Penal Substitution is NOT a “Theory”

[marks]

@John Caldwell

OK, been meditating on this, time for reality check.

Let me know if I've got this wrong, OK?

Your view is that Jesus, by His death, provides an escape from God's wrath against sin, while not having suffered that wrath Himself, said wrath being cast into the lake of fire.

So rather than being a substitute "wrath-taker", He instead provides a different way. There is the way of wrath and death, outside of Christ, or the way, the truth, and the life in Christ.

That we join Christ in his death which is not punishment, instead a pathway to life, avoiding punishment.

And a key part of this is in understanding 2 Corinthians 5:21, He became sin, this means, He became a sin offering.

Am I understanding you correctly?

Much love!

 

[John Caldwell]

How does Jesus' death destroy the devil? Take his power?

I believe the Cross was a reconciliation of mankind to God. Man is no longer enslaved to the power of sin and death (I believe this to be a victory over Satan) .

This brings up another issue.

Death as a consequence of sin (the wages of sin) is viewed by Penal Substitution theorists to have been instituted by God as a punishment. But the early church often viewed death as related to Satan (sometimes as a personification).

We often hear of the Random Theory of Origen. Are you aware that the ECF also spoke of Satan in terms of Ransom Theory as sin and death personified (some spoke of God paying a Ransom to death, not in a literal sense but in overcoming its powers). Scholars have questioned if Origen was actually speaking in this context rather than holding God paid a ransom to Satan as a being (although that did at least become the main thought by the medieval period).

 

[marks]

I believe the Cross was a reconciliation of mankind to God. Man is no longer enslaved to the power of sin and death (I believe this to be a victory over Satan) .

This brings up another issue.

Death as a consequence of sin (the wages of sin) is viewed by Penal Substitution theorists to have been instituted by God as a punishment. But the early church often viewed death as related to Satan (sometimes as a personification).

We often hear of the Random Theory of Origen. Are you aware that the ECF also spoke of Satan in terms of Ransom Theory as sin and death personified (some spoke of God paying a Ransom to death, not in a literal sense but in overcoming its powers).

I have. But I don't believe God had to buy off Satan, or by back the earth, or anything like that.

Much love!

 

[John Caldwell]

I have. But I don't believe God had to buy off Satan, or by back the earth, or anything like that.

Much love!

It is debatable whether Origen thought that as well. The reason it is questioned is that not all ransom theories believe God paid a price to any entity.

The idea is that our redemption was at great cost. Peter puts it this way - we were purchased by the precious blood of Christ (Paul says we were bought with a price). This does not mean God paid someone for us, but that we were redeemed and set free from the bondage of sin and death.

Penal Substitution Theory makes the same mistake that medieval Ransom Theory made. They want God to have paid someone. One side says God paid Satan. The other that God paid the demands of retributive justice. Both are equally wrong.

 

[John Caldwell]

@John Caldwell

OK, been meditating on this, time for reality check.

Let me know if I've got this wrong, OK?

Your view is that Jesus, by His death, provides an escape from God's wrath against sin, while not having suffered that wrath Himself, said wrath being cast into the lake of fire.

So rather than being a substitute "wrath-taker", He instead provides a different way. There is the way of wrath and death, outside of Christ, or the way, the truth, and the life in Christ.

That we join Christ in his death which is not punishment, instead a pathway to life, avoiding punishment.

And a key part of this is in understanding 2 Corinthians 5:21, He became sin, this means, He became a sin offering.

Am I understanding you correctly?

Much love!

Except I do not think "wrath" can be cast anywhere. I believe all judgment has been given to the Son.

 

[reformed1689]

If a man is blind that does not mean he went blind (he may have never had the gift of sight).

Blind and dead are not equivalent.

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

All Calvin would have had to do was read 2 Peter 1:9. It is only our past sins that were cleansed, not also our present and future sins. That knowledge would have brought him to the truth by him having to ask, so how do we not willfully sin in the present and future? The answer, a new nature - being born again of the Spirit.

We can look at Simon in Acts 8:13 where he believed and was baptized therefore had all his sin cleansed/remitted (Acts 2:38) that he had committed up until that point. Yet later he sinned and Peter told him " Thy money perish (present tense - apoleia -destruction in hell) with thee" and was commanded to repent so he maybe forgiven. No need to command him to repent if all sins and guilty and penalty of sins had been transferred to Christ, no way he could have ever come to the state of perishing. Water baptism is the starting point where sins are cleansed by the blood of Christ and then the Christian must continue to walk in the light to continually have all sins cleansed by the blood of Christ, 1 John 1:7. 1 John 1:7 begins with the conditional "if" meaning if the christian quits walking in the light then his sins will NOT continue to be cleansed by the blood of Christ. Again, if all sins, [past present and future] have been UNconditionally imputed to Christ then no need to walk in the light, no need for the Christian to repent of his sins.

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

Jesus did say that all sins would be forgiven man excepting to blaspheme the Holy Spirit.

But it's not enough to be forgiven, you must be born again.

Much love!

But Jesus does NOT UNconditionally forgive sins. Man must repent before Jesus forgives Luke 13:3. Man's sins are not just UNconditionally forgiven or transferred to Christ while the sinner sits idle impenitent of his sins.

 

[John Caldwell]

Blind and dead are not equivalent.

Are you blind to the fact that Scripture uses both to illustrate the same spiritual condition?

Nowhere does Scripture say that even one person has died spiritually.

Nowhere does Scripture say Adam died spiritually.

Nowhere does Scripture say that God punished Jesus.

Nowhere does Scripture say that Christ died instead if us dying.

Yet, @David Taylor, you teach all of that. Do you tell your audience those things are just what you feel is implied in Scripture or do you tell them it is actually written and hope no one catches the lie?

 

[CharismaticLady]

We can look at Simon in Acts 8:13 where he believed and was baptized therefore had all his sin cleansed/remitted (Acts 2:38) that he had committed up until that point. Yet later he sinned and Peter told him " Thy money perish (present tense - apoleia -destruction in hell) with thee" and was commanded to repent so he maybe forgiven. No need to command him to repent if all sins and guilty and penalty of sins had been transferred to Christ, no way he could have ever come to the state of perishing. Water baptism is the starting point where sins are cleansed by the blood of Christ and then the Christian must continue to walk in the light to continually have all sins cleansed by the blood of Christ, 1 John 1:7. 1 John 1:7 begins with the conditional "if" meaning if the christian quits walking in the light then his sins will NOT continue to be cleansed by the blood of Christ. Again, if all sins, [past present and future] have been UNconditionally imputed to Christ then no need to walk in the light, no need for the Christian to repent of his sins.

What I found interesting and I've had to ponder this in light of Hebrews 10:26-31, that unlike 1 John 1:9 where it is guaranteed you will be cleansed when you first come to Christ; after you are sanctified and sin, it is up to God if He will forgive you after you have repented. It doesn't appear guaranteed as some believe.

22 Repent therefore of this your wickedness, and pray God if perhaps the thought of your heart may be forgiven you.

Notice also in 2 Timothy 2:20-26 Paul is instructing us to not have these debates and become angry. I believe these are 2 Christians taking different sides of doctrine.

20 But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and silver, but also of wood and clay, some for honor and some for dishonor. 21 Therefore if anyone cleanses himself from the latter, he will be a vessel for honor, sanctified and useful for the Master, prepared for every good work. 22 Flee also youthful lusts; but pursue righteousness, faith, love, peace with those who call on the Lord out of a pure heart. 23 But avoid foolish and ignorant disputes, knowing that they generate strife. 24 And a servant of the Lord must not quarrel but be gentle to all, able to teach, patient, 25 in humility correcting those who are in opposition, if God perhaps will grant them repentance, so that they may know the truth, 26 and that they may come to their senses and escape the snare of the devil, having been taken captive by him to do his will.

 

[John Caldwell]

It looks like the OP is effectively disproven. We all believe our views are correct (which is why we hold them). But Penal Substitution Theory remains just one theory among several as evidenced not only by those here who affirm the same passages without affirming the Theory but those throughout history.

Other than Scripture itself my favorite "enemy" of Penal Substitution Theory is C. S. Lewis. If anything his observations are at least worth consideration (for those interested) .

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

What I found interesting and I've had to ponder this in light of Hebrews 10:26-31, that unlike 1 John 1:9 where it is guaranteed you will be cleansed when you first come to Christ; after you are sanctified and sin, it is up to God if He will forgive you after you have repented. It doesn't appear guaranteed as some believe.

Both contexts that you cite begin with the conditional word "if". IF one chooses to willfully sin or IF one chooses to continue to confess his sins. IF one continues to confess his sins then it is certain to be forgiven. IF one choose not to confess (willfully sin) then it is certain his sin will not be forgiven. So forgiveness is not guaranteed regardless of what one does, forgiveness is conditional (if) one confesses.

22 Repent therefore of this your wickedness, and pray God if perhaps the thought of your heart may be forgiven you.

God does not forgive UNconditionally, one must first conditionally repent and what God does (forgive or not) depends on what man chooses to do. Therefore "perhaps" God forgives depends on what Simon chose to do, repent or not. One commentator put it this way "IF PERHAPS"-This phrase doesn"t refer to some "unpardonable sin", and neither does it suggest that Peter felt that Simon"s chances for salvation were very slim. "Perhaps" is exactly what you would say to an individual with freewill. It leaves the door open for repentance or rejection. But there is no "perhaps" in the doctrine of Calvinism. If Simon was one of the elect then he would be forgiven. If he wasn"t predestined then all the repentance and prayer in the world could not help him." M Dunagan.

Now IF Simon chose to repent, then God would have certainly forgiven him as God (Who cannot lie) promises to forgive those who confess their sins (1 john 1:9). The "perhaps" God forgives depends on what Simon chooses to do, "IF" he chooses to confess or "IF" he chooses to continually willfully sin. (Hope this clears it up for you)

Notice also in 2 Timothy 2:20-26 Paul is instructing us to not have these debates and become angry. I believe these are 2 Christians taking different sides of doctrine.

20 But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and silver, but also of wood and clay, some for honor and some for dishonor. 21 Therefore if anyone cleanses himself from the latter, he will be a vessel for honor, a]">[a]sanctified and useful for the Master, prepared for every good work. 22 Flee also youthful lusts; but pursue righteousness, faith, love, peace with those who call on the Lord out of a pure heart. 23 But avoid foolish and ignorant disputes, knowing that they generate strife. 24 And a servant of the Lord must not quarrel but be gentle to all, able to teach, patient, 25 in humility correcting those who are in opposition, if God perhaps will grant them repentance, so that they may know the truth, 26 and that they may come to their senses and escape the snare of the devil, having been taken captive by him to do his will.

Verse 25 speak of those who oppose the truth, they are in a lost state but still not out of reach of God's saving grace. Hence they are to be instructed and "perhaps" (depending on IF they choose to heed what is instructed them) God will then permit them to repent.

Acts 11:18 " Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life." The word 'grant' here does not mean as Calvinists think that one can repent only if God 'grants' it to him. Such an idea takes away free will from man choosing to repent or not and makes God solely responsible if man repents or not. If one does not repent, then it is 100% God's fault.

But the idea of 'grant' is that God gave those Gentiles opportunity to repent, it was up to their free will to choose to repent or not. Mark 1:15 why command men to repent if God alone determines if a man can repent or not? THe imperative to repent implies that men have both ability and responsibility to repent.

Also, in Acts 11:18 and 2 Timothy 2:25 God is speaking to groups (Gentiles and those who oppose the truth) and not an individual. Though God GRANTED Gentiles repentance does not mean God will save ALL Gentiles. We cannot apply to the individual what God has applied to the group. So Calvinists cannot read into this passage that God has unconditionally predetermined repentance to only certain individual Gentiles.

The idea is God granted opportunity to ALL Gentiles but only those that choose to repent will be saved.

Phil 1:29 "because to you it hath been granted in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer in his behalf:" Again, "grant" here means God has given men opportunity to suffer for Christ, not forcing through predetermination only certain individuals to suffer for Christ.

It is God's preceptive will that ALL men choose to repent and God has granted, gave opportunity, to ALL men to repent. 2 Peter 3:9. Again, repentance has been GRANTED to ALL, not just some.

 

[CharismaticLady]

Both contexts that you cite begin with the conditional word "if". IF one chooses to willfully sin or IF one chooses to continue to confess his sins. IF one continues to confess his sins then it is certain to be forgiven. IF one choose not to confess (willfully sin) then it is certain his sin will not be forgiven. So forgiveness is not guaranteed regardless of what one does, forgiveness is conditional (if) one confesses.



God does not forgive UNconditionally, one must first conditionally repent and what God does (forgive or not) depends on what man chooses to do. Therefore "perhaps" God forgives depends on what Simon chose to do, repent or not. One commentator put it this way "IF PERHAPS"-This phrase doesn"t refer to some "unpardonable sin", and neither does it suggest that Peter felt that Simon"s chances for salvation were very slim. "Perhaps" is exactly what you would say to an individual with freewill. It leaves the door open for repentance or rejection. But there is no "perhaps" in the doctrine of Calvinism. If Simon was one of the elect then he would be forgiven. If he wasn"t predestined then all the repentance and prayer in the world could not help him." M Dunagan.

Now IF Simon chose to repent, then God would have certainly forgiven him as God (Who cannot lie) promises to forgive those who confess their sins (1 john 1:9). The "perhaps" God forgives depends on what Simon chooses to do, "IF" he chooses to confess or "IF" he chooses to continually willfully sin. (Hope this clears it up for you)



Verse 25 speak of those who oppose the truth, they are in a lost state but still not out of reach of God's saving grace. Hence they are to be instructed and "perhaps" (depending on IF they choose to heed what is instructed them) God will then permit them to repent.

Acts 11:18 " Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life." The word 'grant' here does not mean as Calvinists think that one can repent only if God 'grants' it to him. Such an idea takes away free will from man choosing to repent or not and makes God solely responsible if man repents or not. If one does not repent, then it is 100% God's fault.

But the idea of 'grant' is that God gave those Gentiles opportunity to repent, it was up to their free will to choose to repent or not. Mark 1:15 why command men to repent if God alone determines if a man can repent or not? THe imperative to repent implies that men have both ability and responsibility to repent.

Also, in Acts 11:18 and 2 Timothy 2:25 God is speaking to groups (Gentiles and those who oppose the truth) and not an individual. Though God GRANTED Gentiles repentance does not mean God will save ALL Gentiles. We cannot apply to the individual what God has applied to the group. So Calvinists cannot read into this passage that God has unconditionally predetermined repentance to only certain individual Gentiles.

The idea is God granted opportunity to ALL Gentiles but only those that choose to repent will be saved.

Phil 1:29 "because to you it hath been granted in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer in his behalf:" Again, "grant" here means God has given men opportunity to suffer for Christ, not forcing through predetermination only certain individuals to suffer for Christ.

It is God's preceptive will that ALL men choose to repent and God has granted, gave opportunity, to ALL men to repent. 2 Peter 3:9. Again, repentance has been GRANTED to ALL, not just some.

You are assuming that 1 John 1:9 is for continuing in sin. I grew up thinking that, but now I believe it is for becoming a Christian. 'Repent and be baptized and receive the Holy Spirit.' It is to become born again of the Spirit so you may partake of the divine nature. 2 Peter 1; 1 John 3:5-9

That is why if you willfully sin after being sanctified it is such a big deal, because you have quenched the Holy Spirit. Therefore, the "perhaps" is really up to God to grant or reject. What I am saying is not from a Calvinist. I'm not even close, so the "perhaps" has nothing to do with being the elect or not. As Jesus said, "they have a reputation for being alive, but they are dead."

Hebrews 10:29-31 Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know Him who said, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,” says the Lord. And again, “The Lord will judge His people.” 31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

 

[Mungo]

Over 60 posts since I went to bed last night.
I can't keep up with this so I'm ducking out.

Have a good Christmas.

 

[reformed1689]

Are you blind to the fact that Scripture uses both to illustrate the same spiritual condition?

Nowhere does Scripture say that even one person has died spiritually.

Nowhere does Scripture say Adam died spiritually.

Nowhere does Scripture say that God punished Jesus.

Nowhere does Scripture say that Christ died instead if us dying.

Yet, @David Taylor, you teach all of that. Do you tell your audience those things are just what you feel is implied in Scripture or do you tell them it is actually written and hope no one catches the lie?

I have shown you and others where Scripture teaches ALL of that.

 

[John Caldwell]

I have shown you and others where Scripture teaches ALL of that.

No. You have given us verses and said they mean all of that. You are not God, David. You need to explain how you get from Scripture to your interpretation just like anyone else. The thing is you really do not know.

I have told you why I believe those verses mean what I believe them to mean. You just tell us they imply your theory because that is how "good theology" works or that they mean what you believe them to mean because the words you prefer are within the range of possible definitions of the Hebrew words. Perhaps that is enough for a cult. But Christians rely on God's Word and what is actually written in Scripture. You are lacking.

If you ever decide to turn to Scripture to derive your belief you may change your tone. If you do come up with an explanation connecting your theory directly to Scripture let me know.

 

[reformed1689]

No. You have given us verses and said they mean all of that. You are not God, David. You need to explain how you get from Scripture to your interpretation just like anyone else. The thing is you really do not know.

I have told you why I believe those verses mean what I believe them to mean. You just tell us they imply your theory because that is how "good theology" works or that they mean what you believe them to mean because the words you prefer are within the range of possible definitions o of the Hebrew words. Perhaps that is enough for a cult. But Christians rely on God's Word and what is actually written in Scripture. You are lacking.

If you ever decide to turn to Scripture to derive your belief you may change your tone. If you do come up with an explanation connecting your theory directly to Scripture let me know.

It's simple John, you deny Scripture, you don't have an answer for why Jesus had to die, you have your own version of God's justice.

Commission of sin must be punished, you have even agreed to this. God can't just forgive sin as if it never happened because it would violate his righteousness and holiness and justice. It would also mean that there was literally no reason for Christ to die. None. Zip, zilch, zero.

I have shown you verses that man is spiritually dead, you ignore it or twist it to something else. Adam was not born into his sin. You can't be spiritually dead in sin if you have never sinned. There is a penalty for sin. Christ took our sin upon himself and took that penalty so that we can have a clean slate before God and be declared righteous.

You have been the one giving flimsy theories with no real scriptural backing and you project that onto others because YOU cannot defend your theory because YOUR view is the one that is truly not found in Scripture.

Christ is the propitiation for our sin. We are reconciled to God. If there was no reconciliation needed, why did Christ have to die? What PURPOSE? The answer is that there is no purpose unless Christ actually accomplished something on the cross. PERIOD.

 

[John Caldwell]

It's simple John, you deny Scripture, you don't have an answer for why Jesus had to die, you have your own version of God's justice.

Commission of sin must be punished, you have even agreed to this. God can't just forgive sin as if it never happened because it would violate his righteousness and holiness and justice. It would also mean that there was literally no reason for Christ to die. None. Zip, zilch, zero.

I have shown you verses that man is spiritually dead, you ignore it or twist it to something else. Adam was not born into his sin. You can't be spiritually dead in sin if you have never sinned. There is a penalty for sin. Christ took our sin upon himself and took that penalty so that we can have a clean slate before God and be declared righteous.

You have been the one giving flimsy theories with no real scriptural backing and you project that onto others because YOU cannot defend your theory because YOUR view is the one that is truly not found in Scripture.

Christ is the propitiation for our sin. We are reconciled to God. If there was no reconciliation needed, why did Christ have to die? What PURPOSE? The answer is that there is no purpose unless Christ actually accomplished something on the cross. PERIOD.

Yet you have proved incapable of providing even one verse I (or others who reject your theory) reject.

I have told you that I agree with the "classic view" of the Atonement to include the reason Christ had to die. I am amazed that you made it through seminary (I take it you "attended" online) without being able to grasp the other views.

When you say "Scripture" by your own admission what you mean is your ideas, theories, and presuppositions.

That is why I told you any discussion is fruitless. I do not believe in progressive special revelation. I hold to the position all doctrine must be tested by Scripture, not Reformed Theology.

 

[CharismaticLady]

@John Caldwell and @David Taylor

"I'm right!"
"No, I'm right"

This is completely unedifying. Shame on you both!

 

[John Caldwell]

@John Caldwell and @David Taylor

"I'm right!"
"No, I'm right"

This is completely unedifying. Shame on you both!

But I am right (that other interpretations do not constitute a denial of Scripture).

You are right, though. I do not have patience with people who are unable to grasp that people may disagree with their conclusions while not denying Scripture. Part of this is they denounce the majority of Christianity.

We should be able to learn from one another even if we never agree. But to do this people need to be able both to read Scripture and to distinguish between their theories/ interpretations and the text of Scripture itself.

I know @David Taylor cannot do this, yet I persist to get him to hold the same respect for the actual text of Scripture that I have. I am sure he would want me to share his appreciation for divine implication, but I just am not wired that way.