verse is correct. The fact that they are part of a renowned group is not absolute in giving them credibility but I try to resist the modern man attitude that my own interpretation is as good as theirs by right. An article on pancreatic cancer from the Mayo Clinic is probably a better source than Joe's Pancreas Page on the internet.

 

[JonC]

I agree. And I think most on here would too. But for heaven's sake give some credit that maybe others try to follow Christ too. The Calvinists I read list one scripture after another and are also claiming that scripture is the final authority. I don't always agree with them but I don't try to pretend that only my own view of the verse is correct. The fact that they are part of a renowned group is not absolute in giving them credibility but I try to resist the modern man attitude that my own interpretation is as good as theirs by right. An article on pancreatic cancer from the Mayo Clinic is probably a better source than Joe's Pancreas Page on the internet.

I have not said that others do not follow Christ.

I know several Calvinists, Roman Catholics, Methodists, Free-Will Baptists, Baptists, Pentecostals, and one Greek Orthodox Christian who follows Christ.

We are not talking about the interpretation of Scripture. We are talking about foundational doctrines and whether they should be objective to Scripture (stated in "what is written") or subjective to each individuals understanding.

I believe that we have to test doctrine against God's Word ("what is written") when it comes to foundational doctrines. The reason is zi believe that Scripture is the perfect revelation of God informing us of salvation history.

If it is important enough to be central to our faith then God would have included it in His words. If it is not included in His words then it is a matter of conscience, not something to be taught as central to Christianity.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Maybe we could just go back to the O.P.
Would someone like to comment on the first part and either agree or disagree with it and give their Biblical reason why or why not?

• Did the Father lay upon the Lord Jesus the sins of His people? Yes. ‘And the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all’ (Isaiah 53:6). Did the Lord Jesus bear in His body our sins which God laid on Him? Yes. ‘Who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree’ (1 Peter 2:24).

 

[Martin Marprelate]

The same with the second part. Agree or disagree; explain why from the Bible.

• Did He take our sins so as to undergo the punishment due to them? Yes. ‘The chastisement [ESV, NIV: ‘punishment’] for our peace was upon Him, and by His stripes we are healed’ (Isaiah 53:5); “For even the Son of Man did not come to be served but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many’ (Mark 10:45); “For You were slain, and have redeemed us to God by Your blood out of every tribe and tongue and nation and people” (Rev. 5:9).

 

[Ascetic X]

I consider myself to be Baptist, but I gain much insight from various Eastern Orthodox teachings, especially the writings of early saints and desert monks.

Orthodox teachers quote Early Church fathers almost as much as scripture.

Protestants will quote individuals like Luther, Calvin, CS Lewis, AW Tozer, DA Carson, Timothy Keller, Karl Barth, Oswald Chambers, Charles Finney, RC Sproul (acts too giddy and goofy for me to take seriously), Alister McGrath, Walter Wink, John MacArthur, John Piper, John Stott, JI Packer, Michael Horton, Francis Schaefer, Gordon Fee, David Wells, Marc Goodacre, Stanley Grenz, Carl Trueman, Kevin Vanhoozer, Scot McKnight, Al Mohler, DL Moody, Andrew Murray, TL Osborn, EW Kenyon, FF Bruce, and Wayne Grudem.

But I never consider a point to be established by quoting a theologian. Their writings are interesting, insightful, and beneficial, but they are no authority for truth. Their sayings can point to truth and incite me to explore a doctrine, but their words are mere cotton candy fluff compared the solid meat of Bible verses.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

And here's the third part. Same again.

• Did the Lord Jesus do this on our behalf and instead of us? Yes. “Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29); ‘He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities’ (Isaiah 53:5); “Therefore let it be known to you, brethren, that through this Man is preached to you the forgiveness of sins; and by Him everyone who believes is justified from all things from which you could not be justified by the law of Moses” (Acts 13:38-39); ‘Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, ‘Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree)’ (Gal. 3:13).

 

[Ascetic X]

Maybe we could just go back to the O.P.
Would someone like to comment on the first part and either agree or disagree with it and give their Biblical reason why or why not?

• Did the Father lay upon the Lord Jesus the sins of His people? Yes. ‘And the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all’ (Isaiah 53:6). Did the Lord Jesus bear in His body our sins which God laid on Him? Yes. ‘Who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree’ (1 Peter 2:24).

PSA, as I understand it — Jesus being the perfect Lamb and substitute, paying the gruesome, nightmarish penalty for the sins of humanity, to make a blood atonement, and to give eternal life to all who receive him as Lord — is vividly presented in the gospel of Isaiah, chapter 53:

1 Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed?

2 For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.

3 He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.

4 Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.

5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.

6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.

7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.

8 He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.

9 And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.

10 Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand.

11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.

12 Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

 

[Van]

Maybe we could just go back to the O.P.
Would someone like to comment on the first part and either agree or disagree with it and give their Biblical reason why or why not?

• Did the Father lay upon the Lord Jesus the sins of His people? Yes. ‘And the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all’ (Isaiah 53:6). Did the Lord Jesus bear in His body our sins which God laid on Him? Yes. ‘Who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree’ (1 Peter 2:24).

Here we have a typical claim, the Lord has laid on Him, Jesus, the iniquity of us all.

Does the fact Jesus bore the sins of everyone saved address whether or not Jesus died for all humanity, both those to be saved and those never to be saved? Nope - So the effort is just a word salad, signifying nothing.

Now lets actually address the issue, Christ died for all humanity including those never to be saved. This is how Christ purchased the person heading for swift destruction, 2 Peter 2:1. Or we could cite 1 John 2:2 where Christ became the means of reconciliation not only for our (those already saved) sins, but also for the sins of the whole of humanity. Or how about 1 Timothy 2:6 where Christ died as a ransom for all.

To restate biblical truth one more time, He bought, purchased, ransomed all humanity, but only those placed into Christ received the benefit, and are thus redeemed, reconciled, and saved.

 

[JonC]

Maybe we could just go back to the O.P.
Would someone like to comment on the first part and either agree or disagree with it and give their Biblical reason why or why not?

• Did the Father lay upon the Lord Jesus the sins of His people? Yes. ‘And the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all’ (Isaiah 53:6). Did the Lord Jesus bear in His body our sins which God laid on Him? Yes. ‘Who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree’ (1 Peter 2:24).

This is biblical.

 

[JonC]

The same with the second part. Agree or disagree; explain why from the Bible.

• Did He take our sins so as to undergo the punishment due to them? Yes. ‘The chastisement [ESV, NIV: ‘punishment’] for our peace was upon Him, and by His stripes we are healed’ (Isaiah 53:5); “For even the Son of Man did not come to be served but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many’ (Mark 10:45); “For You were slain, and have redeemed us to God by Your blood out of every tribe and tongue and nation and people” (Rev. 5:9).

I agree with the passage ("punishment" is a liberty, as מוּסַ֤ר means correction or discipline which could be punishment).

 

[JonC]

And here's the third part. Same again.

• Did the Lord Jesus do this on our behalf and instead of us? Yes. “Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29); ‘He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities’ (Isaiah 53:5); “Therefore let it be known to you, brethren, that through this Man is preached to you the forgiveness of sins; and by Him everyone who believes is justified from all things from which you could not be justified by the law of Moses” (Acts 13:38-39); ‘Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, ‘Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree)’ (Gal. 3:13).

Yes. Absolutely.

But so far everything passage you have mentioned is common to Christianity as a whole. It is not unique to PSA.

What you need to provide is a verse stating that God must punish sins, it is a acceptable to punish the just to clear the guilty, Christ experienced God's wrath, Jesus died instead of us....the things that are unique to PSA.

 

[37818]

It is the oldest view of atonement we know . . . .

Genesis 3:15, . . . [Christ] shall bruise thy [serpent] head,

 

[JonC]

Genesis 3:15, . . . [Christ] shall bruise thy [serpent] head,

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.