You are not the only one. If I scratch my head any harder I will start bleeding.
-
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 Case for Penal Substitution
- Thread starter Reformed
- Start date
- Status
I am saying that I agree Christ died to save those who believe (those the Father gave Him). And I am saying that I believe it is wrong to exclude Scripture in order to hold a limited theory.
You claim that my statements are not biblical because I speak of "sin" as a power that has enslaved man and the atonement as focused on this aspect of sin just as much as it focuses on sin as a moral issue. But my words were from Scripture (I did not invent men being enslaved by sin or sin as a power). Same with Paul's gocus on the cross with sin being an interpersonal issue.
You find these things "unbiblical" and worry about me not because they are not in the Bible but because they are not in your theory.
Did you catch, BTW, the purpose Scripture gave for Christ coming? It was the Christus Victor you reject as serious error.
These things are a cause fir concern (perhaos for you to do some serious reflection....not on what you believe but on what you reject).
I'd offer the Hardy quote, but I think it would just add to your confusion
(that was a joke)
Examples, please.
So, is Christus Victor our source for truth or the Bible? Many false doctrines contain some elements of truth.
I have. Ad infinitum, ad nauseam.
Jon has presented scripture like a JW presents scripture - proof texting, but without a scintilla of exegesis to support his superficial assertions. Why? Because proper exegesis exposes his assertions to be empty of truth. What he does is abuse scripture.
For example, he asserted John 3:18 and declared in the clearest possible language that there not anything other than unbelief that Christ will condemn sinners on judgement day. First, this text does not say that, jon says that. Second, proper exegesis repudiates that assertion, as there are three contextual basis for condemnation found in the context. Jon won't dare enter into a debate that requires proper exegesis of John 3:3-21 especially verses 17-21 because he knows his assertion will be exposed as abuse of John 3:18. Hence, he acts like a parrot and repeats his assertion as though it has never been thoroughly repudiated by sound exegesis and he will continue to repeat it because he simply can't defend his position as any true scholar should defend his position - by sound principles of exegesis. Just that simple - so round and round he goes reasserting proof texts taken out of context and then has the gall to charge everyone else of abandoning scripture and embracing theory and tradition!
So, it is really a waste of time to enter into debate with him - an exercise of futility as he will just lead you in a circle of asserted texts without ever defending them by sound principles of exegesis.
For example, he asserted John 3:18 and declared in the clearest possible language that there not anything other than unbelief that Christ will condemn sinners on judgement day. First, this text does not say that, jon says that. Second, proper exegesis repudiates that assertion, as there are three contextual basis for condemnation found in the context. Jon won't dare enter into a debate that requires proper exegesis of John 3:3-21 especially verses 17-21 because he knows his assertion will be exposed as abuse of John 3:18. Hence, he acts like a parrot and repeats his assertion as though it has never been thoroughly repudiated by sound exegesis and he will continue to repeat it because he simply can't defend his position as any true scholar should defend his position - by sound principles of exegesis. Just that simple - so round and round he goes reasserting proof texts taken out of context and then has the gall to charge everyone else of abandoning scripture and embracing theory and tradition!
So, it is really a waste of time to enter into debate with him - an exercise of futility as he will just lead you in a circle of asserted texts without ever defending them by sound principles of exegesis.
The problem with all Western atonement theories is that they are the product of the Western mindset trying to interpret an Eastern book -- the Bible. Also, all Western theories are latecomers -- invented from 1000-1500 years or more after the fact. It's amusing to see people try to read PSA back into the writings of the early Greek fathers. I have posted refutations of such here several times. But, for those who insist on the validity of this absurdity, let me ask a question: If all those fathers espoused PSA as claimed, why did the Eastern Church not also espouse it, and never espouse it? Because PSA was unknown in the early church. From the beginning, the Eastern Church held to Ransom/Christus Victor and does so to this day. Why? Because it was the original atonement view. It's what the Eastern/Greek churches saw in the scriptures and what its theologians and fathers saw, believed , and held, and still do. To say that those early church fathers held to PSA while the church of which they were a part did not is a preposterous claim. It fails the tests of history and scholarship. The Eastern church has never deviated in its atonement views, not for 2000 years.
Satisfaction and especially PSA are a distortion of the Gospel and the character and nature of God. They are the product and invention of feudalism and legalism, respectively -- they are innovations of the Western church andmindset -- Roman Catholic and Protestant. PSA especially is a false gospel -- not good news at all but an abomination.
I've been away again because of health, but I logged in and saw this post and couldn't help but respond. There are two "systems" that I despise and hate in this world -- one political and one religious; they are Marxism and PSA. I will fight against both with all my might for as long as I live.
If PSA was Christianity, I couldn't be a Christian. But it is not.
Satisfaction and especially PSA are a distortion of the Gospel and the character and nature of God. They are the product and invention of feudalism and legalism, respectively -- they are innovations of the Western church andmindset -- Roman Catholic and Protestant. PSA especially is a false gospel -- not good news at all but an abomination.
I've been away again because of health, but I logged in and saw this post and couldn't help but respond. There are two "systems" that I despise and hate in this world -- one political and one religious; they are Marxism and PSA. I will fight against both with all my might for as long as I live.
If PSA was Christianity, I couldn't be a Christian. But it is not.
Already offered in detail. That is why these conversations become difficult.
You stated that Christus Victor (the view that reason Christ came was to destroy the work of the Devil) was error. While it may incomplete, the idea is absent in your theory (probably because you view it as error). But that is what Scripture says.
You found the idea of sin as an enslaving power that the atonement purposed to overcome as absurd. It is also not in your theory. But it is in the Bible.
You considered it wrong to believe the atonement focused on sin as an interpersonal issue between beluevers - but as I offered, Paul examines this asoect in his epistle to the Corinthians.
You thought I was "all over the place" for confirming these ideas that are in the Bible instead of focusing on one aspect over the rest.
This is what I mean bt your error of limiting the atonement by rejecting Scripture that does not fit into your theory. What does your theory say about those other aspects? Nothing. You serm to hold them as secondary at best, obsolete at worst. But Scripture tells us these were the "purpose" Christ came.
Insofar as destroying the works of the Devil the passage actually states it as the reason Christ came. But for some reason that was not important enough to make it in your theory. In fact, you rejected it as error because as a theory it did not contain elements you found essential.
That is my charge of you and @Reformed .
How can you omit from your theory that the purpose Christ came was to destroy the works of the devil when that is stated in Scripture? Because you run Scripture through your theory to "wash" it of these "secondary" or "obsolete" ideas. They do not fit so you toss them aside.
The difference is how we view Scripture. I view it as literal. I do not see a reason to look reject what is stated for what I believe implied.
I tire of the charge both you and @Reformed make that those who do not accept your theories or interpretations simply disregard Scripture. It is a stupid argument and both of you should be better than that. You are both honest men, I would have expected a little more when dealing with those who disagree with you.
I held your Theory. I know how you interpret Scripture. My method has not changed except that I have decided if the passage makes sense without my "help" then it makes sense without my help.
I do not think so. It is incomplete. BUT Scripture states that the "puropse Christ came was to destroy the works of the Devil". So I can't call it serious error because that would be to fault God as allowing serious error in Scripture.
Considering the number of posts in these associated threads, I am not going to searching for your proof.
Find one statement from me in which I said Christ did not come to destroy the work of the devil? What I reject is the Christus Victor view of the Atonement. I do so because it gets the problem of sin wrong. Sin is more than just a power. Sin is a violation of the law of God with personal consequences for the sinner. See my previous posts for elucidation on that.
Get rid of the past tense. I think you currently are all over the place about the Atonement. You are trying to assemble all these disparate parts to come up with a view that does not reflect how scripture presents the issue.
@The Biblicist @davidtaylorjr and I have taken great care to exegete scripture correctly. True, I have done so through a systematic theology model because I believe the model accurately interprets the foundational doctrines of the faith. You disagree with our arguments and we disagree with yours. What else are we supposed to do at this point?
For my part, I am not speaking about "those", I am speaking about you.
Sure. You said that Christus Victor is an error. Yet in its basic form it merely states that the purpose Christ came was to destroy the works of the Devil and the power of death. This is actually Scripture, and it is absent Penal Substitution Theory. That is why I believe that the Atonement is not contained in one theory.
The reason that I believe you are intentionally diverting into insult - i.e., "all over the place", "scratching head", etc. is that other people (many other people, although I only mentioned three) share my view. You are not an idiot. You are not uneducated. I find it hard to believe that, even though your do not agree with those others, you are not unaware that they or their view exists. Neither are you unaware that their view is not articulated in one single theory (hence the conversations that have taken place for over a century now within modern Christianity).
So I tend to see you an mocking my view because it is not a single theory even though you are aware it is a popular view in general (although a minority view among Baptists and the Reformed).
Am I giving you too much credit? Perhaps. But given your remarks about your studies I have a difficult time believing that my position is new to you. That is why I believe you are merely assuming a mocking stance and "blowing smoke" to appease your "audience". I am not sure if I hope I am wrong. On one hand, it would be good that you are honestly discussing the topic. But on another, it really would not matter since it would mean you have no clue of the theological milieu that is evangelical Christianity.
Ultimately where I disagree with Penal Substitution Theory is not in its stated definition (as @Martin Marprelate defined the Theory, it is something that I hold). Where I disagree is in how the Theory is taken - i.e., that the Cross was Christ experiencing God's wrath. There is a difference here between Christ experiencing what to us would have been divine wrath and viewing the Cross as Christ experiencing punishment. This difference is what I see as leading to error (it is why Calvin believed that Jesus had to have gone to Hell when He died).
The larger problem, however, is that I am condemned here for believing the Atonement is greater than this because it addresses the problem of sin which is greater than this. The Theory is simply not complete - it leaves out aspects that are central to the Atonement per Scripture (like the "purpose for Christ coming was to destroy the works of the Devil", and conquering the "power of death", and reconciling men to other men and to God). I know we can say this is implied but not stated in the Theory, but that is not good enough.
It is wrong to choose one aspect of the Atonement as the primary aspect and take other Scripture as being assumed. It is wrong because it is not what Scripture does.
We should be able to discuss Christ as a propitiation, as satisfying the demands against us through His suffering and obedience as He bore our sins. But we should not be condemned when we speak of Christ as destroying the works of the devil, or ushering in the Kingdom of God, or reconciling men to men, or to God, or any of these other things Scripture addresses AS A VITAL ASPECT OF THE ATONEMENT.
The problem has never been people who affirm Penal Substitution Theory. The problem is people who reject that there are other aspects of the Atonement that are just as important because it is to minimize those passages in Scripture that do not directly address the Theory.
The larger problem, however, is that I am condemned here for believing the Atonement is greater than this because it addresses the problem of sin which is greater than this. The Theory is simply not complete - it leaves out aspects that are central to the Atonement per Scripture (like the "purpose for Christ coming was to destroy the works of the Devil", and conquering the "power of death", and reconciling men to other men and to God). I know we can say this is implied but not stated in the Theory, but that is not good enough.
It is wrong to choose one aspect of the Atonement as the primary aspect and take other Scripture as being assumed. It is wrong because it is not what Scripture does.
We should be able to discuss Christ as a propitiation, as satisfying the demands against us through His suffering and obedience as He bore our sins. But we should not be condemned when we speak of Christ as destroying the works of the devil, or ushering in the Kingdom of God, or reconciling men to men, or to God, or any of these other things Scripture addresses AS A VITAL ASPECT OF THE ATONEMENT.
The problem has never been people who affirm Penal Substitution Theory. The problem is people who reject that there are other aspects of the Atonement that are just as important because it is to minimize those passages in Scripture that do not directly address the Theory.
I think you are confusing me with someone else. I have never said that, in fact, I have never even mentioned those precise words in any post. However, since you now mention those words, I believe that is where one primary source of "power" originates rather than from sin itself.
See! This is the kind of response I routinely get from you when I place exegetical evidence in front of you. You can't respond by pointing out any error in my exegesis and so you double up on unfounded charges which have no exegetical basis at all. This is why I said you respond like a JW because that is precisely how they respond to exegetical based evidence. I have demonstrated your interpretation of John 3:18 is contextually flawed and exegetically false. And your response is? Nothing more than assertions with any Biblical support. Point out the flaws in my exegesis and then we will have a real biblical based discussion.
Sorry, but that is simply not true. You made statements about John 3:18 that cannot be even found in the text itself. In direct contrast, I stuck with the literally wording, the grammar, the immediate context of Jn. 3:18. You can't get more literalist than I did. Your view is anything but literal. You add to the text what is not there. You ignore the context. Your interpretation contradicts the immediate context. Literalism is far from your MO. You just gotta be jokin to say you take a text literal
We are simply trying to get you to defend your interpretative views of scripture by sound principles of exegesis and you simply won't do it!!! You proof text everything just like a JW. We respond with context, grammar, tenses, and other exegetical facts and what do you do? Ignore, and simply repeat unfounded assertions just like a JW. If you want a different outcome then get serious and do the hard work of exegesis and then you can not only proof text but defend your position with arguments with substance. However, you don't because you can't and you can't because your jerking texts of out context and reading into texts things it does not say.
This surprises me somewhat, as in about 3 years I do not remember you agreeing with the definition of the Doctrine of Penal Substitution which I use. Here it is again:
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.
Just to be sure: do you hold to this definition?
Jon, on the cross he stood in our place due to sin as he was "made to be sin" and the cross is the only place in his entire life where that could have possibly been fulfilled. The cross is the antitype of the brazen altar and fire whereupon the sanctifice died for our sins. It is obvious that the sacrifice was sinless (without spot or blemish) and so this horrific experience was not due to any personal blemish but for the blemishes of those the sacrifice was being offered in behalf of - us! Therefore, the wrath of God was clearly symbolized by the BRAZEN altar and the FIRE both are common symbols of God's Judgement and wrath. Christ suffered the wrath of God POSITIONALLY and LEGALLY in our behalf. You have to deny the entire book of Leviticus and rewrite and explain away Isaiah 53 to deny that on the cross he was a sin bearer and the cross was not a pic nic but a prescribed punishment against sinners for their sins. This is so simple and so clear from the overall Biblical context. Sadly, you simply don't have eyes to see the obvious.
This is an assertion you have repeatedly made but when challenged, and i have challenged you several times, you have never presented any kind of exegetical based defense for it. I still await.
But this is precisely what you are doing! You make unwarranted, unfounded, unproven assertions that accompany nothing but proof texting.
This is precisely what your view denies as you deny the very basis upon which God makes such demands against us.
This has never been brought up between you and me in any post. I have never condemned you or anyone else for this nor have I ever denied that Christ came to destroy the works of the devil. I really don't know why you make this a point in this discussion as I have never denied this. Are you trying to intepret this to mean something you think is contrary to PSA?
Here is a hymn by Charles Wesley, not famed for his Calvinism:
'Tis finished! The Messiah dies,
Cut off for sins, but not His own;
Accomplished is the sacrifice,
the great redeeming work is done.
'Tis finished! All the debt is paid;
Justice divine is satisfied;
The grand and full atonement made;
God for a guilty world has died.
The veil is rent in Christ alone;
the living wasy to heaven is seen;
the middle wall is broken down,
And all mankind may enter in.
The types and figures are fulfilled --
Exacted is the legal pain;
The precious promises are sealed;
The spotless Lamb of God is slain.
The reign of sin and death is o'er,
And all may live from sin set free.
Satan has lost his mortal power,
'Tis swallowed up in victory.
Saved from the legal curse I am,
My Saviour hangs on yonder tree:
See there the meek, expiring Lamb!
'Tis finished! He expires for me.
Accepted in the well-beloved,
And clothed in righteousness divine
I see the bar to heaven removed,
And all Your merits, Lord, are mine.
Death, hell and sin are now subdued;
All grace is now to sinners given;
And lo! I plead the atoning blood
And in Your right I claim my heaven.
One of my very favourite hymns.
Your charge is totaly and absolutely false in its entirety!!! Either you don't understand PSA or you don't understand the works of the Devil - it is either one or the other and most likely both! PSA deals with the very root of Satan's works and destroys the very goal of his works. The root of his works is sin and the very goal of his work is the destruction of the human race. Without PSA Satan would be victorious.
PSA is the foundation for dealing with all salvation but lets be clear PSA is not regeneration, sanctification, justification, adoption, glorification, new heavens and earth, etc. so just because the atonement is the foundation for all the above does not mean we must include it in the definition of the atonement. I think that is what you are attempting to do with the works of the devil.
Last edited:
Absolutely, just as much as you pointed out the ECF's held that theory. I made that clear way back.
- Status