The Case for Penal Substitution

[JonC]

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.

The atonement is ONE act with MANY aspects (that is where we deny, not that it is many acts).

However, your claim that Penal Substitution states that the purpose Christ came was to defeat the works of Satan is false. Scripture treats it as a primary purpose. The Theory treats it as secondary to addressing the penalty of sin itself. Same with interpersonal sin. Same with sin as it relates to the Kingdom.

My point is that you cannot focus solely on one aspect and then pretend you've addressed the whole thing by implication.

"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."

What does that say of the Kingdom? Nothing. What does that say of defeating the work of Satan? Nothing. What does that say of interpersonal sins? Nothing. What it addresses is punishment due man as the penalty for sin. It does not even address sin as a power (which is how Christ addressed sin the most).

Your error is not in what you affirm. It is in what you seem to believe is secondary. That colors what you affirm.

 

[JonC]

Look, you folks denounce Christus Victor not because of what it states (which you now say you affirm) but on what it does not state (but what it implies as evidenced by the belief that those who held this view also believed in penal substitution).

Turn it around. You are asking me to accept that Penal Substitution Theory is complete because it implies what it does not state.

That is an utterly stupid argument.

Penal Substitution implies that Christus Victor is correct because there is no victory over Satan except moral transgressions be addressed???? Christus Victor is correct because there is no resolve of moral transgressions except Satan be defeated.

What I see here is a lot of discussion that if considered we walk away dumber for having considered it.

There is more to the Atonement than penal substitution as proven by Scripture. We cannot leave it to “well….uh….it’s implied”. It is too important a doctrine.

The atonement addressed sin as moral transgression. Absolutely, and this should be taught. But so should the purpose of Christ coming being the defeat of the works of Satan. So should the reconciliation of men to other men. So should the establishment of the Kingdom.

We cannot say “yes” to what we like and say “no” to other passages. We do not get to pick which part of the Bible is “primary” or “more important”. It is all God’s Word, all “God-breathed” and we are not qualified to place it in an order of importance.

There is no forgiveness of sins without the shedding of blood. Those who hold to “non-Violent” Atonement Theory are just as much in error as those who hold Penal Substitution alone.

 

[The Biblicist]

The atonement is ONE act with MANY aspects (that is where we deny, not that it is many acts).

Did you read the last paragraph of my last post? Apparently not! Let me repost it here so you will read it as it will begin with the third line of this post:

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.

However, your claim that Penal Substitution states that the purpose Christ came was to defeat the works of Satan is false.

However, I never said that! Please don't put words in my mouth that I did not say. Here is what I actually said:

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.

Take note of the bold underlined words. What you are charging me is precisely what you are doing. You are forcing the works of the devil into a working definition of the atonement. The atonement is the BASIS for destroying the works of the devil but the works of the devil are not part of defining the atonement any more than regeneration,sanctification, justification, adoption, glorification, new heavens and earth, final judgement of Satan, etc. The atonement is the foundation upon which all these stand.

The following definition you give which reads:

"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."

This is true summarization but is far from a comprehensive definition.

What does that say of the Kingdom? Nothing. What does that say of defeating the work of Satan? Nothing. What does that say of interpersonal sins? Nothing. What it addresses is punishment due man as the penalty for sin. It does not even address sin as a power (which is how Christ addressed sin the most).

Your error is not in what you affirm. It is in what you seem to believe is secondary. That colors what you affirm.

Your confusing the atonement with its related consequences.

 

[The Biblicist]

The atonement is ONE act with MANY aspects (that is where we deny, not that it is many acts).

False! the atonement is ONE ACT with MANY CONSEQUENCES. You are attempting to widen the definition of the atonement to include its consequences and thus confusing cause with effects again.

 

[Iconoclast]

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.

Sorry you have not understood the true gospel yet, but glad your health has improved so you can interact and sharpen your understanding

 

[The Biblicist]

Look, you folks denounce Christus Victor not because of what it states (which you now say you affirm) but on what it does not state (but what it implies as evidenced by the belief that those who held this view also believed in penal substitution).

Turn it around. You are asking me to accept that Penal Substitution Theory is complete because it implies what it does not state.

That is an utterly stupid argument.

Any truth contained in Chritus Victor is not denied by PSA but included in the necessary consequences of PSA. Again, your are conflicting and conflating the atonement with its necesary consequences.

Your error is two-fold. First, you deny what the Bible demands is included in the atonement and second, you include in the Atonement what the Bible teaches are its necessary consequences. Regeneration, sanctification, justification, glorification, new heaven and earth, destruction of Satan, etc., are all necessary conseqences of the atonement as effects but they cannot be included in the meaning and/or defintion of atonement. That is your error!

 

[JonC]

False! the atonement is ONE ACT with MANY CONSEQUENCES. You are attempting to widen the definition of the atonement to include its consequences and thus confusing cause with effects again.

I disagree. The reason is that I believe that the Atonement (one act) was PURPOSED to address the many aspects of sin (far more than "consequence"). But it does explain our disagreement (I think).

You seem to see the Atonement as purposed to address the issue of sin (as a moral issue) which basically carried many consequences. I believe that the Atonement was purposed specifically to address these aspects you think mere consequence.

The same is true of "sin". Thus far you have strongly denied my view that Adam's sin was a result of Adam misplacing his faith. I can't remember if it were you or one of the others, but one of you even ridiculed the idea. Yet if Scripture (post-Fall) regarding the nature of sin is immutable (applicable pre-fall) then you cannot deny that I am wrong.

 

[JonC]

Any truth contained in Chritus Victor is not denied by PSA but included in the necessary consequences of PSA.

Any truth contained by the PSA is not denied by Christus Victor but included in the necessary consequences of Christus Victor.

These are stupid arguments. What we are talking about is what is stated....the focus. Scripture focuses on Christus Victor as well as penal substitution. We cannot choose to make one the consequence of the other. God is not so haphazard.

The irony, @The Biblicist , is that none of you have thus far provided even one verse I have not affirmed. At the same time your theory does not actually affirm quite a bit.

 

[The Biblicist]

Any truth contained by the PSA is not denied by Christus Victor but included in the necessary consequences of Christus Victor.

PSA has a negative (penal substitution) and positive side (substitution where righteousness replaces unrighteousness) - 2 Cor. 5:21. With both come necessary consequences or applications. Just think it through.

penal substitution.

Penal satisfaction takes care of the negative against us , but substitution is more than penal satisfaction butthe legal righteousness (2 Cor. 5:21) and all of its benefits. This negative and positive COMPLETED ACTION is what secures the destruction of the works of the Devil plus all the ONGOING postive benefits.

Consider, that the atonement has for its contextual setting the entire Temple - outer court, holy place and holy place. Now don't confuse the atonement with its application but nevertheless, the application is inclusive of all salvation in its most general and comprehensive sense and that is represented by all the typology of the temple along with all of its furniture which the blood is applied to. Think this through. What you are doing is conflating the temple typology with the atonement or the application with the atonement. The atonement occurs at the altar while its application proceeds from the altar unto the ark of the covenant. PSA concerns the altar while all the other things you are attempting to include in the atonement are its applications.

 

[The Biblicist]

I disagree. The reason is that I believe that the Atonement (one act) was PURPOSED to address the many aspects of sin (far more than "consequence").

Of course that was its purpose, but the accomplishment of that purpose is found in its applications which are not to be confused with the act. It is a completed act with ongoing benefits and applications.

You seem to see the Atonement as purposed to address the issue of sin (as a moral issue) which basically carried many consequences. I believe that the Atonement was purposed specifically to address these aspects you think mere consequence.

There is no atonement without a sacrifice that is without spot and blemish, and there is no atonement without substitution with regard to both sin and righteousness. Hence, the righteousness aspect is what secures all the other benefits of salvation. But don't confuse its ongoing benefits, and applications with the completed act. Did you get the underlined bold red words????

The same is true of "sin". Thus far you have strongly denied my view that Adam's sin was a result of Adam misplacing his faith. I can't remember if it were you or one of the others, but one of you even ridiculed the idea. Yet if Scripture (post-Fall) regarding the nature of sin is immutable (applicable pre-fall) then you cannot deny that I am wrong.

I don't confuse sin with its consequences either as that is confusing cause and effects. Death is a penal consequence or effect (Gen. 2:17). Adam did not misplace his faith he DENIED his faith and replaced it with WILLFUL REBELLION which is anything but faith.

 

[JonC]

Of course that was its purpose, but the accomplishment of that purpose is found in its applications which are not to be confused with the act. It is a completed act with ongoing benefits and applications.



There is no atonement without a sacrifice that is without spot and blemish, and there is no atonement without substitution with regard to both sin and righteousness. Hence, the righteousness aspect is what secures all the other benefits of salvation. But don't confuse its ongoing benefits, and applications with the completed act. Did you get the underlined bold red words????



I don't confuse sin with its consequences either as that is confusing cause and effects. Death is a penal consequence or effect (Gen. 2:17). Adam did not misplace his faith he DENIED his faith and replace it with WILLFUL REBELLION which is anything but faith.

I believe that the purpose of the atonement, the purpose for the coming of Christ, includes many things. Christ came to give us everlasting life. Christ came in order to take away sins. Christ came to destroy the works of the Devil. Christ came so that we would be reborn of God. Christ came so that we would love one another. Christ came so that we would be righteous. Christ came that we would become children of God.

I believe that because of the Cross Jesus is the Firstborn of many brethern. He is the Head of God's people. He is the standard by which we are to live. He is our Mediator and Advocate. He Himself is the propitiation for the sins of man.

I believe that the Atonement was accomplished by Christ submitting Himself to the will of the Father, humbling Himself by becoming man, experiencing temptation as we experience temptation, and remaining obedient even to death on the Cross as the second Adam thereby becoming the Firstborn of many who through Him will be made children of God.

That's it. I know you don't like it, but tough. You cannot provide even one passage I deny, so you (and @Reformed and @Martin Marprelate ) make yourselves the standard by which you judge me. Until you can find even one passage that I deny, I'm really not sure what y'all are trying to accomplish.

 

[The Biblicist]

Sin NEVER leaves the realm of morality! NEVER! Whether it is viewed in its destructive nature with interpersonal relationships, whether it is viewed as a "law" or principle or state/condition. There can be no text cited where the term "sin" is contained that is not placed in a moral context.

For example, take the idea that sin is a "law" or "principle":

Rom. 7:19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.
20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
21 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.
22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:
23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.
24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?
25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.

Now look at verses 19-21 and the inseparable association of this law with DOING "evil" ("the evil...it is not more I that DO IT, but sin")

There is no text containing sin that is not directly associated IN CONTEXT with good and evil.

 

[JonC]

Sin NEVER leaves the realm of morality! NEVER! Whether it is viewed in its destructive nature with interpersonal relationships, whether it is viewed as a "law" or principle or state/condition. There can be no text cited where the term "sin" is contained that is not placed in a moral context.

For example, take the idea that sin is a "law" or "principle":

Rom. 7:19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.
20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
21 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.
22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:
23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.
24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?
25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.

Now look at verses 19-21 and the inseparable association of this law with DOING "evil" ("the evil...it is not more I that DO IT, but sin")

There is no text containing sin that is not directly associated IN CONTEXT with good and evil.

You realize that you are only posting one passage about moral sin and claiming is all encompassing. You are ignoring passages of Paul speaking of men being enslaved by sin and free from righteousness, or Jesus speaking of sin as a power, or John speaking of sin as a principle. Why? Is it perhaps because it may just hint of the righteousness of God manifested apart from the law (even as it addresses moral aspects of sin)?

Please don't take this wrong (I don't mean it as an insult), but reading your posts you seem more concerned with moral righteousness and God's law than you do with Christ and His gospel.

 

[The Biblicist]

I believe that the purpose of the atonement, the purpose for the coming of Christ, includes many things. Christ came to give us everlasting life. Christ came in order to take away sins. Christ came to destroy the works of the Devil. Christ came so that we would be reborn of God. Christ came so that we would love one another. Christ came so that we would be righteous. Christ came that we would become children of God.

I believe that because of the Cross Jesus is the Firstborn of many brethern. He is the Head of God's people. He is the standard by which we are to live. He is our Mediator and Advocate. He Himself is the propitiation for the sins of man.

I believe that the Atonement was accomplished by Christ submitting Himself to the will of the Father, humbling Himself by becoming man, experiencing temptation as we experience temptation, and remaining obedient even to death on the Cross as the second Adam thereby becoming the Firstborn of many who through Him will be made children of God.

Again, you are confusing the COMPLETED ACT of atonement with the qualifications to be an atonement and what is necessary prerequite to make the atonement AND confusing the ONGOING applications of the atonement which God purposed for the atonement to be the legal grounds to secure with the COMPLETED act of the atonement.

What you are doing is taking the term "atonement" and denying it is a completed act but making it an ongoing incompleted action that is inclusive of all the redemptive purposes of God which have not yet been completed. This is like taking the term regeneration and denying it is a completed action but inclusive of all the incompleted actions of salvation in the broadest sense. This is like taking the term justification and denying it is a completed action at the point of faith in the gospel but demanding it must be defined and understood to include all the divine redemptive purposes of God that are yet unfulfilled and in a progressive incompleted action.

 

[The Biblicist]

You realize that you are only posting one passage about moral sin and claiming is all encompassing. You are ignoring passages of Paul speaking of men being enslaved by sin and free from righteousness, or Jesus speaking of sin as a power, or John speaking of sin as a principle.

Provide me with those texts that you think prove you point and I will demonstrate from the context of each one the very same thing! Take the challenge and provide a text.

Why? Is it perhaps because it may just hint of the righteousness of God manifested apart from the law (even as it addresses moral aspects of sin)?

I have denied this accusation so many times and stated precisely what I believe but you keep repeating it as though I have never fully and comprehensively answered it. The law merely MANIFESTs the righteousness of God IT IS NOT THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF God, just as a mirror manifests you but it is not you and yet at the very same time you can look in the mirror and truthfully say 'THAT IS YOU"!!!

Please don't take this wrong (I don't mean it as an insult), but reading your posts you seem more concerned with moral righteousness and God's law than you do with Christ and His gospel.

That is because you still do not understand my position even though I have spelled it out to you many times in no uncertain terms. Let me say it this way:

1. Moral Righteousness is not in conflict with God's righteousness as the former is a reflection of the latter and yet a reflection IS NOT the latter.

2. What is revealed in the law (moral righteousness) is LIVED OUT in Christ in principle and what is proclaimed in the gospel as summarized in the doctrine of justification.

 

[JonC]

Again, you are confusing the COMPLETED ACT of atonement .

If that were true, then the ONLY completed act of the Atonement would be Christ as the "Last Adam" with men recreated/ re-born having died to sin. God would be unjust to attribute to the "new man" the sins of the "old man".

Your theory that the only aspect of the atonement is morality with everything else a consequence of that one issue is absurd because behind morality is a deeper "problem" of sin.

This is why no one is saved through the law. This is why the law is but a witness to redemption. This is why salvation is God's righteousness manifested apart from the law. This is the law testifies to our sinfulness . You stop far too short.

Your error is that you hold a theory above what Scripture actually states regarding the Atonement by limiting Scripture to a sidebar consequence of the "real" work.

This is evidenced by the fact that you have not (and can not) produce even one verse my view denies, but I can at least show that you minimize what Scripture presents as secondary to your theory.

 

[The Biblicist]

I believe that the purpose of the atonement, the purpose for the coming of Christ, includes many things.

the prerequisites for atonement included his pre-cross life. The atonement occurred and was completed on the cross. It's many benefits or applications cover a wide range of subjects.

 

[JonC]

That is because you still do not understand my position even though I have spelled it out to you many times in no uncertain terms.

Look, you (along with @Reformed and @Martin Marprelate ) have denounced my position up and down over several threads. From what I see the primary difference here (in this current trend) is that I believe everything in the atonement is interdependent, connected, and purposed. We cannot single out one aspect over another (even addressing sin as a moral transgression isn't the beginning). But what you have failed to do is produce even one verse I've denied. NOT one.

My complaint is that you are emphasizing one aspect of the atonement over the others. The Penal Substitution Theory picks up the atonement from the point of a transgression. But there was a reason Adam sinned (it was not a coin toss). And even here there are other aspects that Scripture addresses APART FROM the moral issue. All I am saying is that we cannot ignore or minimize one aspect over the other EVEN if our theory demands it.

 

[JonC]

@The Biblicist , @Reformed , @Martin Marprelate ,

You know what, I'm just going to leave the conversation until you can show where my view departs from Scripture. I think that that is best for all concerned because until you can do that we really have nothing to debate.

Again, here is a summary of my view:

I believe that the purpose of the atonement, the purpose for the coming of Christ, includes many things. Christ came to give us everlasting life. Christ came in order to take away sins. Christ came to destroy the works of the Devil. Christ came so that we would be reborn of God. Christ came so that we would love one another. Christ came so that we would be righteous. Christ came that we would become children of God.

I believe that because of the Cross Jesus is the Firstborn of many brethern. He is the Head of God's people. He is the standard by which we are to live. He is our Mediator and Advocate. He Himself is the propitiation for the sins of man.

I believe that the Atonement was accomplished by Christ submitting Himself to the will of the Father, humbling Himself by becoming man, experiencing temptation as we experience temptation, and remaining obedient even to death on the Cross as the second Adam thereby becoming the Firstborn of many who through Him will be made children of God.

Until you can muster the insight to present the verse you believe I have just denied, I'm not interested.

 

[The Biblicist]

If that were true, then the ONLY completed act of the Atonement would be Christ as the "Last Adam" with men recreated/ re-born having died to sin. God would be unjust to attribute to the "new man" the sins of the "old man".

No, his pre-cross life was required to qualify for the atonement. The prefallen life of Adam was required for him to be the test case (sinless, sinless environment). His post-fallen life has nothing to do with his representation.

Your theory that the only aspect of the atonement is morality

One aspect? The prerequistes to qualify as an atoment is involved with morality. The act of substitution is involved with morality. The penal satisfaction is involved with morality. The post-atonement applications are involved morality. God's government is a MORAL government because he is a MORAL Being. The atonement primarily deals with sin as moral offence to the holiness of God.

with everything else a consequence of that one issue is absurd because behind morality is a deeper "problem" of sin.

No, the deepest problem of sin is removed by the singular act of atonement and that is the offence to God's holiness. Everything else is consequential. The "deeper" problem of sin in you and in me is secured by the applications secured by atonement - new birth, progressive santification and ultimately glorification.

This is why no one is saved through the law.

The law cannot remove the offence to God's holiness! The law cannot convey righteousness. The Law cannot convey eternal life because the problem for all three are found IN THE SINNER not the law. You are not even making sense by this charge as PSA has NOTHING to do with acheiving any of these things by law.

This is why the law is but a witness to redemption. This is why salvation is God's righteousness manifested apart from the law. This is the law testifies to our sinfulness . You stop far too short.

You are not making any sense becasue PSA does not assert any of these things as PSA does not include the law for regeneration, justification, sanctification, glorification or any other application of the atonement to the acheivement of our actual salvation.