Featured The Case for Penal Substitution

I believe it is derived from sin on the grounds that Jesus states that we are "slaves to sin", "sin is at our door", and we are not to be "mastered by sin".

If you are asking if sin is a genetic issue (as Y1 argued a while back), I'd have to say no. It is a spiritual issue. Our faith is misplaced and we are mastered by sin.

 

Paul did not say that "sin" passed upon all men" because sin is not passed upon all men.

Through Adam sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned. For until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam.

This is my point.

 

If the TEXT of Scripture does not present it then it should not be a foundation upon which to build doctrine. I stand by this.

We all hold doctrine that is not exactly in Scripture. All Systematic Theology has a human element (that is the nature of Systematic Theology). But I think that we are wrong when we accept a theory as if it were Scripture on such a vital doctrine.

Look at what has been denied here - it has been denied that sin is a power or a principle. Yet there are passages that speak of sin exactly that way (it is a power that "masters" people, "enslaves" people, "awaits at the door"). It was denied that sin is a principle that is contrary to interpersonal relationship (yet Paul uses "sin" in this way in his first epistle to Corinth).

So yes, I do believe that we have to be more careful with doctrine than I think you are allowing here. I also believe that we have to affirm all Scripture, not just passages that suit a favorite theory.

 

Now I'm taking from your lead with a "PS"

The problem you have is not that I have been unable to make a biblical case for my position. The problem you had was that I will not articulate my position into one overreaching theory and then base the points on Scripture.

What I did was affirm Scripture without saying how it worked together towards an efficient summary of the Atonement. That is because I believe when we do this we miss out on what Scripture is stating.

We are Nelson putting that blind eye to the telescope complaining we cannot see. That is what you did when you were unable to affirm that sin was addressed as a power, or a principle, or had interpersonal ramifications that Scripture place directly at the feet of the Cross.

Have you ever considered that "limited atonement" can also be used to describe the practice of limiting the atonement to one aspect while denying what the Bible says of other elements? I'll wager you haven't.

 

To paraphrase (very lightly since I don't have the quote in front of me) Spurgeon - there are some "strong willed" people who discover one truth and magnify that truth out of proportion. When they encounter other truths of Scripture it proves beyond their grasp. They are like Nelson holding the telescope to the bad eye complaining he cannot see.

This is what I am saying people do with Penal Substitution Theory. It is evidenced on this thread. You see penal substitution in the atonement, you see Christ bearing our sins and laying down His life as a propitiation for the sins of man. But that is all you see.

You've rejected that sin is a power and a principle (even though I've provided passages that speak of sin as a power and a principle) that the Atonement addressed (even though Scripture affirms that the atonement addressed them). You've denied the interpersonal aspect of sin that is addressed directly by the Atonement.

The reason you give for denying these biblical truths is that they are not what you see to be the "root" issue of sin and the "root" purpose of the Atonement.

That is what I mean (using "you" in a general sense).

 

1 John 3:8b The Son of God appeared for this purpose, to destroy the works of the devil.

 

@davidtaylorjr , here is the thing - I do not necessarily reject Penal Substitution. Let's take the basic definitions of these theories.

Here is how @Martin Marprelate defined it (I think from Pierce for Our Transgressions, but am not sure):

“The doctrine of Penal Substitution states that God gave Himself in the Person of His Son to suffer instead of us the death, punishment and curse due to fallen humanity as the penalty for sin”.

I have no issue at all with that definition. That is what I believe. I doubt I believe it the same as you guys because of what you do not believe. As @Reformed stated (and I think you agreed, but I'm not sure) Christus Victor should be rejected because it is a false theory.

The Christus Victory is the view that work of Christ was purposed to break the power of death and Satan; to destroy the work of the Devil.

I really do not have a problem with that theory either. Few would argue against the idea that this is exactly how the Early Church viewed the work of Christ.

So it depends on how far one takes these ideas as to whether or not they become "unbiblical". Do they take one truth at the exclusion of another? Those here do. Do they use one to redefine other truths? Some here do. The ironic part is that only one of those ideas is actually stated in the text of Scripture - and it is the one minimized here as unimportant.

 

Now???? You started off that way

 

Except I have consistently said that the problem is not penal substitution but the way some who hold the theory limit the atonement.

I have always insisted that Christ bore our sins and that through Him we are delievered from the wrath to come. Bur for over a year I have also borrowed from NetChaplin and said God was not wrathful to Christ as Christ experienced what would be wrath to us.

I know....you're baffled. None of this makes sense to you so all you can do is strike out and put it on me. Yet others I have mentioned share my view (or I share theirs). So you can pretend we all somehow share a delusion or you can accept that the position simply does not make sense to you.

Weigh it against Scripture. If you find it lacking then dismiss it. But if it is true, dismiss it at your own peril because once delievered the responsibility is yours (again, paraphrasing Spurgeon) - point is Scripture speaks of the Cross not only as a propitiation for sin but also as a reconciliation between men, a Kingdom issue, an example, and do much more. Your acceptance or rejection has no bearing on Scripture.

 

I agree the scope of the Atonement is soteriologically limited. But I still disagree with excluding Scripture in order to maintain so precise a theory.