Penal Substitution is NOT a “Theory”

[John Caldwell]

Says you

To me it is all one and the same...in the outer court , the priests cut the throat of the lambs to take away the sins of the sinner who brought the lamb to them..to die instead of themselves. God required blood.

Jesus was The Last Lamb, He took our sins ...

I agree Jesus was/ is the Lamb. I just believe it is more of a deliverance from sin and death rather than a substititionary punishment. Having once held Penal Substitution Theory it would be very difficult for me to return because I would, in my view, be leaving Scripture. But that is why I asked @Enoch111 to provide the passages he thought I had neglected. I am always open to reevaluate my view, but it has to be evidence from the Bible.

 

[Jane_Doe22]

I agree Jesus was/ is the Lamb. I just believe it is more of a deliverance from sin and death rather than a substititionary punishment. Having once held Penal Substitution Theory it would be very difficult for me to return because I would, in my view, be leaving Scripture. But that is why I asked @Enoch111 to provide the passages he thought I had neglected. I am always open to reevaluate my view, but it has to be evidence from the Bible.

Honestly, I've tried to understand what your view is John.. but I'm really really struggling to.

 

[reformed1689]

Did you notice that none of the quotes in that paper actually state Penal Substitution Theory?

Which is completely irrelevant.

You live on assumption and projection, David (Do you know Adam Schiff by chance?).

No, Scripture plainly teaches substitutionary atonement.

 

[reformed1689]

I'll see your theory and raise you Scripture:

1 Peter 3:18

Because Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, to bring you to God, by being put to death in the flesh, but by being made alive in the spirit.

Not sure how this bolsters your position.

 

[reformed1689]

Actually, members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints 100% believe that Jesus Christ is 100% the Only Begotten Son of God. Discipleship in Him is what makes a person a Christian. That's the central and most important thing.

Be more specific. LDS believes Jesus was created. Also believe Jesus was the spirit brother of Satan. Yes?

 

[Jane_Doe22]

Be more specific. LDS believes Jesus was created.

Actually, members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints believe Jesus Christ has always existed and was/is the eternal Son of God.

Also believe Jesus was the spirit brother of Satan. Yes?

LDS Christians don't believe that there was/is any special relationship between Christ and Lucifer/Satan. Jesus Christ is the perfect Son of God, one with the Father and triumphant. Lucifer rebelled against God and became Satan, who still kicks against the pricks, seeking to make all miserable like himself.

There is a LOT of bad information about what LDS Christians believe out there.

 

[John Caldwell]

Honestly, I've tried to understand what your view is John.. but I'm really really struggling to.

I know. When I was convicted that Penal Substitution Theory was wrong it was a real struggle for me to get what the other views believed. When I say the "classic view" this is a general theme shared by many but it was foreign to me.

C. S. Lewis' works helped me to at least understand the "classic view". Anabaptist theology (something I had studied but never really grasped at first) is also very helpful. N. T. Wright (who is Anglican) does a very good job at explaining the classic view. T. F. Torrance also has good observations (towards Ontological Substitution) which you may find interesting (many in the Reformed churches are leaning on Torrance to move awat from Penal Substitution Theory).

I am just not the best at articulating the view.

 

[Jane_Doe22]

I am just not the best at articulating the view.

I get that. I'm trying, but the world does continue to spin if I don't get it

 

[reformed1689]

Actually, members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints believe Jesus Christ has always existed and was/is the eternal Son of God.

LDS Christians don't believe that there was/is any special relationship between Christ and Lucifer/Satan. Jesus Christ is the perfect Son of God, one with the Father and triumphant. Lucifer rebelled against God and became Satan, who still kicks against the pricks, seeking to make all miserable like himself.

There is a LOT of bad information about what LDS Christians believe out there.

How can Jesus and Lucifer be spirit brothers when their characters and purposes are so utterly opposed?

 

[Jane_Doe22]

How can Jesus and Lucifer be spirit brothers when their characters and purposes are so utterly opposed?

Again, no special relationship. The Father is the Father to all, no special relationship between Christ and Lucifer/Satan that doesn't also apply to every other single person out there. Christ is special because he alone is the Only Begotten and Perfect Son. Lucifer/Satan totally not.

 

[John Caldwell]

I get that. I'm trying, but the world does continue to spin if I don't get it

Jane,

Gibran once noted that we can give people our words but not our understanding. That is why I suggest you reference people like C.S. Lewis who are better teachers than I. But I guess to be fair (to me) I need to tell you what I do believe rather than being judged on what I reject.

I believe that Christ suffered and died by the will and predetermined plan of God by the hands of wicked men for our sins in order to redeem (or purchase) us and deliver us from the bondage of the powers of sin and death that had enslaved us. I believe that God offered His Son (His Righteous One) as a sin offering for us and that it pleased God to "crush" Him, that He (Christ), who knew no sin was made sin for us. I believe that Christ humbled Himself to obedience even to death on the cross and that He lay down His own life. I believe that Christ is the Propitiation for the sins of the whole world and that it is in Him we escape the wrath to come. He became a curse for us and it is by His stripes (His suffering and death) that we are healed. Christ destroyed the certificate expressed in decrees against us. He has taken it away by nailing it to the cross. Christ suffered once for sins - the Just for the unjust (this "great exchange") to bring us to God by being put to death in the flesh and by being made alive in the spirit.



@David Taylor , @Steve Owen , and @Enoch111 view my belief above as heresy because it does not include their theory. I believe their belief (Penal Substitution Theory as stated in the OP) is heresy because it does include their theory. We cannot give people our understanding but at least we can know where we stand in terms of beliefs.

I hope that explains what I believe, even if you find it less than sufficient a belief for you to hold. My intent is not to convert people to my understanding but to hopefully let people know what I believe and perhaps encourage them to constantly reexamine their own beliefs against Scripture.

John

 

[John Caldwell]

Not sure how this bolsters your position.

I know you do not understand how, David, but it does not bolster my position. It IS my position.

 

[Jane_Doe22]

Jane,

Gibran once noted that we can give people our words but not our understanding. That is why I suggest you reference people like C.S. Lewis who are better teachers than I. But I guess to be fair (to me) I need to tell you what I do believe rather than being judged on what I reject.

I believe that Christ suffered and died by the will and predetermined plan of God by the hands of wicked men for our sins in order to redeem (or purchase) us and deliver us from the bondage of the powers of sin and death that had enslaved us. I believe that God offered His Son (His Righteous One) as a sin offering for us and that it pleased God to "crush" Him, that He (Christ), who knew no sin was made sin for us. I believe that Christ humbled Himself to obedience even to death on the cross and that He lay down His own life. I believe that Christ is the Propitiation for the sins of the whole world and that it is in Him we escape the wrath to come. He became a curse for us and it is by His stripes (His suffering and death) that we are healed. Christ destroyed the certificate expressed in decrees against us. He has taken it away by nailing it to the cross. Christ suffered once for sins - the Just for the unjust (this "great exchange") to bring us to God by being put to death in the flesh and by being made alive in the spirit.



@David Taylor , @Steve Owen , and @Enoch111 view my belief above as heresy because it does not include their theory. I believe their belief (Penal Substitution Theory as stated in the OP) is heresy because it does include their theory. We cannot give people our understanding but at least we can know where we stand in terms of beliefs.

I hope that explains what I believe, even if you find it less than sufficient a belief for you to hold. My intent is not to convert people to my understanding but to hopefully let people know what I believe and perhaps encourage them to constantly reexamine their own beliefs against Scripture.

John

Thank you for taking the time to write this. It is well thought, reasoned, and conducted in a respectful manner.

Moving away from schematics, I fail to see what the actual substance of this debate is about.

 

[John Caldwell]

Thank you for taking the time to write this. It is well thought, reasoned, and conducted in a respectful manner.

Moving away from schematics, I fail to see what the actual substance of this debate is about.

The substance of the debate is whether or not the context Penal Substitution Theory provides is correct.

It is an old debate (Anabaptist/ Mennonite theologians have stood vocally against the context the Theory provides for centuries and more contemporary scholars like C. S. Lewis and Torrance has condemned the model as extra-biblical).

But it is also a new debate as the Theory is being contested in areas where it was once assumed. (Some Baptists are questioning and moving away from the Theory, there is a movement in Reformed circles to "reform the Reformed" and move towards a more biblically literal view, and if course we have N. T. Wright who has been anything but silent on his desire to reexamine the issue).

I think this is why the issue is such a "hot topic" and those who hold the Theory are often a bit hyper-defensive. The Theory itself is a foundation for people's soteriological views. If the Theory is wrong then issues like the scope of the Atonement and conditional vs unconditional election are irrelevant (they only work within the context the Theory provides).

The debate is over those small tweaks (e.g., viewing "for" to mean "instead of") caused by the context assumed by Penal Substitution Theory. The reason the issue gets heated and people strongly stand their ground is that those small tweaks have huge consequences (largely because of the importance of the topic).

Doctrine is built on our soteriological ideas of the Atonement. The start may be similar but the end position is only inches short of different faiths.

 

[John Caldwell]

Which is completely irrelevant.

No, Scripture plainly teaches substitutionary atonement.

This is intellectually dishonest

You provide a paper stating these people held Penal Substitution Theory as evidenced by quotes from those people. The quotes, however, do not evidence Penal Substitution Theory. And you think that is completely irrelevant.

You provide passages of Scripture that you claim teaches Penal Substitution Theory. The actual text of Scripture, however, does not evidence Penal Substitution Theory. And you think this is completely irrelevant.

You claim that by rejecting your Theory I have rejected Scripture and not your interpretation. But you are incapable of providing even one verse I have rejected. You find this completely irrelevant.

What is completely irrelevant in both these people's writings and Scripture is Penal Substitution Theory.

 

[reformed1689]

This is intellectually dishonest

You provide a paper stating these people held Penal Substitution Theory as evidenced by quotes from those people. The quotes, however, do not evidence Penal Substitution Theory. And you think that is completely irrelevant.

You provide passages of Scripture that you claim teaches Penal Substitution Theory. The actual text of Scripture, however, does not evidence Penal Substitution Theory. And you think this is completely irrelevant.

You claim that by rejecting your Theory I have rejected Scripture and not your interpretation. But you are incapable of providing even one verse I have rejected. You find this completely irrelevant.

What is completely irrelevant in both these people's writings and Scripture is Penal Substitution Theory.

John I made a point earlier that you totally ignored.

If someone reads John's Gospel and says it does not say that Jesus is God have they rejected Scripture?

 

[reformed1689]

I know you do not understand how, David, but it does not bolster my position. It IS my position.

Good then glad you are back to PSA

 

[reformed1689]

Jane,

Gibran once noted that we can give people our words but not our understanding. That is why I suggest you reference people like C.S. Lewis who are better teachers than I. But I guess to be fair (to me) I need to tell you what I do believe rather than being judged on what I reject.

I believe that Christ suffered and died by the will and predetermined plan of God by the hands of wicked men for our sins in order to redeem (or purchase) us and deliver us from the bondage of the powers of sin and death that had enslaved us. I believe that God offered His Son (His Righteous One) as a sin offering for us and that it pleased God to "crush" Him, that He (Christ), who knew no sin was made sin for us. I believe that Christ humbled Himself to obedience even to death on the cross and that He lay down His own life. I believe that Christ is the Propitiation for the sins of the whole world and that it is in Him we escape the wrath to come. He became a curse for us and it is by His stripes (His suffering and death) that we are healed. Christ destroyed the certificate expressed in decrees against us. He has taken it away by nailing it to the cross. Christ suffered once for sins - the Just for the unjust (this "great exchange") to bring us to God by being put to death in the flesh and by being made alive in the spirit.



@David Taylor , @Steve Owen , and @Enoch111 view my belief above as heresy because it does not include their theory. I believe their belief (Penal Substitution Theory as stated in the OP) is heresy because it does include their theory. We cannot give people our understanding but at least we can know where we stand in terms of beliefs.

I hope that explains what I believe, even if you find it less than sufficient a belief for you to hold. My intent is not to convert people to my understanding but to hopefully let people know what I believe and perhaps encourage them to constantly reexamine their own beliefs against Scripture.

John

John in this post you actually describe PSA you just don't use the word Penalty.

 

[Jane_Doe22]

The substance of the debate is whether or not the context Penal Substitution Theory provides is correct.

It is an old debate (Anabaptist/ Mennonite theologians have stood vocally against the context the Theory provides for centuries and more contemporary scholars like C. S. Lewis and Torrance has condemned the model as extra-biblical).

But it is also a new debate as the Theory is being contested in areas where it was once assumed. (Some Baptists are questioning and moving away from the Theory, there is a movement in Reformed circles to "reform the Reformed" and move towards a more biblically literal view, and if course we have N. T. Wright who has been anything but silent on his desire to reexamine the issue).

I think this is why the issue is such a "hot topic" and those who hold the Theory are often a bit hyper-defensive. The Theory itself is a foundation for people's soteriological views. If the Theory is wrong then issues like the scope of the Atonement and conditional vs unconditional election are irrelevant (they only work within the context the Theory provides).

The debate is over those small tweaks (e.g., viewing "for" to mean "instead of") caused by the context assumed by Penal Substitution Theory. The reason the issue gets heated and people strongly stand their ground is that those small tweaks have huge consequences (largely because of the importance of the topic).

Doctrine is built on our soteriological ideas of the Atonement. The start may be similar but the end position is only inches short of different faiths.

This answer was a bunch of schismatics and otherwise fancy words. Im not really interested in labels, and was more looking for a “ what is the actual substance of disagreement?”

 

[reformed1689]

I think this is why the issue is such a "hot topic" and those who hold the Theory are often a bit hyper-defensive. The Theory itself is a foundation for people's soteriological views. If the Theory is wrong then issues like the scope of the Atonement and conditional vs unconditional election are irrelevant (they only work within the context the Theory provides).

For the record, everyone believes in a LIMITED atonement, otherwise they are a universalist.