The Classic View (just a summary)

[Arthur King]

No. You are wrong. I am not moving on, just addressing a different passage brought up by a different member.

I agree that there is such a thing as substitution.

If I order a plate and it has salmon I will ask for tuna as a substitute for the salmon.

But here you are adding to the Bible.

The verse says that He gave Himself for me.

John 11 says this was prophesied by Caiaphas' words (one man dying for the nation) which was not as a substitute.

You are wrong.

A better example would be the military. Soldiers fought for you. They didn't fight instead of you.

@Martin Marprelate @taisto @DaveXR650

Again: "I went to the store FOR my wife" can certainly mean that I went to the store INSTEAD OF my wife. But it does not necessarily mean that - as you guys are demanding. And then if I also say that "I went to the store WITH my wife," then we know for certain that I did not go to the store instead of my wife - because I explicitly said I went with her. This is exactly how the words are used in Scripture. It says that Jesus dies with us and for us, which excludes "instead of."

If I am dead, and Jesus dies so that I can rise with him, then of course Jesus died for me. He gave his life for me. He gave his life so that I could live. But that is not substitution - because I was already dead. The mechanism of my salvation involved my death.

And again, Jesus says that he who would save his life would lose it. That we need to take up our cross and follow him. I still need to physically die, so my sin can die with my flesh. I need to be set free from the body of this death (Romans 7), because "he who has died is freed from sin (Romans 6). Physical death is a punishment for sin (Genesis 3) and that punishment does not go away. Jesus does not suffer it in my place instead of me as my substitute so I wont have to face it.

Jesus' death is different from ours in that he alone dies unjustly as a perfectly innocent and divine party, and so benefits of his death apply to us who die with him by the Holy Spirit. But that is not substitution. That is redemption and application. Jesus is not innocent and does not pay our debt of obedience so that we wont have to obey or be innocent, but so that we CAN BE AND DO those things.

That the mechanism of Jesus dying for us also involves our death is so explicit in Scripture, and I have listed the verses already so thoroughly, that I am surprised this debate continues.

 

[DaveXR650]

That the mechanism of Jesus dying for us also involves our death is so explicit in Scripture, and I have listed the verses already so thoroughly, that I am surprised this debate continues.

So am I.
"For instance, some have said that "what Christ did and suffered is so imputed unto us, as that we are judged and esteemed in the sight of God to have done or suffered ourselves in him". This I shall not concern myself in; for although it may have a sound sense given unto it, and is used by some of the ancients, yet because offense is taken at it, and the substance of the truth we plead for is better otherwise expressed, it ought not to be contended about." John Owen "The Doctrine of Justification by Faith" Chapter 9 The Formal Cause of Justification.

What is important here is that the next sentence says this:
"For we do not say that God judges or esteems that we did and suffered in our own persons what Christ did and suffered; but only that he did it and suffered it in our stead".
So label it as you will. Why can't we get into what is really going on here. It is not a dispute of union with Christ or the use of the Greek word for substitute. You are at least more honest than Jon in this.

Jesus is not innocent and does not pay our debt of obedience so that we wont have to obey or be innocent, but so that we CAN BE AND DO those things.

This is what you think is going on here with penal substitution. It's what some of the Anabaptists say too. What we are saying that you really oppose is that we say the total grounds of our being righteous before God and of having our sins pardoned is the imputed righteousness of Christ and not what we do. And we deny, and it becomes ludicrous to charge that to a penal substitution advocate like Owen, that this is "so we won't have to obey or be innocent". At least you are willing to get into the meat of the dispute.

 

[JonC]

So am I.
"For instance, some have said that "what Christ did and suffered is so imputed unto us, as that we are judged and esteemed in the sight of God to have done or suffered ourselves in him". This I shall not concern myself in; for although it may have a sound sense given unto it, and is used by some of the ancients, yet because offense is taken at it, and the substance of the truth we plead for is better otherwise expressed, it ought not to be contended about." John Owen "The Doctrine of Justification by Faith" Chapter 9 The Formal Cause of Justification.

What is important here is that the next sentence says this:
"For we do not say that God judges or esteems that we did and suffered in our own persons what Christ did and suffered; but only that he did it and suffered it in our stead".
So label it as you will. Why can't we get into what is really going on here. It is not a dispute of union with Christ or the use of the Greek word for substitute. You are at least more honest than Jon in this.

This is what you think is going on here with penal substitution. It's what some of the Anabaptists say too. What we are saying that you really oppose is that we say the total grounds of our being righteous before God and of having our sins pardoned is the imputed righteousness of Christ and not what we do. And we deny, and it becomes ludicrous to charge that to a penal substitution advocate like Owen, that this is "so we won't have to obey or be innocent". At least you are willing to get into the meat of the dispute.

Why bring me into your discussion with @Arthur King ?

I have not read anything he has posted on this topic that I find wrong. He has remained faithful, as far as I have read of his posts, to Scripture.

I am not interested in testing Penal Substitution Theory against John Owen. I am interested in testing Substitution against Scripture.

My chief complaint is that you are adding substitution to the text of Scripture where the text itself does not indicate substitution.

The reason I object is not so much that Penal Substitution Theory is an addition to Scripture but that it obscures what is actually written in God's Word and is therefore not a harmless theory.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

That the mechanism of Jesus dying for us also involves our death is so explicit in Scripture, and I have listed the verses already so thoroughly, that I am surprised this debate continues.

The doctrine of the Union of the Believer with Christ is vital and fundamental to the doctrine of Penal Substitution. I think you said that you possessed the book Pierced for our Transgressions.. Go and have a read of pages 146-147 and 242-247. It's all there. If that doesn't satisfy, go and read Calvin or John Owen's The Glory of Christ. If I had time and energy I would summarize their writings, but today, at least, I don't.

 

[DaveXR650]

2. Scripture states that God will forgive those who repent - the requirement being repentance as defined by turning from a mind set on the flesh to a mind set on the Spirit (a change of mind); by turning to God; by repenting and believing in the gospel of Christ Jesus (Chronicles 7:14;Proverbs 28:13 ;1 John 1:8-9 ; Acts 3:18-19; 2 Peter 3:9; Matthew 9:13 ;Revelation 3:19 Luke 17:3 ;Luke 15:10; Luke 15:7; Romans 2:4 ; Isaiah 55:6-7; Acts 2:38 ; Matthew 4:17 ;;Mark 1:15 ;; Ezekiel 18: 21-23 ;;Luke 24:45-67).

@Martin Marprelate rejected this idea as it is what he calls "simple forgiveness".

The point is that under the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement God can punish sins but it is impossible for God to actually forgive sins (the theory holds that God forgives the wicked by punishing sins).

Why is it impossible for God to forgive actual sins?

This was good discussion from another thread. And it shows a real difference in belief. What @Arthur King said above does the same. I just don't have anything else to add to the discussion over the meaning of "substitution" verses "instead" or "for".

If you believe that the work of Christ on the cross provides the sole basis for our redemption then I would be satisfied whether or not you agree with me on the definition of substitution. But if you believe, as you stated above that simple forgiveness, without some kind of provision provided by Christ on the cross then we have true major differences. @Arthur King seems to believe more is needed, you seem to believe less is needed. At any rate, these differences are what should be discussed, not the meaning of substitution if you are drafted or if you go to the store for your wife.

No offense but I have nothing else to say on the meaning of "substitution". So don't get offended and say you are misunderstood. If satisfaction by Christ for our sin as individuals is not necessary then say so now. If it is then say so. If @Arthur King believes more is needed for justification then he can say so or correct my impression here and now. I freely concede that we will never agree on the meaning of substitution and have nothing else to add.

 

[JonC]

This was good discussion from another thread. And it shows a real difference in belief. What @Arthur King said above does the same. I just don't have anything else to add to the discussion over the meaning of "substitution" verses "instead" or "for".

If you believe that the work of Christ on the cross provides the sole basis for our redemption then I would be satisfied whether or not you agree with me on the definition of substitution. But if you believe, as you stated above that simple forgiveness, without some kind of provision provided by Christ on the cross then we have true major differences. @Arthur King seems to believe more is needed, you seem to believe less is needed. At any rate, these differences are what should be discussed, not the meaning of substitution if you are drafted or if you go to the store for your wife.

No offense but I have nothing else to say on the meaning of "substitution". So don't get offended and say you are misunderstood. If satisfaction by Christ for our sin as individuals is not necessary then say so now. If it is then say so. If @Arthur King believes more is needed for justification then he can say so or correct my impression here and now. I freely concede that we will never agree on the meaning of substitution and have nothing else to add.

You are changing my argument. I never said that forgiveness is not based on the cross (by "the Cross" I mean the whole work of God).

I even explained that forgiveness, per Scripture, is based on repentance. Then I said that repentance is a change of mind - a change from a mind set on the flesh (which is death) to a mind set on the Spirit (which is Life). And I said that this is accomplished only through-in Christ.

So an honest objection would be for you to complain that I base forgiveness on the work of Christ as the basis of belief with the hope of our faith in the resurrection.


I think you are mixing up your words with mine (from previous arguments). It was you that said my view said that God forgives if we are sorry. I corrected that claim by stating what I just explained.


But there are differences worth exploring. We just need to be honest about the differences.

Where Penal Substitution Theory bases forgiveness on God punishing sins (on the cross with Jesus as our Substitute), I am saying that forgiveness is obtained in the present based on the work of Christ with Christ as our active Mediator.

In other words, I believe that on the cross God was reconciling man to Himself, forgiving man's sins, so that men may be reconciled to God.


I am willing to discuss our differences but we have to do so in an honest manner - no revising or snipping what the other believes.

I am not offended (I don't believe it is possible to be offended from a discussion board). But based even on this post alone you either do not understand what I posted or you deliberately misrepresented what I posted. Since it is you, I believe the former. That is why I chalk it up to misunderstanding.

 

[DaveXR650]

This gets into an actual issue worth talking about. In the post I quoted you said that under penal substitution God can't really forgive sins and asked "why is it impossible for God to forgive actual sins". That I know is a standard answer used by some who are against a penal substitution or a satisfaction concept of atonement.
Then you say this:

Where Penal Substitution Theory bases forgiveness on God punishing sins (on the cross with Jesus as our Substitute), I am saying that forgiveness is obtained in the present based on the work of Christ with Christ as our active Mediator.

In other words, I believe that on the cross God was reconciling man to Himself, forgiving man's sins, so that men may be reconciled to God.

This gets confusing because there are two concepts going on here. When you say "forgiveness is obtained in the present based on the work of Christ with Christ as our active Mediator", I agree with that even though I know there will be differences in how different groups would explain this happening.

But the problem will arise in the details of what this work of Christ is and what it does. Some who oppose penal substitution do not believe God should need any work of Christ in order for him to forgive. Others, like me, believe that God being also with a sense of justice, knowing that many of men's sins involve injustice and wrong to other men, and knowing that God's reaction to sin by his own nature is wrath, believe that scripture teaches that simple forgiveness out of the blue would go against God's nature.

We believe that the work of Christ in the atonement is that which somehow does what is necessary for God to forgive us without violating his own nature or sense of justice. So the question is "What exactly is that work?".

In other words, I believe that on the cross God was reconciling man to Himself, forgiving man's sins, so that men may be reconciled to God.

We agree on that statement but I need to point out that many of the opponents of penal substitution do not believe that that is what Christ did on the cross. You do, and I'm glad. My question is what exactly did happen. All I ask is that you not go back to the word meaning exercise where you say Christ died for us but not instead of us so penal substitution is wrong. If you do, I want you to know that I am willing to let your statement Christ died "for us" stand, but there is no need for further discussion on this subject. If the difference is deeper, then explain what happened at the cross in the matter of our individual sins against God.

 

[JonC]

This gets into an actual issue worth talking about. In the post I quoted you said that under penal substitution God can't really forgive sins and asked "why is it impossible for God to forgive actual sins". That I know is a standard answer used by some who are against a penal substitution or a satisfaction concept of atonement.
Then you say this:

This gets confusing because there are two concepts going on here. When you say "forgiveness is obtained in the present based on the work of Christ with Christ as our active Mediator", I agree with that even though I know there will be differences in how different groups would explain this happening.

But the problem will arise in the details of what this work of Christ is and what it does. Some who oppose penal substitution do not believe God should need any work of Christ in order for him to forgive. Others, like me, believe that God being also with a sense of justice, knowing that many of men's sins involve injustice and wrong to other men, and knowing that God's reaction to sin by his own nature is wrath, believe that scripture teaches that simple forgiveness out of the blue would go against God's nature.

We believe that the work of Christ in the atonement is that which somehow does what is necessary for God to forgive us without violating his own nature or sense of justice. So the question is "What exactly is that work?".
We agree on that statement but I need to point out that many of the opponents of penal substitution do not believe that that is what Christ did on the cross. You do, and I'm glad. My question is what exactly did happen. All I ask is that you not go back to the word meaning exercise where you say Christ died for us but not instead of us so penal substitution is wrong. If you do, I want you to know that I am willing to let your statement Christ died "for us" stand, but there is no need for further discussion on this subject. If the difference is deeper, then explain what happened at the cross in the matter of our individual sins against God.

I think you know the answer to the about why under Penal Substitution Theory God cannot forgive sins.

Does God truly forgive sins under Penal Substitution Theory or does God's justice demand that sins be punished?

Penal Substitution Theory holds that God cannot forgive sins because He has to punish sins or He is not a just God.

It holds that God forgives men by punishing man's sins laid on an appropriate sacrifice.


Some who oppose penal substitution may not believe God should need any work of Christ in order for him to forgive. That isn't for me to say because that is not at all even close to my belief.

Some who hold Penal Substitution Theory believe God sent Jesus to Hell for three days to be tortured by Satan and his demons. Sime who hold Penal Substitution Theory believe that evangelism is a sin. I assume that is not your belief as you have expressed neither.

That is what I mean by honestly discussing differences. Don't characterize the whole of either view on a smaller group of extremists.


I am not going to a word meaning exercise, but the difference between whether Christ died for us or suffered instead of us is very important. One is not substitution, the other is substitution.

It is not something that can be ignored.

Why add substitution to the verse (why add a way Christ died for us)? That is not the point of the passage

Your argument would be better to develop exactly why you believe Christ died as a substitute and exactly why you believe this was God punishing Him instead of us.

I have provided several passages stating that Christ died under the powers of evil. I have provided passages describing Christ dying on our behalf but not as a substitute.

We can't simply ignore the differences (we can't not go back to actual verses and examine them).


What happens to our individual sins? Nothing can happen to individual sins because they are actions. Sinners, however, can be forgiven.

 

[DaveXR650]

Penal Substitution Theory holds that God cannot forgive sins because He has to punish sins or He is not a just God.

It holds that God forgives men by punishing man's sins laid on an appropriate sacrifice.

Yes. Now we are getting somewhere. There is truth in those statements. You can reject penal substitution of you want but what I am asking is what explanation do you give for the effect of Christs death on our sins. You say this:

I have provided several passages stating that Christ died under the powers of evil. I have provided passages describing Christ dying on our behalf but not as a substitute.

I agree with the statement in that Christ did die under the powers of evil. How did that have an effect on our standing before God as an individual sinner? And, as for Christ dying on our behalf, I say that means Christ suffered and died under our judgment and penalty for sin that we incurred. Is that wording alright with you and if not, how would you describe what happened?

 

[JonC]

Yes. Now we are getting somewhere. There is truth in those statements. You can reject penal substitution of you want but what I am asking is what explanation do you give for the effect of Christs death on our sins. You say this:

I agree with the statement in that Christ did die under the powers of evil. How did that have an effect on our standing before God as an individual sinner? And, as for Christ dying on our behalf, I say that means Christ suffered and died under our judgment and penalty for sin that we incurred. Is that wording alright with you and if not, how would you describe what happened?

I have gone through this with you several times, so I will try to keep it very short.

First, I am saying that Christ died for us - on our behalf (which means 1. in the interest of, 2. as a representative). I reject that He died as our substitute.

Now, how did Christ's death affect our standing before God as an individual sinner? Christ's death meant solidarity or unity with man so that man could be reconciled to God. It meant that the individual could be forgiven.

 

[taisto]

I have gone through this with you several times, so I will try to keep it very short.

First, I am saying that Christ died for us - on our behalf (which means 1. in the interest of, 2. as a representative). I reject that He died as our substitute.

Now, how did Christ's death affect our standing before God as an individual sinner? Christ's death meant solidarity or unity with man so that man could be reconciled to God. It meant that the individual could be forgiven.

Could Christ Jesus not forgive sins before he died?

Then Jesus said to the woman, “Your sins are forgiven.” The men at the table said among themselves, “Who is this man, that he goes around forgiving sins?”
(Luke 7:48-49)

This text tells me Jesus didn't have to die in order to forgive sins.

Before Jesus died, he reconciled a man to him.

Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your Kingdom.” And Jesus replied, “I assure you, today you will be with me in paradise.”
(Luke 23:42-43)

Jon, you have a shallow view of what Jesus did for you on the cross as you explain your view above. In fact, in your view you show us that Jesus didn't have to die in order to do what you claim he did.

 

[DaveXR650]

Now, how did Christ's death affect our standing before God as an individual sinner? Christ's death meant solidarity or unity with man so that man could be reconciled to God. It meant that the individual could be forgiven.

Well Jon, I thought you might say that. I don't accept the idea of "solidarity or unity" with man as being a sufficient explanation of the scriptures dealing with man as a sinner and standing guilty before God. There is nothing else to say on this subject with you. Those statements you list showing what Christ did show way more than solidarity and unity. I find your view of the atonement inadequate and I don't think there is any sense in continuing this discussion, but thanks for the time you put into it anyway.

 

[JonC]

Could Christ Jesus not forgive sins before he died?

Then Jesus said to the woman, “Your sins are forgiven.” The men at the table said among themselves, “Who is this man, that he goes around forgiving sins?”
(Luke 7:48-49)

This text tells me Jesus didn't have to die in order to forgive sins.

Before Jesus died, he reconciled a man to him.

Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your Kingdom.” And Jesus replied, “I assure you, today you will be with me in paradise.”
(Luke 23:42-43)

Jon, you have a shallow view of what Jesus did for you on the cross as you explain your view above. In fact, in your view you show us that Jesus didn't have to die in order to do what you claim he did.

Jesus could. That's the point. On the Cross God was reconciling man so that men could be reconciled to God.

Forgiveness is always in Christ.

Penal Substitution makes this one movement (forgiveness at the Cross, reconciliation at the Cross, our redemption at the Cross. And this via substitution.

 

[JonC]

Well Jon, I thought you might say that. I don't accept the idea of "solidarity or unity" with man as being a sufficient explanation of the scriptures dealing with man as a sinner and standing guilty before God. There is nothing else to say on this subject with you. Those statements you list showing what Christ did show way more than solidarity and unity. I find your view of the atonement inadequate and I don't think there is any sense in continuing this discussion, but thanks for the time you put into it anyway.

Yet that is exactly what Scripture focuses on - I in Christ and Christ in me, not I but Christ in me, no condemnation in Christ.

I am truly sorry that you find this inadequate. To me it is all Christ.

 

[DaveXR650]

Yet that is exactly what Scripture focuses on - I in Christ and Christ in me, not I but Christ in me, no condemnation in Christ.

I am truly sorry that you find this inadequate. To me it is all Christ.

Yes, it is all Christ. And he bore our sins in his own body on the tree. No explanation of Christ's work on the cross is adequate without addressing that.

 

[JonC]

Yes, it is all Christ. And he bore our sins in his own body on the tree. No explanation of Christ's work on the cross is adequate without addressing that.

I agree.

There are truths that must be addressed:

Christ bore our sins bodily on the cross
God lain our sins on Him
He died for our sins
He died for us

Those are vital. BUT they must be accepted as God has revealed them in His Word (in what is written), unadulterated and uncorrupted. That is where Penal Substitution Theory fails.

The fact (from your own statements) that you are unable to distinguish Christ dying for our sins, giving Himself for us, becoming a curse for us, etc. proves that you are unable to read those passages without adding Substitution.

I can understand it both ways. But this is because I used to share your view.

Until you are able to understand those passages without reading substitution you will not be able to evaluate the positions.

At least try. Then decide which is biblical.

 

[taisto]

Jesus could. That's the point. On the Cross God was reconciling man so that men could be reconciled to God.

Forgiveness is always in Christ.

Penal Substitution makes this one movement (forgiveness at the Cross, reconciliation at the Cross, our redemption at the Cross. And this via substitution.

Jon, your theory needs no cross. It needs no Bible and no Savior.

 

[DaveXR650]

Christ bore our sins bodily on the cross
God lain our sins on Him
He died for our sins
He died for us

I already said that it's OK with me if you choose not to use the word "substitution", as long as you believe those things. But Jon, I have read a lot of the guys you point to and when they do actually object to penal substitution they have concrete, theological objections. You keep this play on words up and won't even listen to @Martin Marprelate when he tries to explain it. Call it what you want but a thing is what it is. The important point is that you are the only one who asserts those points above and because of a word game still refuse the concept. It looks ludicrous. I know at this point you won't be able to address the issues here.

 

[JonC]

I already said that it's OK with me if you choose not to use the word "substitution", as long as you believe those things. But Jon, I have read a lot of the guys you point to and when they do actually object to penal substitution they have concrete, theological objections. You keep this play on words up and won't even listen to @Martin Marprelate when he tries to explain it. Call it what you want but a thing is what it is. The important point is that you are the only one who asserts those points above and because of a word game still refuse the concept. It looks ludicrous. I know at this point you won't be able to address the issues here.

The thing is I do not believe it was substitution no matter what word you use.

Doublespeak is a real issue in theology. For example, God's ability to forgive us a major topic.

Penal Substitution Theory holds that God cannot forgive sins, that He must punish sins, but the guilty can escape punishment if another is punished in his or her place.

That is a different definition of forgiveness than most Christians hold.

Same with the truth that Christ died for us. You mean substitution. I do not. The actual words we use do not matter so much as the definitions we use.

We could embrace "doublespeak" and pretend we really believe the same, but that would not be honest.


The issue, of course, goes deeper.

If I meant that Christ died for us as substitution without changing to a Latin view (any of the Latin views) then Satan is the one who forgives us.

If you reject while otherwise holding a Latin view (whether Satisfaction Theory, Substitution, or Penal Substitution Theory) then there is no salvation at all.


These differences were not determined simply by deciding if Christ died for us or if Christ died for us as our Substitute.

The differences go through the entire biblical narrative and to the heart of the gospel.


I only want you to be able to read Scripture without reading "substitution" so that you can rightly decide which is more biblical. That is, I believe, a good start anyway.

 

[JonC]

Jon, your theory needs no cross. It needs no Bible and no Savior.

...that is a stupid response.

Many here disagree with my view, and that is fine. But if after all of this discussion you still do not understand how my view necessitates not only Christ's incarnation, life, and death but also His death on a Roman cross then you are a fool.

I don't believe you are a fool. You probably just got carried away by your emotions and made a foolish reply. But maybe I misjudged you and you are "list in the sauce". Who knows (from your replies I can't really tell).

But to explain to others, not to change their minds but so that they understand, my view holds that Christ had to suffer the wages of sin. This is death. And this is under the powers and principalities of this world which was represented in the first century Jewish worldview as Rome.

Any member who comprehens yet disagrees, if they are an honest person, would deal with how my view necessitates the Cross rather than pretending it doesn't.