The Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement

[Iconoclast]

Do not the Scriptures establish the Father and the Son as equal?

Did notChrist state to the apostle, “If you have seen me, you have seen the Father”?


How are these verses representing God brutalized the Son?

3The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of His nature, upholding all things by His powerful word. After He had provided purification for sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high. 4So He became as far superior to the angels as the name He has inherited is excellent beyond theirs.​

Or these?

“Your throne, O God, endures forever and ever,
and justice is the scepter of Your kingdom.9You have loved righteousness
and hated wickedness;
therefore God, Your God, has anointed You
above Your companions with the oil of joy.”​

Does Hebrews 1 really answer the question I ask @Iconoclast ?

​

Aged man,
I think it does as Hebrews 2 explains it, and the rest of the epistle explains the work of our Great High Priest.

 

[JesusFan]

I am acquainted with the writings of Gustav Aulen (in the past someone....maybe you...mentioned him). I appreciate that he takes a biblical approach to the Atonement, but he gets too involved with the development of Penal Substitution Theory. The point should be whether or not the theory is in the text of Scripture - not how it came to be.

Origen, of course, held the Ransom Theory. What you have to realize is that not all who believe - like me - that Christ is the Propitiation for the sins of the World (or as Justin Martyr says, the "human family") affirms Penal Substitution Theory.

What is interesting about Origen is that - like Augustine - he did not view Christ's sacrifice as appeasing God.

Augustine considered the idea Christ's death appeased God as a strong heresy while Origen viewed Christ as appeasing "Satan" (some scholars believe his use of "Satan" was in the form of a sermon and symbolic of the personification of death).

On what basis can a Holy God freely justify a lost sinner if there has been as of they no atonement made for their sins then?

 

[37818]

Do not the Scriptures establish the Father and the Son as equal?

As being the same God. They are not the same Persons.

Does Hebrews 1 really answer the question I ask @Iconoclast ?

I thought so. Hebrews 1:3, ". . . upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high; . . ."

 

[Salty]

Six hour warning

This thread will be closed no sooner than 1230 am EST (Fri) / 930 pm PST (Thr)

 

[Jerome]

On what basis can a Holy God freely justify a lost sinner if there has been as of they no atonement made for their sins then?

Well said!

 

[Martin Marprelate]

One more quick word.
The fact that an ECF may have taught one thing in one book doesn't mean that he doesn't teach something else in another.
I am no great expert on the ECFs but I do note that they regularly contradict themselves
But if the great John Owen can give one interpretation of Hebrews 10:29 in The Death of Death, and another in his commentary on Hebrews, how much more may the ECFs change their minds? Only God is constant and only the Scriptures are without error.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I am acquainted with the writings of Gustav Aulen (in the past someone....maybe you...mentioned him).

I did mention him, and you said you hadn't read him and declined to discuss him.

 

[JonC]

In Revelation 12:17 I think Satan as a defeated for goes about seeking to do anything to oppose God.
He could not kill the infant Jesus, He could not prevent Jesus going to the cross.
He could not prevent the resurrection, or ascension.
He can only try to obscure truth.
I think someone accused me of being lost and blinded just yesterday.
The teaching of penal substitutionary atonement is central to the gospel.
J.I.Packer wrote a helpful article..22pages.that is helpful.

""The Logic of Penal Substitution" by J.I. Packer" "The Logic of Penal Substitution" by J.I. Packer

The thing is anti-Penal Substitution Theory doctrine has been the staple for most Christians. Granted, I'm the US this is not true. But it would be a mistake to hold that Satan is responsible for one year much less over 1500 years of Christianity.

You have to keep in mind that there are absolutely no accounts of Pena Substitution Theory in any of the early church writings, in any of the Christian scholars until the Reformation, or even in the text of Scripture itself.

The question is, if Penal Substitution Theory is do important then why is it absent in the text of Scripture?

When somebody tells me Scripture means sinething other than it actually says, and that this unwritten meaning is the core of our faith, my warning bells ring.

 

[JonC]

I did mention him, and you said you hadn't read him and declined to discuss him.

It thought it may have been you. Thanks for the reference.

 

[JonC]

On what basis can a Holy God freely justify a lost sinner if there has been as of they no atonement made for their sins then?

There has been atonement made for our sins. The basis is Christ (not God punishing Christ but Christ Himself, as a sin offering). He bore our si s in His body.

Do you know of people who reject Penal Substitution Theory and reject that Christ atonement for our sins?????

 

[JonC]

Well said!

Not really. One does not have to reject Christ's atonement as the basis of forgiveness simply because they reject the idea that God punished Jesus instead of us to effect our forgiveness.

@Servant of Lord Jesus just can't grasp that I can reject adding to Scripture without rejecting Scripture itself.

 

[agedman]

Hello Agedman,
God took upon Himself the form of The Servant in the incarnation.phil2. heb2:9-16. Because the children were flesh and blood He likewise took part of the same...as the God man.
That was in order to Accomplish Redemption.
As The last Adam He overcame every obstacle the world the flesh and the devil tried in order to fulfill the eternal purpose of the triune God.
In love He came to die for the children the Father gave to Him as He took the wrath of God as mediator and surety for those Children given to Him.

i agreed with everything you said except the final sentence.

Is Christ as the incarnate of God/man separate able?

What about the trinity, is it also able to be in disunity?

 

[Iconoclast]

The thing is anti-Penal Substitution Theory doctrine has been the staple for most Christians. Granted, I'm the US this is not true. But it would be a mistake to hold that Satan is responsible for one year much less over 1500 years of Christianity.

You have to keep in mind that there are absolutely no accounts of Pena Substitution Theory in any of the early church writings, in any of the Christian scholars until the Reformation, or even in the text of Scripture itself.

The question is, if Penal Substitution Theory is do important then why is it absent in the text of Scripture?

When somebody tells me Scripture means sinething other than it actually says, and that this unwritten meaning is the core of our faith, my warning bells ring.

John most doctrines we have were not studied out as there was not commentary and study books in large numbers.
Tyndale and the printing press changed.much.
The doctrine is there.
There is not one verse but many verses that make up the teaching much like the teaching of the trinity.

 

[JonC]

This is how I predicted to @agedman this thread would go.

I say I do not believe God punished Jesus instead of punishing us.


"So you don't believe His flesh for our flesh, His body for our body????"

No. I believe that. I do not believe God punished Jesus instead of punishing us.

"But Scripture says God laid our iniquity on Him!!!!!"

Yes. I believe that. I do not believe God punished Jesus instead of punishing us.

"You don't believe He bore our sins?????"

I believe that. I do not believe God punished Jesus instead of punishing us.

"So you don't believe Isaiah 53?"

I believe every word. I do not believe God punished Jesus instead of punishing us.

"So you reject Christ atonement for our sins??"

No! I believe that. I do not believe God punished Jesus instead of punishing us.

 

[Iconoclast]

i agreed with everything you said except the final sentence.

Is Christ as the incarnate of God/man separate able?

What about the trinity, is it also able to be in disunity?

Peter quotes psalm 16 on the day of Pentecost showing the unity of the trinity.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

i agreed with everything you said except the final sentence.

Is Christ as the incarnate of God/man separate able?

What about the trinity, is it also able to be in disunity?

The Lord Jesus tells us that He and His father mutually indwell each other (John 14:11; c.f. also John 10:38; 14:10, 20). The technical term for this is perichoresis. This implies both union and distinction between Father and Son. One of the many problems with polytheism is the idea that different deities may make different demands of people and compete with one another as we see in the poems of Homer and Hesiod. Within the Trinity this is avoided, not because the Persons fortuitously happen to agree on most things, but because they must agree, for they are one God. The idea therefore that on the cross the Father inflicts a punishment upon the Son that He is unwilling to bear, or that the Son draws from the Father a forgiveness that He is unwilling to bestow is a non-starter.

But there is also a distinction between the Persons. Without it, it would be ridiculous to talk of a distinct Father, Son and Spirit at all, and it would be impossible for them to relate to each other as separate Persons as the Scripture teaches they do. But if Son, Father and Spirit are all fully Divine and equal in their possession of all the Divine attributes (e.g. holiness, wisdom, truth etc.), what distinguishes them? The answer is their asymmetric in their relationship with each other. The Father is in a relationship of Fatherhood to the Son and the Son is in a relationship of Sonship to the Father. The Son is everything the Father is, save that He is not the Father, the Spirit is not the Son and so forth.

It must surely be agreed that God’s actions reflect His nature. He does what is holy because He is holy; what is good because He is good. Therefore God’s nature will be reflected in the actions of each Person of the Trinity and both unity and distinction between the Persons will be reflected in what God does.

So the actions of the Persons reflect their unity. In John 14:10-11, the Lord Jesus teaches that His works are at the same time His Father’s works and this is grounded in the Perichoretic Union. In John 5:19, He testifies that ‘Whatever He [the Father] does, the Son also does in like manner.’ The fundamental unity in their actions mirrors the fundamental union of their Persons.

On the other hand, the actions of the Persons reflect their distinctions. The Bible teaches that the Father sent the Son, and that the Son willingly obeyed the Father (John 10:15-18; Philippians 2:5-9). Father and Son send the Spirit, but the Spirit does not send the Father. The work of the Trinity in salvation is outlined in Ephesians 1:3-14. The Three work in perfect harmony to accomplish their single goal, but their roles are quite different.

In order to represent this unity and distinction between the Persons, Augustine taught that the Father’s actions are not without the Son and the Son’s actions not without the Father. That seems to work rather well. Augustine affirmed that while the Persons of the Trinity do not perform the same action in the same way, nevertheless they do not act independently of one another– their respective contributions to any given activity are inseparable.

So it is not meaningless to say that God the Son propitiated God the Father. The same Person is not the subject and object of the verb. Nor does the fact that the Father exacts a punishment borne by the Son mean that they are divided or act independently. Their relationship is asymmetric, but they are mutually and inseparably engaged upon two aspects of the same action with one purpose– the salvation of guilty sinners while satisfying the justice of the Triune God.

 

[JonC]

John most doctrines we have were not studied out as there was not commentary and study books in large numbers.
Tyndale and the printing press changed.much.
The doctrine is there.
There is not one verse but many verses that make up the teaching much like the teaching of the trinity.

Yes, there are many verses that make up the teaching of the Trinity.

And there are many verses that make up the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement.

The difference is there are no verses in Scripture that staye God punished Christ instead of punishing us....or even that God's wrath was poured out on Christ.

That's the problem. If we added a gopher rat to the Trinity and claimed it was biblical because three of the Persons are in Scripture then you'd rightly cry foul. Penal Substitution Theory depends on extra-biblical philosophy that is found nowhere in Scripture.

The problem is not the Scripture it confirms but the additions to Scripture that changes the meaning of those verses.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

This is how I predicted to @agedman this thread would go.

I say I do not believe God punished Jesus instead of punishing us.


"So you don't believe His flesh for our flesh, His body for our body????"

No. I believe that. I do not believe God punished Jesus instead of punishing us.

"But Scripture says God laid our iniquity on Him!!!!!"

Yes. I believe that. I do not believe God punished Jesus instead of punishing us.

"You don't believe He bore our sins?????"

I believe that. I do not believe God punished Jesus instead of punishing us.

"So you don't believe Isaiah 53?"

I believe every word. I do not believe God punished Jesus instead of punishing us.

"So you reject Christ atonement for our sins??"

No! I believe that. I do not believe God punished Jesus instead of punishing us.

Just for the record, I do not believe that God punished Jesus either, and have said so several times. God punished sin in Jesus, who was the sin-bearer.

 

[Iconoclast]

This is how I predicted to @agedman this thread would go.

I say I do not believe God punished Jesus instead of punishing us.


"So you don't believe His flesh for our flesh, His body for our body????"

No. I believe that. I do not believe God punished Jesus instead of punishing us.

"But Scripture says God laid our iniquity on Him!!!!!"

Yes. I believe that. I do not believe God punished Jesus instead of punishing us.

"You don't believe He bore our sins?????"

I believe that. I do not believe God punished Jesus instead of punishing us.

"So you don't believe Isaiah 53?"

I believe every word. I do not believe God punished Jesus instead of punishing us.

"So you reject Christ atonement for our sins??"

No! I believe that. I do not believe God punished Jesus instead of punishing us.

John...
Such a belief teaches our sins were not punished which would be unjust.
I will ask again...on what basis can our sins be forgiven and God maintain His justice?
You repeat a verse without explana

Yes, there are many verses that make up the teaching of the Trinity.

And there are many verses that make up the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement.

The difference is there are no verses in Scripture that staye God punished Christ instead of punishing us....or even that God's wrath was poured out on Christ.

That's the problem. If we added a gopher rat to the Trinity and claimed it was biblical because three of the Persons are in Scripture then you'd rightly cry foul. Penal Substitution Theory depends on extra-biblical philosophy that is found nowhere in Scripture.

The problem is not the Scripture it confirms but the additions to Scripture that changes the meaning of those verses.

See post 124

 

[Iconoclast]

Yes, there are many verses that make up the teaching of the Trinity.

And there are many verses that make up the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement.

The difference is there are no verses in Scripture that staye God punished Christ instead of punishing us....or even that God's wrath was poured out on Christ.

That's the problem. If we added a gopher rat to the Trinity and claimed it was biblical because three of the Persons are in Scripture then you'd rightly cry foul. Penal Substitution Theory depends on extra-biblical philosophy that is found nowhere in Scripture.

The problem is not the Scripture it confirms but the additions to Scripture that changes the meaning of those verses.

No...it is found in correctly understanding the verses already offered...and seeing what happens to unsaved people during the second death.
You have not acknowledged our sinfulness and the substitute taking our place from our law breaking.