Penal Substitution is NOT a “Theory”

John Caldwell said:

I am saying Christ had to die because Christ had to bear my sin and become a curse for us.

Click to expand...

And what is the curse? That was a penalty of sin no?

John Caldwell said:

It is contradictory to claim that Christ died instead of us dying because we will die.

Click to expand...

Only if you limit it to physical death which is unbiblical.

John Caldwell said:

It is contradictory to claim that Christ experienced the wages of sin instead of us because Scripture states we do experience these wages.

Click to expand...

Saved people don't.

marks said:

Thank you, John!

Like I mentioned before, I'm not fully settled one way or the other, though penal substitution sure seems to describe things for me. It may be how we're using the words. You've given some good food for thought!

I was reviewing the day of atonement yesterday, interestingly, the sin is laid on the goat that lives. Jesus is the Lamb of God Who carries away the sin of the world.

The one died, the other lived, both point to Jesus.

Much love!

Click to expand...

I never try to change people's understanding or view. I do, however, try to direct people to Scripture.

I am pretty much anti-Penal Substitution Theory, through. The reason is that I have seen it cause damage in the lives of people. I've seen it cause people to stumble as they see inconsistencies with the Theory and Scripture. And I have known a few people to leave the faith all together because they arrived at the same conclusion (that the Theory is foreign to Scripture) but could not grasp salvation or Scripture any other way.

Even here I do not try to combat the Theory as much as get people to start evaluating their beliefs against Scripture.

I'll say again here, because it is relevant, that I once held, taught, and preached Penal Substitution Theory. I knew it was not the earliest theory but the early church had views that were circumstantial to their experience so that did not bother me (still doesn't, antiquity does not mean correct).

I had been invited to preach at a Baptist church within my convention. I preached a pretty strong message on the Cross. I felt good about the sermon, met with church members, was invited back. The next morning I awoke with the conviction I had preached theory and not God's Word. I purchased two dry erase boards. I wrote the doctrine of Penal Substitution Theory on a board with supporting verses (this took weeks). Then I erased anything about Penal Substitution Theory that did not directly correspond to Scripture.

I was left with Christ dying for our sins, us escaping the wrath to come, by His stripes we are healed, Christ becoming a curse for us, etc. BUT all Christians believed those things. There was nothing specific to Penal Substitution Theory left on my dry erase boards.

I knew the early church and the Anabaptists (I am Baptist and always felt a bit of kinship with Anabaptists) held a different view of the Atonement. I studied Christian history in seminary and I knew Justin Martyr and Irenaeus looked towards recapitulation rather than any type penal substitution. I knew Origen held a ransom theory. I knew Penal Substitution Theory was related to the Latin Fathers but only in theory and way down the line.

So I asked myself how they understood the Atonement to be something other than Penal Substitution Theory when they had the same Scriptures and were closer to a early church worldview than we are today. This was difficult for me because I could not understand at first why they believed Christ had to die except it be on the grounds of Penal Substitution Theory. After studying, however, I came to understand the reasons others who did not hold the Theory believed Christ died.

I gained an appreciation for the "classic view" because I could easily write that on my trusty dry erase board and match it with Scripture with no erasing involved.

The next year or so I read through Scripture intentionally checking myself when I drifted back to assuming Penal Substitution Theory.

What I found was that Scripture makes sense without the additions, interpretations, and assumptions Penal Substitution Theory brought to the table. More than that, what was overshadowed by those presuppositions was vital (to the point I would not consider Penal Substitution Theory a "Christian" doctrine at all). It is that important an issue.


I hope some will do the same thing that I did, regardless if they come to the same conclusions. Take the time to consider why others throughout history believed Christ had to die. Weigh their belief against Scripture. Examine your own belief against Scripture identifying your presuppositions and "interpretations". Then own where ever you land on the topic.

David Taylor said:

And what is the curse? That was a penalty of sin no?

Only if you limit it to physical death which is unbiblical.

Saved people don't.

Click to expand...

What verse are you referencing that speaks of men dying spiritually?

Do you believe that the punishment for sin includes physical death?

John Caldwell said:

I hope some will do the same thing that I did, regardless if they come to the same conclusions. Take the time to consider why others throughout history believed Christ had to die. Weigh their belief against Scripture. Examine your own belief against Scripture identifying your presuppositions and "interpretations". Then own where ever you land on the topic.

Click to expand...

Hi John,

As far as the early church writers, I've read sufficient from them to know that there is general disagreement over a number of things, and somethings taught seem to be very wrong, so I don't see a lot of difference from then to today.

Oh, and . . . history is written by the winners. There is no assurance that what we have extant today is actually representative of the commonly held views.

But just the same, this is what I'm doing, meditating back through the Scriptures that talk about His death and our redemption.

Like you say . . .

Examine your own belief against Scripture identifying your presuppositions and "interpretations".

Let me ask you this. What does it mean that we are redeemed? "You have purchased . . .", the elders say in the Revelation. Purchased what? With what?

Much love!

marks said:

Except that no one took Jesus' life away from Him, He died voluntarily. He released His spirit. Isn't that an affirmative action, something He did proactively on our behalf?

Much love!

Click to expand...

No one took the lives of many martyr's away except that they lay down their lives for Christ. Many died voluntarily in obedience to God.

The issue is Penal Substitution Theory does not necessitate Christ's physical death and suffering at all. It necessitates only what it thinks is associated uniquely to judgment for the penalty of sin.

That said, I am not claiming people are unable to justify whatever theories they hold. I think Piper did an excellent job defending Penal Substitution Theory.

I am saying that I believe the "classic view" has a much more biblical understanding of the atoning work of Christ.

marks said:

Hi John,

As far as the early church writers, I've read sufficient from them to know that there is general disagreement over a number of things, and somethings taught seem to be very wrong, so I don't see a lot of difference from then to today.

Oh, and . . . history is written by the winners. There is no assurance that what we have extant today is actually representative of the commonly held views.

But just the same, this is what I'm doing, meditating back through the Scriptures that talk about His death and our redemption.

Like you say . . .

Examine your own belief against Scripture identifying your presuppositions and "interpretations".

Let me ask you this. What does it mean that we are redeemed? "You have purchased . . .", the elders say in the Revelation. Purchased what? With what?

Much love!

Click to expand...

Hey Marks,

What I hold is the "classic view", and others have articulated it much more better than I. The ECF's did disagree, but at the same time there was a common idea of the atonement throughout all of their individual theories.

That said, "redeemed" means that we were purchased. We were purchased by the blood of Christ. I believe this is literal - not a "spiritual death" or a "punishment", but that we were literally bought with the price of Christ's own blood (His physical suffering and death on the cross).

This does not mean we will not suffer and die. It means that we are purchased by Christ's death and look to His resurrection.

John Caldwell said:

No one took the lives of many martyr's away except that they lay down their lives for Christ. Many died voluntarily in obedience to God.

Click to expand...

What I mean is that the Romans did not kill Jesus. They crucified Him, which meant to nail Him to the cross and hang him up to die. But the cross did not kill Jesus. He could have hung there without dying if that were what He wanted. But rather He released His own spirit.

Martyrs would allow themselves to be killed, but Jesus could not be killed. No one took His life from Him. He laid it down.

John Caldwell said:

Hey Marks,

What I hold is the "classic view", and others have articulated it much more better than I. The ECF's did disagree, but at the same time there was a common idea of the atonement throughout all of their individual theories.

That said, "redeemed" means that we were purchased. We were purchased by the blood of Christ. I believe this is literal - not a "spiritual death" or a "punishment", but that we were literally bought with the price of Christ's own blood (His physical suffering and death on the cross).

This does not mean we will not suffer and die. It means that we are purchased by Christ's death and look to His resurrection.

Click to expand...

OK. Why did it require His blood to purchase us?

Thank you for letting me pick your brain on this!

Much love!

John Caldwell said:

I like the post. I can not agree with "instead of us" because we do experience the same death. I view it as Christ delivering us through death (and from the powers of sin and death).

Click to expand...

But in reading this aren't you saying the same as @marks but a 'play on words'. I see what you both are saying...to to me the difference is only how the words are said...not in what you both believe.

Both of you have the same outcome.
The first Adam lost it, ( but didn't die for almost 900 years bodily)
The Last Adam took it back. I don't see that the death of out physical bodies be it today or later, comes into it!
..

The Substitution was all about separation from God .
Not these bodies...right.

Maybe I need to go right back to the start of this thread and read it all again....I am 'losing the plot here'

John Caldwell said:

I think that Hebrews teaches Christ had to be one of us, to share in our "infirmity", in order to represent us as High Priest.

Click to expand...

I agree that Jesus was our representative:

Hebrews teaches us that a high priest had to offer something:
For every high priest chosen from among men is appointed to act on behalf of men in relation to God, to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins.(Heb 5:1)
"For every high priest is appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices; hence it is necessary for this priest also to have something to offer."(Heb 8:3)
Neither tells us that he had to die.

Hebrews says
"he entered once for all into the Holy Place, taking not the blood of goats and calves but his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption."(Heb 9:12)
But did Jesus have to offer his blood? I'm not sure.

I've seen a suggestion that an infinite God becoming man was a sufficient sacrifice.

John Caldwell said:

Jesus was saving us from the "bondage of sin and death". Mankind was under this bondage, this curse. To be "one of us" Christ had to suffer under the same powers that enslaved mankind. But unlike us He was sinless. God vindicated Christ who won victory over the things that kept mankind in bondage.

Click to expand...

I'd like to see some scripture with that to understand what you are referring to by "this curse".

John Caldwell said:

I never try to change people's understanding or view. I do, however, try to direct people to Scripture.

Click to expand...

I so wish other had the same heart as that...two thumbs up for that!

I am pretty much anti-Penal Substitution Theory, through. The reason is that I have seen it cause damage in the lives of people. I've seen it cause people to stumble as they see inconsistencies with the Theory and Scripture. And I have known a few people to leave the faith all together because they arrived at the same conclusion (that the Theory is foreign to Scripture) but could not grasp salvation or Scripture any other way.

Click to expand...

Im interested , can you mention here WHY?
These few people you say you've seen fall... I don't understand the why of a fall !!!!

Mungo said:

3. If the legal debt has been paid then no-one can be condemned for sin since then God would be taking double payment for the same debt.

Click to expand...

Except for punishments and rewards for faithful ( or not) service to Him. ( as in The Talents )

And there we have it!!

Adam lost it, Jesus regained it.

GOD WINS!!

Through out the time from Gen- Rev , He has been purifying His Bride.
Not all are in the bride, some will remain servants,

John Caldwell said:

The reason is that I have seen it cause damage in the lives of people.

Click to expand...

How so?

John Caldwell said:

I'll say again here, because it is relevant, that I once held, taught, and preached Penal Substitution Theory.

Click to expand...

I'm convinced you understand substitutionary atonement about as well as you understand the doctrines of grace which is not very well at all.

Helen said:

Im interested , can you mention here WHY?
These few people you say you've seen fall... I don't understand the why of a fall !!!!

Click to expand...

Don't hold your breath...It's all nonsense and he often contradicts himself. He tries to have it both ways.

Helen said:

Except for punishments and rewards for faithful ( or not) service to Him. ( as in The Talents )

And there we have it!!

Adam lost it, Jesus regained it.

GOD WINS!!

Through out the time from Gen- Rev , He has been purifying His Bride.
Not all are in the bride, some will remain servants,

Click to expand...

Are you suggesting we can sin as much as we like with no eternal consequences?

Mungo said:

3. If the legal debt has been paid then no-one can be condemned for sin since then God would be taking double payment for the same debt.

Click to expand...

This assumes the legal debt was paid for all. But Christ only laid down his life for his sheep.

David Taylor said:

This assumes the legal debt was paid for all. But Christ only laid down his life for his sheep.

Click to expand...

Hi David,

I see this as that the debt was paid for all, but that's not enough that we will have life with Him, we still have to be born again.

Much love!

Mungo said:

Are you suggesting we can sin as much as we like with no eternal consequences?

Click to expand...

Hi Mungo,

How much sin do you like?

Much love!

Mungo said:

Are you suggesting we can sin as much as we like with no eternal consequences?

Click to expand...

Yawn ...that is always the standard foolish response.

marks said:

Hi David,

I see this as that the debt was paid for all, but that's not enough that we will have life with Him, we still have to be born again.

Much love!

Click to expand...

If the debt was paid for all, all must be saved or else the payment was not enough or Christ's blood was spilt. But Christ actually said he lays his life down for the sheep. (John 10:15)